Transportation Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Monday, February 4, 2019 Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Members Present: Mayor Will Haynie, Chair; Bob Brimmer, Joe Bustos, Kevin Cunnane Staff Present: Brad Morrison, Eric DeMoura, Paul Lykins Mayor Haynie called the meeting to order at 2:01p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 3, 2018 meeting Mr. Bustos moved for approval of the minutes; motion seconded by Mr. Cunnane. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Comments George Freeman, 1450 Bowman Road, and Director of Communication for the Cage Organization, stated that it was noticed in the Comprehensive Plan that there was a connection of the road from US 17 to Billy Swails Boulevard that the Seven Mile Community was unaware of, suggesting that during the process of widening SC 41, a connection would be made that would turn and align with Porcher’s Bluff Road and that would provide greater distance between Hamlin Road and Porcher’s Bluff Road. The community believes that there is a better way of handling the traffic rather than running a road through the Seven Mile Community. Stan Gibson, 60 On the Harbor Drive, expressed opposition to speed humps being installed on 2nd street and stated that when the petition was presented to him and his neighbors, it was implied that most of the neighborhood had signed the petition, commenting that four (4) residents have rescinded their signatures on the petition.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 2 of 16 Jim Jones, 2nd Street, stated he is the applicant for speed humps on 2nd Street and when he is talking to people, he is trying to convince them. One talking point was that the residents on 2nd Street and 5th Avenue that are affected by the speeding have signed the petition and that should be a statement. Speeding vehicles using the boat landing on Friday, Saturday and Sunday is an issue and the drivers do not live in nor respect the neighborhood. One resident of On the Harbor subdivision told him not to come into the neighborhood, so there were four (4) residents that he was not able to speak with. This is not a neighborhood quieting situation. This is how are we going to deal with boat landing situation. Stan Kablick, 3031 Morningdale Drive, stated he resides in Ivy Hall and that one hundred eight (108) residents have signed a petition expressing opposition to Alternative 5A relating the SC 41 Widening Project, noting that Alternative 5A would dissect Ivy Hall and fragment community members from using other parts of the community. Becky Hollingsworth, 77 5th Avenue, stated that she is in favor of speed humps being installed on 2nd Street, commenting that residents that live within the gated community are not affected by speeders. John Wolfe, 5th Street, stated that he is favor of speed humps being installed on 2nd Street. Matthew Rautenbach, 89 On the Harbor Drive, expressed opposition to speed humps being installed on 2nd Street, stating that increased police enforcement could resolve the issue. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that she is speaking as a private citizen and as a board member of the African-American Settlement Community and that if SC 41 is approaching US 17 and if it continues straight, the connection would go through the Seven Mile Community. Because we are trying to preserve our history and the African-American communities, the connection is a horrible idea and an alternative to going through the Seven Mile Community should be identified. Rick Estee, 115 2nd Street, stated that he is favor of speed humps being installed on 2nd Street.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 3 of 16 Mike Tinkey, 208 Venning Street, stated that he is in favor of consistent use of signage throughout the Old Village area and where the signs are placed should be considered. In historic areas, there are monuments that have been in place for a long time and should be taken into consideration in addition to good public input and public review, as we look at safety and security of consistent signage. 3. Discussion regarding SC Highway 41 improvement project Mr. DeMoura stated that a member of the Committee requested that this item be placed on the agenda. Mr. Bustos stated that the topic is on the agenda for discussion to determine what the will of Council may be, expressing concern regarding the County holding the funds for Highway 41, the length of time it may take, and a design that may be forced on the Town that will not represent Mount Pleasant. He stated letters have been sent to the County opposing certain options and also expressed that the Town should control the process for our citizens because they are Town residents and Town tax-based houses that are going to be impacted, asking if there were other members of the Committee that had similar feelings. Mayor Haynie stated that the question could be addressed in two (2) pieces; 1.) why the project is being handled differently than other roads and 2.) what level of control does the Town have over the project. Council has received a letter from the Chairman of County Council assuring the Town that the revived I 526 extension will not affect the funding for the SC 41 project. Funding was discussed in the Finance Committee and it was questioned where the money resides, because the control will not do any good if suddenly the money disappears. It appears that one option will affect hundreds of homes in the Town and removing hundreds of homes from the tax base does not seem practical. The Committee has been informed that if too many options are voted down, the project will not make it through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Committee is asking for clarity related to the issues.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 4 of 16 Mr. DeMoura stated that staff could inquire as to control over the project. The genesis of the County being in control of the project is that, in addition to SC 41 being a state highway going through multiple jurisdictions, including the County and the Town, the County controls the project’s funds via the half cent sales tax, which was approved by referendum. If the money were to be moved to another project, the Town would have a strong argument against that because with the citizens approved the project through the referendum and that obligation must be fulfilled. From the perspective of taking over project development, additional staffing resources would be required in the Transportation Department. There are certain levels of the project that the Town cannot handle, not because staff is incapable, but because the Town has always kept the Transportation Department smaller and relied on professional engineering firms to aid in the design and construction of larger projects. Mayor Haynie questioned if it was possible to use some of the funds and if it were the will of the Council to assume that role, what amount of funds are needed for SC 41. Mr. Morrison stated that the approximate cost would be one hundred twenty-nine million dollars ($129,000,000) of sales tax funds and the County’s financial plan anticipates a pay as you go approach until bonding is needed for construction. The funding aspect from staff’s perspective is that the funds belong to the County to manage through the sales tax referendum. If the Town were to assume the project development process, staff would still need to follow the same NEPA process for permitting through the Army Corps of Engineers, and at this point, it would create a delay. The Town would need to work with the County on efforts to be paid through the sales tax funding. Mr. DeMoura stated that it may be worthwhile, either in addition to or separately, for the Town to design and handle the construction of the additional southbound lane interim improvements to potentially free resources for the County and allow the Town to move more quickly with that project.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 5 of 16 Mayor Haynie asked if the interim improvements would utilize half cent sale tax money or another source. Mr. DeMoura stated the design of that southbound lane should be borne by the Town of Mount Pleasant. Mayor Haynie asked the how much the project would cost. Mr. DeMoura stated that the project design would cost two hundred thousand-dollars ($200,000) and was reflected in the mid-year budget document, commenting because most of what will be constructed can be utilized for the widening project, the construction cost of the southbound lane should be borne by the sales tax money. Mayor Haynie stated for the record that the Committee has conveyed to County Council that the Town would like the interim improvements of the southbound lane, that can be constructed without going through the Phillips Community, and asked if the interim improvements are subject to NEPA. Mr. Morrison replied in the negative stating that the interim project is outside of the NEPA process since it has independent utility. The County has recently laid out a schedule for the interim improvement. It is possible for the design to be complete in August or September 2019 and the interim improvement construction to begin by the end of 2019 or early 2020. Mayor Haynie asked the estimated cost of the interim improvement. Mr. Morrison stated that Cal Oyer, Charleston County Transportation Development, has indicated the engineers estimate is approximately two million one hundred thousand dollars ($2,100,000). Mayor Haynie asked how long the length of project would be. Mr. Morrison stated that the project length is approximately one (1) mile. Mr. DeMoura stated that if the money is not made available to support the design of that project, the Committee could consider covering the cost using the fund balance with a reimbursement provision. Mr. Brimmer stated that in terms of control of the money, Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) has had similar discussions.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 6 of 16 CARTA has expensive projects scheduled and it is his understanding that it is a County policy to minimize bonding until later in the project to minimize costs. Mr. Cunnane stated for clarification that he suggested the interim improvement, from Joe Rouse Road to US 17, by adding a lane for the morning traffic for US 17 bound traffic. One benefit of the interim improvement is, regardless of which alternative selected, this one mile of roadway will be corrected. The other alternative suggested would be to connect Grey Marsh to Faison Road and that the suggestions could possibly be placed on the next Transportation Committee agenda. Mr. Morrison stated that type of connection has been shown in the Long- Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a potential, but because the location is County-owned property, it would be a situation where the County would have the authority to say that alternative is not permissible. Mr. Cunnane asked what the approximate cost of that alternative might be. Mr. Morrison replied that the alternative had not been costed out. Mr. Cunnane stated that the objective would be to have less cars on SC 41 in the morning. Mayor Haynie asked Mr. Oyer, if besides the fact that we feel like an alternative that will go through several hundred (100) homes and split a neighborhood in half is onerous in and of itself, from a fiscal standpoint, how could the County, Federal or State do that to a local municipality, by settling- up with the homeowners, buying the right-of-way, using imminent domain and then the Town is out several hundred taxable homes. There are two (2) things to take into consideration; one is the logic of constructing highways where it takes the fewest amount of private properties and the other is, if the County were to decide the more impactful alternative to the number of homes was needed, then Mount Pleasant is out of a lot of money because the Town no longer has those taxpaying homeowners and is there any restitution to the Town.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Brimmer asked if the Committee’s previous request to reach out to the County’s legal staff to address the question of the Town’s ability to influence the decision was been completed. David Pagliarini, Town of Mount Pleasant Corporation Counsel, stated that there has been no analysis as to the legal rights necessary for many of the alternatives. Regarding legal rights and using Town right-of-way for that purpose, it is the Town’s position that Town right-of-way cannot be co-opted for that purpose and he does not believe that legal exercise, at this point in the process, has been accomplished or performed by the County. It is not unusual that the County would not have done that, simply because they are in the permitting process and the realistic probability of the alternative plans is still unknown. The second question is much broader and would need to be examined further. Mayor Haynie asked if a vote was needed by the Committee to inquire of County Council what options the Town has with how the project is controlled. Mr. DeMoura stated if it was the will of the Committee or Council to formally request acceptance of the project, staff would need a motion. Mayor Haynie asked if the Town could formally inquire about accepting the project. Mr. DeMoura replied in the affirmative. Mayor Haynie stated that if the County agreed to the Town accepting the project, the County’s terms may not be acceptable or The Town may not be capable of fulfilling the terms. Staff asked for clarification if Mayor Haynie was referring to the interim project or the full project. Mayor Haynie stated it was his understanding that the interim project had been approved asking if the interim project needed to be addressed. Mr. Morrison stated that by all appearance and previous action of the Committee and discussion regarding the two hundred thousand ($200,000), the County will proceed with the design and construction. The caveat of the Town being reimbursed the two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 8 of 16 design has not been decided, but the County will proceed with the project unless otherwise directed by Town Council. Mayor Haynie stated that Town Council wanted the County to proceed with that project. Mr. Morrison stated that if the Town decided to take over project development, the Town would essentially start from the beginning because there are formal agreements with the Federal government and the County. Mr. Cunnane asked Mr. Oyer the cost of the NEPA process to the County. Mr. Oyer replied that he is unsure of the exact cost, but it is more than one million dollars ($1,000,000). Mr. Cunnane commented that is a significant difference compare to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). Mayor Haynie stated that he would be looking for a motion that has the authority of the Committee, to instruct staff to inquire of the County what it would take to assume responsibility of the project, excluding the interim improvements. Mr. Cunnane so moved; motion seconded by Mr. Bustos. Mr. Brimmer stated that he does not have interest in the Town taking over this project and that history demonstrates that there is not a need for that. Other projects funded by the County have come in under budget and ahead of schedule, asking for clarification of what the Town taking over the project exactly means. Mr. Bustos stated that the term means to be intimately involved, know where the money is and milestones, not to turn the project over to the County and let the Town know when the project is complete. It is important to feel comfortable that the project will be finished quickly, efficiently and to the benefit of the community. Mayor Haynie stated to Mr. Brimmer that a decision cannot be made without knowing the options. The County may say that it is not possible to give any control back, but he thinks the citizens would like to know if the Town will  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 9 of 16 have any input into the final option. It was surprising when option 5A was presented after option 7 had been voted down and it is his understanding you cannot submit only one (1) option because there is a chance that if the one option is not approved, nothing will be constructed. It seems impractical that there is enough money in the one hundred twenty-nine million-dollar ($129,000,000) budget to construct option 5A. The letter would be an inquiry, asking that if Mount Pleasant wanted to assume responsibility of the project, would they be agreeable and under what conditions. Mr. Brimmer stated he was agreeable to gathering that information. Mayor Haynie called for a vote to instruct staff to inquire of the County, what it would take to assume responsibility the project by the Town excluding the interim improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Cunnane stated that it is important to be prepared for the litigation that will ensue, asking if staff need to be tasked to closely monitor the project. Mount Pleasant residents must be protected and the best way to protect the residents it to construct the least expensive option, which is the shortest distance between two (2) points. Update on Park West Boulevard Widening Project Mayor Haynie asked if the Park West Boulevard Widening project would be completed before the SC 41 project begins to avoid two (2) large construction projects simultaneously. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lykins stated in anticipation of receiving bids, staff wanted to update the Committee on the project and highlight features that will be included within the project limits. The project limits begin at the existing four (4) lane section located near the Park West Recreation complex and moves through the Queens Gate roundabout to the end at of the Bessemer roundabout. Features include left-turn lanes located at side streets and a twelve foot (12’) multi-use path and in-street bike lanes. A connection is in place where the multi-use path will ultimately connect to the proposed Mount Pleasant Way.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 10 of 16 For safe pedestrian crossing, rectangular rapid flashing beacons will be installed at two mid-block crossing locations. Alternative 2 was selected for the roundabout improvements due to less impact in the neighborhood than Alternative 1. Mead and Hunt has completed the design and permitting is anticipated to be complete in June 2019 with construction beginning at the same time. The cost estimate is approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000), which includes a fifteen percent (15%) contingency. Construction is estimated to last approximately eighteen (18) months and final quantities and cost estimates are being received. Relocating Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) utilities is included in the contract and when the design documents have been received, the project will be ready to advertise for construction. Mr. Morrison stated that he has spoken with Jim Glennon at MPW and the design documents should be received in time to have the project bid in March. Mr. Brimmer inquired if the piping that is currently being installed in the area is being placed in accordance with any plans for this project. Mr. Lykins stated that the current MPW work in the area is not related to the project and is outside the project limits. Mr. Brimmer thanked staff for including left turn lanes in the design, commenting that the lanes will improve traffic flow. Mr. Cunnane asked why a reflective beacon has not been considered near the Grey Marsh Circle at the location that is a heavily traveled crosswalk and if installing a flashing beacon at that location could be considered. Mr. Lykins replied in the affirmative, stating that the one (1) proposed location is between the two (2) roundabouts and the other is because the neighborhood does not have a sidewalk on one side and it is necessary to have pedestrians cross the road to where the path is. Mr. Cunnane referred to a graphic and noted that in the area he was referencing there no sidewalks and pedestrians must cross to get to the pool.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Lykins explained that typically it is preferable to have a crosswalk located where there is a receiving path on both sides of the roadway. Mr. Cunnane said that there is one on Grey Marsh Road asking if a flashing beacon is an expensive item. Mr. Lykins replied in the negative, stating that a flashing beacon could be considered at that location. 4. Consideration of the Street Sign Replacement Program in the Old Village Area Mr. Morrison stated that the discussion is continuation from January 2018, explaining the Street Sign Replacement Program (SSRP) was adopted in 2016 to meet Federal mandate requirements relating to retro-reflectivity, text size, color schemes and mounting heights. When the program was adopted, the decision was made to retain the obelisks within the Old Village area and install the new signage. In January 2018, a decision was made to postpone implementation of the program in the area to allow staff to investigate what other jurisdictions are doing within their historic districts. In June 2018, a memo was provided to the Committee indicating other municipalities were complying with the Federal mandates. In cities, like Charleston, that already had historic signage, they were able to retain their signage under the Federal provisions for existing historic signage. The Old Village area utilized obelisks that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined not to be signage. Additionally, staff has received requests for sign replacement in Pirates Cove, so staff needs guidance to implement the sign replacement program in the Old Village area. As far as options are concerned, staff can 1.) proceed with the program as it is written; 2.) coordinate with the Old Village Historic District Commission (OVHDC) to design a compliant special sign for the Old Village Historic District only and use standard signs elsewhere or 3.) design a compliant special sign for the entire Old Village area that incorporates a district designation to denote the different names within the Old Village area. Mayor Haynie asked if all options include leaving the obelisks in place and if the Town would continue to maintain them.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 12 of 16 Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked for clarification that the obelisks would not be demolished due to neglect. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative. Mr. DeMoura stated that after the options have been discussed with the OVHDC, rather than move forward, staff can bring the decision back to the Committee for approval. Mayor Haynie replied in the affirmative, commenting that the Town is blessed to have a historic district and it is important to help keep the area distinct, which is why there is an OVHDC. Mr. Bustos asked if they would be able to consider the Indian Village and Moultrie Heights. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative stating that those areas would be considered in Option 3 that include the historically recognized neighborhood names. Mr. Bustos asked if the area was outside of the OVHDC area of responsibility. Mayor Haynie replied in the affirmative. Mr. Morrison stated that staff values the Commission’s input and just because it is outside their area of responsibility, staff could receive their input on concepts. Mayor Haynie asked when the obelisks were installed. Mr. Peele stated that the obelisks have been in place for at least fifty-nine (59) years. Mayor Haynie commented that the obelisks have been in place for at least a half a century and asked staff if any further direction was needed from the Committee. Mr. DeMoura replied in the negative. Mr. Cunnane asked if the Town is in currently in compliance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Morrison replied in some areas, but that is the reason for the sign replacement program. Once the program is fully implemented staff will have a five (5) year rolling program to evaluate each section every five (5) years to ensure the Town complies. 5. Recommendation for FY 2019 Traffic Calming Program Mr. Morrison stated traffic calming recommendations are made early in the calendar year to allow time for construction of the humps prior to end of the fiscal year. The graphic provided to the Committee reflects the grades the applications received for the current year. Five applications completed the process, with some caveats that include Law Lane, 2nd Street, Salterbeck Street, Stockton Drive and John Bartram Place. Applications 1,3,4 and 5 meet the qualifications of the speed and petition criteria with the caveat that Application 1 still needs to be complete the petition. Application 2, while meeting the eighty-fifth percentile (85th %-tile) for speed, does not qualify based upon the discussion during the public comments portion in the agenda, noting that some residents rescinded their signatures on the petition. Mayor Haynie asked if the petition is a non-discretionary item for the Committee, the application must meet the criteria, or it does not qualify. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative, stating that is how the program is written. Mayor Haynie asked how far Application 2 is from meeting the petition requirement. Gary Ponder, Town of Mount Pleasant Engineering Technician, stated that when the petition was returned by the applicant, twenty-two (22) residents of twenty-nine (29) had signed the petition for approximately seventy-six percent (76%) residents in favor of speed humps on 2nd Street. Several residents have now rescinded their signatures, dropping the percentage to approximately sixty-six percent (66%) affirmative signatures. Mayor Haynie asked what percent of affirmative signatures was required during the petition phase.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Ponder replied seventy-five percent (75%), stating that it is improbable the needed signatures will be obtained from On the Harbor residents. Mayor Haynie asked how much time the applicants have to obtain signatures on the petition. Mr. Ponder stated the Snee Farm application was allowed an additional three to four (3 - 4) weeks due to extenuating circumstances and the that the same extension could be granted to Application 2. Mayor Haynie asked what staff needed from the Committee. Mr. Morrison stated that staff is seeking approval of the five traffic calming applications with the condition of Applications 1 and 2 completing acceptable petitions. Mr. Cunnane asked if the speed humps would be the type of humps with access for emergency vehicles in the middle. Mr. Morrison replied in the negative, stating that staff has not had the opportunity to develop the full specifications. Unless staff is directed to wait, a standard speed hump would be installed. Mr. Cunnane asked for clarification that the newly adopted speed hump will be utilized in next traffic calming application season. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cunnane asked if was possible for the Committee to direct the Mount Pleasant Police Department (MPPD) to increase enforcement in the area on the weekends. Mr. DeMoura replied in the affirmative stating that he would contact Chief Ritchie to redirect some resources to the area. Mr. Bustos moved to conditionally approve Applications 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with Applications 1 and 2 meeting the requirement of completing acceptable petitions. Mr. Bustos commented that Salterbeck Street has a speed cushion installed on it.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative, stating that the speed cushion is temporary. Motion seconded by Mr. Brimmer. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Project Updates Mr. Lykins stated that the stormwater drainage portion of the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization project is complete in Phase 1 from Fairmont Avenue to Mill Street with the exception several side streets. Phase 2 will be complete by approximately February 28, 2019 and they will move into Phase 3, with completion anticipated by October 2019. The All American Boulevard project hosted a public meeting before Christmas and staff would like to provide the Committee with feedback from the meeting. Staff is proposing that the road tie into Laurel Park Trail. There have been some questions and comments about the connection. The connection has been platted since approximately 2004 or 2005, when the frontage road was created to address anticipated growth in the north section of town. The Town worked with the developer and the connection was approved through the planning commission, the right-of-way was platted, a temporary cul-de-sac was constructed and a twenty foot (20’) buffer was added behind the homes. There is no benefit to cut through on Laurel Park Trail and it is the intent of staff to proceed with the design as described and that has been complete since 2011. Mr. Morrison stated the written project updates can be provided to the Committee. Mr. Cunnane commented that the design for All American Boulevard indicates that the new roadway will be intersecting with a portion of the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Lykins replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cunnane stated it appears there is really no way to not go through the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lykins replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos said that the Committee has received emails stating that the new roadway will cut through the neighborhood.  Transportation Committee Minutes February 4, 2019 Page 16 of 16 Mr. Lykins replied in the negative. Mr. Bustos asked if a buffer is in place. Mr. Lykins stated that an existing twenty-foot (20’) buffer is in place. Mr. Morrison stated that Joel Ford, former Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Department Director, required the twenty-foot (20’) buffer, anticipating some of the issues with the frontage road as it was built. 7. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Cathy Godsey February 7, 2019  4. Park West Boulevard Widening Project Limits Project End Left Turn Lanes 12’ Multi-Use Path Proposed Mount Pleasant Way RRFB Project Start TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  4. Park West Boulevard Widening Project TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  4. Park West Boulevard Widening Project •Design Consultant: Mead and Hunt •Design: Complete •Permitting: Complete June 2019 •Project Cost Estimate: $7M with 15% contingency •Construction Schedule: June 2019 – December 2020 •Status: • The consultant is currently developing final construction quantities and estimates. • MPW utility relocations will be included in roadway contract. • MPW consultant is currently designing water and sewer relocations. • Staff is currently producing bid documents for advertisement in March 2019. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  5. Street Sign Replacement Program Program Overview  Update signs to meet Federal mandates  Meet retroreflectivity requirements in USDOT/FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  Required text size (minimum 6”/4.5” upper/lower case) [MUTCD 2D.43]  Standard color scheme (green & white) [MUTCD 1A.12]  Required mounting height of 7 ft. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  5. Street Sign Replacement Program Previous Program Actions  Policy approved by Council June 13, 2016  Mount Pleasant logo  Decorative post option  Old Village Area – Retain obelisks with the new signage  January 2018 Transportation Committee  “Postpone the implementation of the Street Sign Replacement Program within the Old Village and Historic District and direct staff to consult other jurisdictions and explore solutions that will preserve the character of the area and meet compliancy.” TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  5. Street Sign Replacement Program TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  5. Street Sign Replacement Program Options 1. Install standard program signage for Old Village area, including the Historic District. 2. Coordinate with OVHD Commission to design and install special compliant sign for Old Village Historic District. Sign may use different color schemes per the MUTCD (i.e. black on white to complement obelisk scheme). Install standard program signage for remaining Old Village area. 3. Same as Option 2, except implement special compliant sign for entire Old Village area, perhaps with unique district names (i.e. Historic District, Indian Village, Moultrie Heights, etc.). TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  2018 / 2019 Traffic Calming Program Year Evaluation Criteria 5.1 Evaluation Criteria 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 5.3 Other Factors - 5 pts each (Maximum 30 points) Located near a playground, recreational area, daycare center, school or any 5 points for each 1mph above which the observed 85th percentile One or more reported, speed related accidents in the last 2 years Cut-through traffic (at least 35% of traffic appears to be cut-through) Note: To qualify, the 85th percentile speed must be at least speed exceeds the posted speed limit (up to 10 mph) High volume of Traffic (Maximum Town of Mount High speed of traffic (maximum 50 total points) Potential speed hump count Estimated speed hump costs Pleasant Traffic 40 total points) 40 POINTS = Calming Program volumes > 4,000 vehicles per day 5mph above the posted speed limit Street has severe hills and/or curves other facility that creates an increased presence of children. 30 POINTS = volume between 3,000 - 3,999 vehicles Narrow street (less than 22 feet) Prioritized Order per day 20 POINTS = volume between 2,000 - 2,999 vehicles per day 10 POINTS = volume between Total Points 1,000 - 1,999 vehicles per day 0 POINTS = volume < No sidewalks 1,000 vehicles per day 85th % speed Points 24 hr. ADT Points Points Points Points Points Points Points Must be ≥ 5 mph over the posted speed limit Points awarded for Accidents Points Yes / No Points Width Points Yes / No Points Yes / No Points Yes / No Points volume Street / Subdivision 1 Law Lane, Snee Farm (*a) (*c) 35.66 mph 50 1,587 10 0 0 No 5 26' 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 65 1 5 15,000.00 2 2nd Street, Remley's Point (*a) 32.64 mph 35 408 0 0 0 No 5 20' 0 Yes 5 No 0 No 0 45 2 2 6,000.00 3 Salterbeck Street, The Abbey at ParkWest 31.45 mph 30 1,329 10 0 0 Yes 0 24' 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 40 3 1 3,000.00 4 Stockton Drive, Charleston National 32.79 mph 35 991 0 0 0 Yes 0 28' 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 35 4 1 or 2 6,000.00 5 John Bartram Place, Formoor at ParkWest 30.57 mph 25 924 0 0 0 Yes 0 24' 0 No 0 Yes 5 No 0 30 5 3 or 4 (*b) 12,000.00 *a Pending petition completion and varification *b The fourth speed hump will be placed after the closure is removed *c SCDOT Road (S-2361) requires SCDOT standard ashpalt speed humps (3" high x 14' long x full road width) Note: Estimated costs based on previous project costs. Total count 14 $3,000.00 Totalcost $42,000.00 DNQ Cain Drive, Somerset Point Did not meet speed criteria 28.40 mph DNQ Harbour Watch Way, Harbour Watch Did not meet speed criteria 27.84 mph DNQ The Gates at ParkWest Did not meet speed criteria 26.55 mph and 27.78 mph DNQ Hidden Blvd., Hidden Cove Did not meet speed criteria 29.29 mph DNQ Osmond Road, Hamlin Plant. Did not complete application process DNQ Lexington/Morningdale, Ivy Hall Did not complete application process DNQ Iron Bridge, Waters Ed Did not complete application process DNQ Red Tide Road / Pearl Tabby, Oyster Point Did not meet speed criteria Red Tide 24.55 mph Pearl Tabby is not elligible DNQ Kinglet Drive, Cassina Heights (SCDOT road) State paving contract: under warranty and not elligible for speed humps at this time DNQ = Does Not Qualify TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates - Construction • Coleman Boulevard Revitalization TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates - Design • US 17 to Rifle Range Road Connector • Patriots Point Gateway Intersection Improvements • Billy Swails Boulevard Phase 4B • Shem Creek Bridge Bike Lanes • Park West Boulevard Widening • All American Boulevard Extension • Maritime Port District Improvements • Park West Boulevard and Stockdale Street Improvements TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Coleman Boulevard Revitalization Contractor: Blythe Development Start Date: September 11, 2017 Completion Date: December 27, 2019 Status: • Stage 1 Westbound – Complete. • Stage 2 Eastbound – On going. Should be complete in February. • Stage 3 Median Construction – February to August. • Stage 4 Final Paving - August to October. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Coleman Boulevard Revitalization Project Progress as of January 31, 2019 •7500 Feet of Storm Drain • 2,000 Feet of Lighting and Irrigation Conduits •80 Drainage Structures • Simmons Street Force Main Relocation •3 Water Quality Treatment Devices • Simmons Street Gravity Sewer Relocation •5000 Feet of Curb and Gutter • Simmons Street Gravity Sewer Repair •4,500 Feet of Sidewalk • Simmons Street Paving • Fairmont Avenue Force Main Relocation • 2,400 Feet of New Waterline on Coleman • 3 Waterline Relocations Completed TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Coleman Boulevard Revitalization TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates US 17 to Rifle Range Road Connector Project Cost Estimate: • $10.641M ($5.74M Funded) Designer: JMT Completion Date: • Design: September 2019 • Construction: September 2022 Status: • Design of road between Billy Swails Blvd. and Rifle Range Road is ongoing. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Long Point Road Extension TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Patriots Point Gateway Intersection Improvements Project Cost Estimate: • $6,765,800 Fully funded via adoption of 2019-2023 CIP Designer: STV Incorporated Completion Date: • Design and Permitting: July 2020 • Construction: July 2020 - December 2021 Status: • Utility coordination is ongoing. Consultant working DE for 11 ft. lanes. • MPW has initiated utility relocation design. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Patriots Point Gateway Intersection Improvements TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Billy Swails Boulevard 4B Project Cost Estimate: • $12,568,497 ($2,568,497 TOMP and $10,000,000 Federal) Designer: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Completion Date: • Design: August 2020 • Construction: August 2022 Status: • Currently, several alignment alternatives are being reviewed through the NEPA process. Alignment options include studying impacts of widening US- 17 and Rifle Range Road vs. BSB. ​Based on this and input from SCDOT we should be ready for the next public meeting in March. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Billy Swails Boulevard 4B TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Shem Creek Bridge Bike Lanes Project Cost Estimate: • $791,000 ($158,000 TOMP and $633,000 Federal) Consultant: CDM Smith Completion Date: • Design: June 2019 • Construction: March 2020 Status: • Preliminary plans have been submitted to SCDOT and are currently under review. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Shem Creek Bridge Bike Lanes TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Park West Boulevard Widening •Design Consultant: Mead and Hunt •Design: Complete •Permitting: Complete June 2019 •Project Cost Estimate: $7M with 15% contingency •Construction Schedule: June 2019 –December 2020 •Status: • Consultant is developing final construction quantities and estimates. • MPW utility relocations will be included in roadway contract. • MPW consultant is currently designing water and sewer relocations. • Staff is currently producing bid documents for advertisement in March 2019. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Park West Boulevard Widening TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates All American Boulevard Extension Project Cost Estimate:$5.365M ($2.05M Funded) Consultant: Mead and Hunt Completion Date: • Design: March 2018 - December 2019 • Construction: March 2020 – December 2021 Status: •Designer is currently working on alignment alternatives. •Wetlands have been delineated. •Phase 1 designer under contract for plan revisions and right of way acquisition for that phase. •PIM held December 18. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates All American Boulevard Extension TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates All American Boulevard Extension TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates All American Boulevard Extension TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. • Project has been in our LRTP since 2006. • Planning Commission required dedication of the right of way when project was approved in 2004/2005. • Planning for known growth in north area of Town. • 20 ft. buffer was added. • Plat shows the temporary cul-de-sac, until the roadway connection is made. • Cul-de-sac or roadway connection is needed to provide essential services to neighborhood. • Staff anticipates the connection would be almost exclusively used by the Laurel Park residents as there is no apparent advantage for Ivy Hall residents, or others, to use this route. • The design of this portion of All American was completed in 2011.  7. Project Updates Maritime Port District Improvements Study Project Cost Estimate: • $163,458 for concept study – $1,500,000 funded via adoption of 2019-2023 CIP Consultant: CDM Smith Completion Date: • Concept Study: August 2018 - January 2019 Status: • Concept Study is complete. • Will provide concept plans to Committee in March. • Met with SCSPA in November. Meet with neighborhoods in February. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Maritime Port District Improvements Study TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Park West Boulevard and Stockdale Street Improvements Project Cost Estimate: • Concept Design: $200,000 Consultant: Mead and Hunt Completion Date: • Concept Study: October 2018 - September 2019 • Construction: NA Status: • Intersection concept study is underway to be completed in February. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Park West Boulevard and Stockdale Street Improvements TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Transportation Sales Tax (TST) Projects •Park West Boulevard sidewalk from Stockdale Street to the recreation complex is complete. •Anna Knapp Boulevard sidewalk from Johnnie Dodds Boulevard to Hibben Ferry is complete. •Belle Hall Parkway and Paul Foster Mini Roundabout under design. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.  7. Project Updates Charleston Transportation Committee (CTC) Projects •Pelzer Drive sidewalk is complete •Lansing Drive sidewalk project is currently under design. •Seacoast Parkway sidewalk project is currently in design and additional right of way needs are being evaluated. •Cottingham Drive sidewalk design to be funded next year. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C.