Rock Hill leaders unwilling to bend rules for Celanese Road development
Rock Hill leaders’ enforcement of design standards for new homes and their concern about over-burdening Celanese Road – one of the area’s busiest thoroughfares – combined last week to sink, at least temporarily, a developer’s plans to build 200 houses in the city’s northwestern corner.
The developer has the option to revise his plan and ask again for the city’s permission to build the new subdivision, proposed along Homestead Road near the Rock Hill-York County Airport. But, at least one Rock Hill City Council member says she’s hesitant to sign off on any new development in that area until local leaders have a solution to existing Celanese Road traffic problems.
And, to win enough votes from the City Council, the developer would likely need to change parts of his project to meet Rock Hill’s minimum design standards for new homes. Specifically, officials say the home developer needs to use larger lot sizes and build houses with garages set further back from the structure’s facade.
Charlotte-based developer Ken Olson of Development Solutions Group wants to build the subdivision on nearly 100 acres of vacant land. Half the property would be left as “open space.”
On Monday night, he tried to persuade the City Council to approve his annexation and development request for the project, saying the garage and lot size variances he’s asking for are “minor” deviations from Rock Hill’s home design standards.
Rock Hill Mayor Doug Echols disagreed, saying, “To me, it’s not a minor difference.” Without requiring Olson’s development to meet certain local design standards, the subdivision would have a “cookie-cutter” look, Echols said.
One local design requirement is that new neighborhoods have a mix of garage layouts – meaning not all homes can have “front-loading” garages with garage doors flush with the home’s facade. Such requirements, Echols and others say, ensure that new developments are higher-quality and have an attractive look.
Some of the homes in Olson’s plan would have side-loading garages, where the garage would not be as visible from the street. But, the proposed percentage of homes with that look doesn’t meet the city’s minimum standards.
Olson also proposed that lots for homes be 55-feet wide – five feet shy of the city’s standard for such residential developments. Olson argues that the smaller lot sizes appeal to a growing market: home buyers who are at least 55 years old and “don’t want all the yard work,” and young families living on modest incomes. Larger lots, he said, would price those buyers out of the market.
Some of the homes in Olson’s development would sell for $300,000, he said. Others would go for around $200,00 – still higher in value and of better quality than the average home in the area, Olson says.
At that price point, Essex Homes – the chosen builder – makes “a fine, fine product and employs a lot of people,” Olson said. He assured city leaders that the development wouldn’t skimp on quality.
He pointed out that his proposed neighborhood meets more than 90 percent of the city’s design standards and would have nice features such as carriage-style garage doors, raised foundations and front porches.
It’s possible that Olson could develop the land without City Council members agreeing to annex it into Rock Hill’s city limits. He declined last week to discuss what he plans to do next.
Outside the city limits, in York County, building design standards are generally more flexible. Leaving the land in the county, Olson said, would also allow a developer to bring apartments, under current land use rules, without needing city approvals.
Sutton miffed by employees backing homes plan
City Council members decided not to vote up or down on Olson’s project. But even without a vote, most council members made their position clear.
For Echols, the potential for further distressing Celanese Road traffic was a concern, he said. But, his objection to Olson’s development centered on the design standards not being met. Dozens of homes in a row with the same garage layout doesn’t look good, Echols said, which is why the city has the garage recession requirement.
Drafting those standards took a lot of time and work for city officials, and the council shouldn’t bend on certain aspects of the design requirements, Councilman Kevin Sutton said on Monday.
Looking at Olson’s plan, Sutton said, “This looks like the very neighborhood we were trying to get rid of” by rewriting standards years ago. He also wasn’t warm to the idea because of the traffic the development could add to Celanese Road.
Sutton took his frustration further, saying, “I’m beginning to wonder if there’s a huge disconnect between the council and the staff.” Rock Hill planning employees recommended to council members that they approve Olson’s development even though all of the city’s design standards are not met.
Major development plans, including rezoning and annexation requests, in Rock Hill go through three channels: city planning employees, an appointed Planning Commission, and City Council.
Sutton was “dumbfounded and disappointed,” he said during the council meeting, that Rock Hill’s staff members gave Olson’s plan their initial approval.
Planning official Eric Hawkins defended the staff’s opinion, saying they’d worked for several months with Olson to reach a development proposal that better met standards than Olson’s original plan last year. And, Hawkins said, planning staff members warned the developer that winning City Council approval would still be “an uphill battle” if not all standards were met.
Some development proposals, planners say, may warrant allowing variances from the city’s standards if the proposal adds value to the area, fixes an existing issue, or if the land is challenged by shape, size or topographical features.
The land Olson wants to develop is partially in a flood plain, near Dutchman Creek, and it has several smaller creeks running through the property. Parts of the land slope sharply and certain buffers will be required between homes and creeks.
Given those land “constraints,” Hawkins said, the city’s planning staff is comfortable with Olson’s proposed “alternative design standards.”
Rock Hill’s planning and development director, Bill Meyer, agrees. He added: “Most of what’s left around here tends to be topographically-challenged.”
Before going to the council for a vote, Olson’s plan was thoroughly reviewed by planning staff members, Meyer said. “We negotiate the heck out of these things ... It’s a pre-screening process.”
The staff takes direction from the City Council regarding standards and whether there’s flexibility, he said. In this case, there’s no “disconnect” as Sutton suggested, Meyer said.
“Planning staff gets redefined direction from the council all the time,” which is a good thing, he said. “Our ears are wide open.”
Celanese Road a growing concern
City officials are taking a hard look at any new developments in the Celanese Road corridor.
Meyer says planning employees view traffic problems on the busy road as “an overarching problem” that needs a solution. So far, Rock Hill’s planning department has not recommended denial of new projects based only on traffic concerns, he said.
One solution that city leaders propose for Celanese Road’s traffic woes is to build another bridge over the Catawba River. Other York County officials, such as State Rep. Ralph Norman, R-Rock Hill, oppose the plan and contend the bridge project is too expensive and would have too low of an impact on traffic.
Over the next two decades, local leaders expect Celanese Road’s daily traffic count will rise to nearly 60,000 – up from the current 39,000.
Without a plan to meet the increasing demand on Celanese Road, Rock Hill City Councilwoman Kathy Pender said she’s unlikely to support large developments in the area that would add new cars. “I can’t in good conscience at this point in time put people in that situation because they aren’t going to be happy with the traffic.”
Pender said on Monday that she wants to continue to work on the Catawba River bridge plan but worries it may not happen because of opposition by some. And even if the bridge plan is successful, she said, “it takes a long time to get a road built.”
A decision on the bridge proposal could ultimately be left up to the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Committee, comprised of various local officials including Pender, Echols, Norman, the mayors of Fort Mill and Tega Cay, and representatives from the York and Lancaster county councils. The transportation committee shelved the bridge proposal three years ago, saying the $60 million project would deplete the group’s budget for the next 20 years.
Echols, who supports the bridge plan, said Rock Hill leaders should be careful to not curb local development because of traffic concerns. Still, he added, if the City Council plans to limit developments because of traffic on Celanese Road, “we need to be putting people on notice about that ... That’s the fair thing to do.”
This story was originally published February 28, 2015 at 3:18 PM with the headline "Rock Hill leaders unwilling to bend rules for Celanese Road development."