PA Route 233 Corridor Study FINAL REPORT - Squarespace · Penn Township PA Route 233 Corridor Study...

PA Route 233 Corridor StudyFINAL REPORT

Penn Township, PennsylvaniaJune 2016

Penn Township PA Route 233 Corridor Study

2

Funding for this study was provided by Penn Township and grants from the Tri‐County Regional Planning Commission’s Regional Connections Grant Program.


FINAL REPORT 3

Message from Penn Township

Dear township resident: The PA Route 233 Corridor Study Final Report is a tangible example of Penn Township’s desire to plan for the future of our community. It follows previous efforts such as a new Township zoning ordinance (2006) and update to our municipal comprehensive plan (2013). Based on the experiences of other municipalities, we know that if we don’t work proactively at managing our township’s growth possibilities, other governmental agencies and economic pressures may do so for us, perhaps in ways we do not prefer. We are all aware of the dramatic changes that have taken place in our economy over the past 25 years and how those changes are now being reflected in our surrounding landscape. Central Pennsylvania and Cumberland County in particular have been a magnet for growth in the development of warehousing and distribution centers. These developments have brought jobs to the area, but have also introduced increased truck traffic, congestion, safety concerns, and environmental impacts that must also be addressed. Our area’s regional position and transportation assets continue to make us an attractive destination for warehousing and distribution activity. These centers have historically centered on key interchanges along the I‐81 corridor throughout the Cumberland Valley. Penn Township joined the growing number of area municipalities that have warehousing facilities with the construction of the Key Logistics Park in 2009. The current leadership of Penn Township has sought to achieve a suitable balance between economic development interests and the preservation of our rural character. In addition to our existing plans and land use management ordinances, we have worked to preserve our existing farmland. Penn Township in fact has nearly 3,000 acres preserved for that use (within Cumberland County, only neighboring West Pennsboro Township has more). Our February 2014 amendments to the zoning ordinance provided for additional allowable uses by condition in our agricultural zones. The PA Route 233 Corridor Study builds on these efforts by identifying additional steps that should be taken proactively planning for the future of our community. As you read the report, we trust you will appreciate the thought that has gone into identifying the steps we move forward with in order to best preserve Penn Township as a desirable place to both live and work. We also look forward to the prospect of implementing the recommendations and improvement options identified in this plan. As such, it represents a blueprint for us as we move forward in working with those who have a vested interest in the outcomes of this study and in Penn Township: YOU, our fellow township residents; township land owners; investors and developers; and governmental agencies. Sincerely, Gary Martin, Chairman Penn Township Board of Supervisors

Dan Ries, ChairmanPenn Township Planning Commission

If we don’t work proactively at

managing growth possibilities, other

governmental agencies and economic

pressures may do so for us, perhaps in

ways we do not prefer.


4


FINAL REPORT 5

TableofContents

Existing Study Area Conditions ........................................................................................ 9

Background/Overview ................................................................................................. 10

Location ........................................................................................................................ 11

Population and Employment ....................................................................................... 13

Building Permits ........................................................................................................... 15

Traffic and Transportation ........................................................................................... 15

Traffic Safety ................................................................................................................. 18

Traffic Control ............................................................................................................... 18

Miscellaneous Transportation Services ....................................................................... 20

Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 20

Future Land Use ............................................................................................................ 23

Zoning Districts ............................................................................................................. 26

Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................... 31

Open House #1: Issue Identification ............................................................................. 32

Scenario Development .................................................................................................. 35

Open House #2: Review of Draft Recommendations ................................................... 37

Improvement Options and Implementation Plan ........................................................ 39


6


FINAL REPORT 7

Acknowledgements

Penn Township wishes to thank the members of the board of supervisors and planning

commission for their insights and active participation in carrying out this study. Their

constructive dialog, review of materials, and participation was essential to this effort.

Supervisors

Gary Martin, Chairman

Kenneth Sheaffer, Vice‐Chairman

Amos Seiders

Planning Commission

Dan Ries, Chairman

Gary Cribb, Vice Chairman

Marcia Leeds, Secretary

Kathleen Hughes

Victor Barrick

Dennis Shoff

Max Klein ‐ Resigned effective Jan. 1, 2016 (elected to Township Auditor position)

Wayne Stevenson ‐ Appointed January 4, 2016

Consulting Team (Michael Baker International)

Brian Funkhouser, AICP, Project Manager

Steve Gault, P.E., PTOE


8


FINAL REPORT 9

Existing Study Area Conditions


10

Background/Overview

Changes in transportation and economics have been changing the landscape of western

Cumberland County and the Cumberland Valley for many years – from the Indian trails of

the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to the designation of more modern

transportation facilities such as US 11 during the 1920s. These advances were followed

by the building of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the 1940s, and Interstate 81 in 1962.

In more recent years, the emergence of the information economy and the rise that has

given to the need for massive warehouse facilities within major population centers,

continues to mark western Cumberland County. In fact, the region can now be

characterized as much for its warehousing activity as its rolling farmland. E‐commerce

and online retail sales have put retailers and other shippers and receivers under more

pressure to compress their supply chains and place more of their inventory in local

locations, closer to the consumer. As this new economy has evolved, Cumberland County

has taken even greater care in planning for its transportation infrastructure, most notably

with the landmark 1999 study of Exit 12 (now 44) in South Middletown Township, and

continuing with successive studies of Exit 29, and Exits 48 and 49, in 2006.

Over the past 10 years, demand for warehousing space throughout Cumberland County

has only continued to grow. Even since the interchange studies that were conducted a

decade ago, total warehouse space within the county has increased by 40 percent, to a

present‐day total of 42.6 million square feet (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Warehousing Space in Cumberland County (feet2), 2004‐15

Source: Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Squ

are

Foo

tage

(00

0s)

Year


FINAL REPORT 11

Penn Township is positioned near the crosshairs of the county’s two major interstates,

just 16 miles south from where the two intersect. Exit 37, as I‐81’s lone interchange within

the township, serves as its gateway to the national highway network. The Township is

following its municipal counterparts in experiencing demand for warehousing activity,

this after municipal water and sewer service has been extended. Over the past five or six

years, new warehouses have arrived in the area (some pre‐dating zoning), creating

hundreds of new jobs, introducing changes in travel patterns, and creating additional

demands on the community’s transportation infrastructure.

More warehouses are planned. In March 2013, the Township rezoned 163 acres of

agricultural land (the Ickes family farm) to Commercial‐Industrial. The change made

possible the potential development of a proposed Penn Commerce Center that will add

up to 2.5 M additional square feet of warehousing space directly across Centerville Road

from Key Logistics. Additional warehouses are also planned in neighboring West

Pennsboro Township.

All of the new warehouses will have an ongoing impact, not only on the area economy,

but on its transportation infrastructure. While the warehouses have improved (and are

expected to continue to improve) the township’s economy, the municipality is challenged

to plan for additional growth and development pressure so that it can be accommodated

in a way that is sustainable and in alignment with public preferences.

With that, the Township commissioned a study of the PA 233 corridor, including its

transportation attributes and surrounding land use, to address how it can best accomplish

the following:

What types of businesses should be encouraged to locate in the township, and in

which areas?

Are there parcels that should be rezoned to better reflect “highest and best use”?

In taking a 20‐year view of the municipality, how should the zoning ordinance be

revised in balancing the needs of development with public preferences?

In addition to the zoning ordinance, what other land use management tools

should be explored for future township use?

With the ongoing demand for warehousing, how can the township best protect

the residential character of its neighborhoods, most notably Centerville?

What geometric and safety changes, if any, should be made to the township’s

roadway network, including Exit 37 and PA 233, to accommodate an anticipated

increase in truck traffic?

Location

The PA 233 study corridor is located in western Cumberland County, as shown in Figure

2. The corridor has a north‐south orientation and straddles the Interstate 81 corridor. It

is located entirely within Penn Township, a rural municipality located 10 miles west of


12

the county seat of Carlisle. For planning purposes, the Township has limited the study

corridor to the area between US 11 at its northern extent, to PA 174 (Walnut Bottom

Road) at its southern extent. The borough of Newville is the study area’s nearest

commercial center, and is located on PA 233 just 4 miles north of the I‐81 interchange

(Exit 37).

Figure 2: Study Area Regional Location

Source: Michael Baker International

Figure 3 shows the extent of the immediate regional roadway network adjacent to the

PA 233 corridor.


FINAL REPORT 13

Figure 3: PA Route 233 Corridor Study Area (and Surrounding Roadway Network)

Source: PennDOT; Michael Baker International

Population and Employment

With a 2010 population of only 2,924, the township is one of the least populated

municipalities in Cumberland County. More recent five‐year estimates from the American

Community Survey (2013) estimate the township’s population at 2,932. By contrast, the

township’s population 25 years ago was 2,202, as recorded by the US Census. Figure 4

depicts population change in the township over the past 25 years.


14

Figure 4: Population Change, Penn Township, 1990‐2013

Source: U.S. Census; American Community Survey (2009‐13)

Just as total population has a bearing on travel demand and trip generation, so too does

employment. Until recent years, Penn Township served as a “bedroom community” to

employment destinations elsewhere within Cumberland County and the Harrisburg

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In recent years however, it has become an

employment destination in its own right. The development of Key Logistics Park on a 207‐

acre tract in 2009 presaged the arrival of major new employers in the 600,000 ft2 Office

Depot distribution hub (part of a 1.2 M ft2 building), which ushered in a new era in the

Township’s economy, as it introduced 250 new jobs to the area. The development of a

Sheetz in 2011 with 30 to 40 employees of its own just outside of the study area beyond

its northern limit attests to the attractiveness of the study area as a place to do business,

and also signaled the potential of additional commercial growth. The development of the

Unilever logistics center in 2012 only added to the growing number of jobs available

within the township. The 1.5 M ft2 Unilever facility added 450 jobs to Penn Township’s

growing total. More warehouses are planned within the study area (as well as in

neighboring West Pennsboro Township) which has precipitated the need for a

comprehensive review of the township’s land use and supporting transportation

infrastructure through this study.

The warehousing employment numbers for Penn Township contribute to a growing total

of these types of jobs within Cumberland County overall. According to the Pennsylvania

Department of Labor and Industry, of the approximately 114,225 jobs within the county,

5,454, or 4.8 percent, are within the warehousing and storage facility industry. This

contrasts with the state rate of 2.2 percent.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1990 2000 2010 2013

Pop

ulat

ion

Year


FINAL REPORT 15

Building Permits

Residential development pressure has eased within the township since the recession of

2007‐09. Annual residential building permit data from the Cumberland County Planning

Commission indicate that – for the decade ending 2014 – there were a total of 99 new

housing units created within the township. Figure 5 compares trends in new housing

activity within the township to that of the county, and demonstrates that the township

largely mirrors the county in trends in new housing starts.

Figure 5: Residential Building Permits, Penn Township and Cumberland County, 2004‐14

Source: Cumberland County Planning Commission

Traffic and Transportation

The PA Route 233 corridor (also known as Centerville Road) is a 2‐lane state‐owned

roadway with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 6,900 vehicles per day to

the north of Interstate 81, and approximately 3,200 south of the interstate. Throughout

the study area, the roadway is comprised of 10‐foot travel lanes, with shoulder widths of

10 feet.1 The posted speed limit along PA 233 is 45 miles per hour within the vicinity of

the I‐81 interchange, and 55 miles per hour within the remainder of the study area.

PennDOT and the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) have functionally

classified PA 233 as a Minor Arterial north of the I‐81 interchange, and as a Rural Major

Collector south of the interchange. As such, the roadway links the Township’s residents

1 As part of the development of the Penn Commerce Center, a 275‐foot southbound left turn lane with a 305‐foot approach taper and 105‐foot bay taper will be installed along PA 233 at the intersection with the Key Logistics Driveway.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Penn Twp County


16

and businesses to more strategic roadways, such as Interstate 81. Minor Arterials in rural

areas such as Penn Township are typically designed to provide relatively high overall

speeds, with minimum interference to through movement. Rural Major Collectors gather

traffic from Local Roads and funnel it to the Arterial network. In a rural environment, Rural

Major Collectors generally serve primarily intra‐county travel (rather than statewide) and

constitute those routes on which predominant travel distances are shorter than on

Arterial routes. Because of this, more moderate speeds may be posted. Within the study

area, US 11 and PA 174 (east of the Village of Centerville) are also classified as Rural Major

Collectors. Interstate 81 is the most strategic roadway within the study area, and is

classified as an Interstate. It carries traffic volumes of nearly 30,000 vehicles a day in both

directions. The remaining roadways within the study area, such as Cornman Drive (T‐426),

Showaker Road (T‐427), and Hair Road (T‐429) are all local roads, and not on the Federal‐

aid system. Figure 6 shows the study area’s functional classification of roadways.

Figure 6: Functional Classification of Study Area Roadways

Source: PennDOT Bureau of Planning and Research

PA 233’s location within Cumberland County, coupled with its physical attributes, makes

it an attractive corridor for warehouse development. The wide shoulders allow for proper

accommodation of other modes of transportation, such as bicycle and horse and buggy.


FINAL REPORT 17

Its proximity to Interstate 81 and even the Pennsylvania Turnpike have introduced more

truck traffic to the area: truckers now routinely exit the Turnpike at the Blue Mountain

interchange and traverse the rural routes of PA 641 and PA 233 through Newville in

serving the warehouses in Penn Township. This results in a savings of 40 miles for the

carrier, but also introduces some unwanted side effects to the surrounding community.

The corridor is also frequently used for the delivery of sand from Mt. Holly Springs to the

Pennsy Supply quarry off of US 11.

Within the study area, there are no projects formally

programmed as part of the state’s 2015 Twelve Year

Program.2 A proposed project that post‐dated the

adoption Harrisburg MPO’s 20‐year Regional

Transportation Plan (RTP) was submitted by the Penn

Township supervisors in early 2015. The candidate

project involves the Exit 37 interchange. Supervisors

called out several concerns, including lane widths

under Interstate 81 that are too narrow to

accommodate turning lanes. The project submission

further notes that the truck traffic being generated by

warehousing activity immediately adjacent to the

interchange is causing delays when truckers attempt

to turn left from northbound PA 233, onto

southbound Interstate 81.

Additionally, the ramp design and lack of merger lanes on the interstate causes conflicts,

particularly northbound, where the onramp shares capacity with a deceleration lane with

a PennDOT rest area. The two ramps are approximately 800 feet apart, creating a very

short weaving area for traffic entering the interstate. Crash data from PennDOT for the

five‐year period ending December 2015 indicate that there have been 7 crashes on this

segment of the Interstate. A majority (4) were rear‐end crashes, while 5 involved personal

damage only. There have been no fatalities.

2 A TYP project within Penn Township – a $1.8 million replacement of the Walnut Bottom Road Bridge on PA 174 – is located outside of the study area, on the border with South Newton Township. It is slated for replacement within the mid‐term (2019‐26) period of the 2015 Twelve Year Program.

The I‐81 Interchange Exit 37

The two bridges that carry Interstate 81 over PA 233 were constructed in 1963. The northbound and southbound bridges both have a “fair” condition rating of 5 (on a scale of 0 to 9) and sufficiency ratings of 81 and 84, respectively. The sufficiency rating is essentially an overall rating of a bridge’s “fitness for duty”.


18

On the local system, there are no projects planned or programmed, although there was a

new culvert installed on Gettle Road (T‐428) as the study was being conducted.

Traffic Safety

During the 5‐year period ending 2014, the study corridor has been the site of 22

reportable crashes. The most common crash type includes angle collisions (10), followed

by rear‐end collisions (5). The severity of crashes is generally minor in nature, although

there have been two fatalities recorded – one each in 2012 and in 2013.

Traffic Control

There are currently two signalized intersections within the study corridor. The first

controls access at the intersection of PA 233 and the I‐81 southbound ramp, and was

installed in 2007. Recent (2013) traffic studies have determined that the intersection

already satisfies warrants for a protected/permitted left turn phase along the northbound

approach of PA 233 at the I‐81 southbound ramps.

The second is located at PA 233’s intersection with US 11. Penn Township shares the cost

of maintaining this signal with West Pennsboro Township.

A third traffic signal is slated to be constructed at the shared entrance between the Key

Logistics Park and the forthcoming Penn Commerce Center. A full evaluation of traffic

signal warrants was conducted at this location and was found to have met warrants for

the peak hour under the opening year (2017) and development traffic volumes.

Bridge Condition Ratings

9 Excellent Condition ‐ New 8 Very Good Condition ‐ no problems noted. 7 Good Condition ‐ some minor problems. 6 Satisfactory Condition ‐ structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 Fair Condition ‐ all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour.

4 Poor Condition ‐ advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 3 Serious Condition ‐ loss of section, deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

2 Critical Condition ‐ advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.

1 “Imminent” Failure Condition ‐ major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put it back in light service.

0 Failed Condition ‐ out of service; beyond corrective action.


FINAL REPORT 19

A fourth traffic signal could also be installed within the study corridor. A recent

(November 2013) traffic impact study (TIS) for the Penn Commerce Center has

recommended eventual signalization of PA 233 at the northbound onramp to Interstate

81. Existing volumes currently do not satisfy warrants for signalization. The Penn

Commerce Center developer has agreed to monitor this intersection for a period of five

years following full build‐out in order to determine when traffic signal warrants are met

and to signalize the intersection at that time. As part of this proposed improvement, the

TIS also suggests that a southbound left turn advance phase (“protected left”) be provided

at this intersection. Capacity analyses of the intersection completed as part of the Penn

Commerce Center TIS found that the intersection will operate at unacceptable levels of

service by 2022 if congestion there is not mitigated.

PA 233’s intersection with PA 174 is controlled by a stop sign.

Other traffic observations throughout the study area include the following:

Trucks don’t stop exiting Key Logistics. Truckers were frequently observed not

stopping at the intersection upon leaving Key Logistics.

Posted speed limits are inconsistent. Northbound is 55 from PA 174, drops to 50

mph approaching I‐81 then drops to 45 mph north of I‐81. Southbound is 45 mph

from US 11 then goes to 55 south of I‐81. There could be a 50 mph sign missing

because there isn’t a sign at all across from where it changes from 50 to 45

northbound. This probably exceeds the ½ mile spacing requirement in the

PennDOT regulations.

No Parking signage is inconsistent. Some signs have arrows, and the arrows are

inconsistent. Some point side to side, one points up and down. Parking is enacted

by local ordinance, and since the Pennsylvania State Police do not enforce local

ordinances, the No Parking signs are essentially useless without a local police

department for enforcement.

There are several overlapping emergency detour routes. This creates sign

clutter, which could reduce the effectiveness of other signage. There is an

instruction sign on the I‐81 SB off‐ramp visible in Google Street View, but it is no

longer present (I‐81 Detour Follow Red).

The near side “No Turn on Red” sign is missing on the I‐81 SB off‐ramp. The sign

is visible in Google Street View, but not present today. It should be there

according to the signal permit.

Lack of park and ride directional signage. There is a sign on I‐81 SB mainline for

the park and ride at this exit, but there is no directional signage to direct motorists

from the ramp to the park and ride.

Warehouse directional signing is confusing. The warehouse directional signage

installed by the Township can be confusing since the signs point to the right. The

signs should be pointing straight to advise truckers to remain on PA 233 until they


20

arrive at the warehouse entrance. The signs should have a regular green

background since they would be considered guide signs.

Miscellaneous Transportation Services

Other transportation features of note within the corridor include the presence of a 50‐

space park and ride lot, which is located at the northwest quadrant of the interchange.

Capital Area Transit serves the lot, which serves as an intermediate stop on CAT’s longer

distance, Route 81 commuter service to Shippensburg. Service times include stops at 5:50

and 6:50 in the morning, and 4:40 and 5:10 in the evening. Two other runs provide express

service between Shippensburg and Harrisburg, with no stops at the Newville/Exit 37 park

and ride.

There are no sidewalks within the study area, although pedestrian pushbuttons are

provided at PA 233’s signalized intersection with the southbound offramps of Interstate

81.

Land Use

The PA Route 233 study area is approximately 1.8 square miles in size, or less than 10

percent of the Township’s total land area. The study area contains 64 parcels consisting

of 1,400 total acres featuring a mix of land uses, including agricultural, industrial,

residential, and institutional. By far the most dominant use of land within the study area

is agricultural, of which there are nearly 1,200 acres. Industrial uses are next most

common, at 195 acres. Figure 7 shows the distribution of land uses within the study area,

while Figure 8 contains a map of the area’s existing land use, by parcel.

Figure 7: PA Route 233 Study Area Existing Land Use

Source: Cumberland County GIS

Agricultural, 81.4%

Commercial 2.0%

Industrial 13.6%

Institutional <1%Residential

1.6% Vacant <1%


FINAL REPORT 21

Figure 8: PA Route 233 Corridor Study Area Existing Land Use


According to data supplied by Cumberland County, there are 227 acres protected by

agricultural easements within the study area. The designation places certain restrictions

upon the land to maintain and permanently preserve high quality, functional farmland.

The owner retains all privileges of land ownership, except the ability to sell the property


22

for non‐agricultural development or to develop the property for non‐agricultural

purposes. The agricultural conservation easements are permanent. If a landowner wishes

to sell the land, the easement is transferred and the new landowner must continue to use

the property exclusive for agricultural purposes. Penn Township has a total of 2,982 acres

of farmland that has been preserved for that use (or nearly 20 percent of the county’s ag

land preservation total). Within Cumberland County, only neighboring West Pennsboro

Township (3,213) has preserved more acreage.

A greater share of the study area is within

Agricultural Security Areas (ASA). These properties

are not preserved for agricultural uses, yet have

been officially designated as an agricultural district

by Penn Township. ASAs are intended to promote

more permanent and viable farming operations by

strengthening the farming community’s sense of

security in land use and the right to farm. Within the

study area, there are 19 parcels consisting of 946

acres enrolled in ASA. Countywide, there are 71,947

acres of land enrolled in ASA.

Despite the dominance of agricultural uses

throughout the Township, the arrival of

warehousing activity in recent years has changed

not only the landscape, but has provided a financial boost, as evidenced by recent local

realty transfer tax revenues (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Penn Township Realty Transfer Tax Revenues, 2004‐13

Source: PA Department of Community and Economic Development

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

Dol

lars

($0

00s)

Year

Ag Security Areas

An agricultural security area

(ASA) is a tract of agricultural

land that has been officially

designated as an agricultural

district by the local

municipality. ASAs are intended

to promote more permanent

and viable farming operations

by strengthening the farming

community’s sense of security

in land use and the right to

farm.


FINAL REPORT 23

Future Land Use

The Township’s Future Land Use Plan, as documented within its overall comprehensive

plan (2013), is a foundational element of how the municipality views land use

management. As such, the future land use plan guides the creation and maintenance of

the Township’s zoning ordinance and the management tools that are needed to guide

future development throughout the community.

The future land use plan should not be viewed in the same vein as zoning: the future land

use plan (and map) is intended to guide the mixes and types of future development as

opposed to zoning, which is much more regulatory in nature. As such, the focus of the

future land use plan is oriented more toward promoting compatibility among various land

use activities, while the zoning ordinance is centered on the definition of narrowly‐

defined districts consisting of permitted and conditional uses.

The Township’s future land use plan identifies six major land use categories: Agricultural,

Residential, Conservation, Commercial/Industrial, Mining, and Floodplain. These uses are

briefly described in the following points:

Agricultural – Within the study area, the Township has designated approximately

62 percent of its land area to agricultural uses. The district is so designated to

promote the ongoing preservation of the township’s agricultural resources. Given

the flexible nature of the future land use plan (and the Township’s intent to

accommodate a variety of uses), the district is also expected to accommodate

certain commercial and industrial uses, particularly those that are in support of

agricultural‐related activities.

Residential – The promotion of residential development within the township is

focused on areas that do not possess prime agricultural soil and have access to

transportation infrastructure. These areas primarily include the PA 174/Walnut

Bottom Road corridor, and the villages of Centerville and Cumminstown.

Conservation – Intense development is discouraged within the Conservation

district for a variety of reasons: soils typically cannot sustain on‐lot septic

systems, access to transportation is limited, and development along steep slope

areas would create large‐scale erosion concerns. This district generally

encompasses the southern third of the township, or the northern piedmont

region of South Mountain.

Commercial/Industrial – Areas designated for this use are focused on major

transportation corridors within the township that offer a high degree of visibility

and mobility. These include Centerville Road, US 11, and areas adjacent to the I‐

81 interchange.


24

Mining – The Mining District consists of one small area in the northwestern area

of the Township. The purpose of this zone is to reserve an area of the Township

for quarrying and the processing of quarry raw materials.

Floodplain ‐ The Township’s comprehensive plan recognizes the Yellow

Breeches Creek as a valuable resource, and seeks to protect the integrity of the

waterway and the quality of its waters. As such, the future land use plan

provides that a high priority be placed upon floodplain preservation as defined

along the floodplain boundaries of the Yellow Breeches.

The study area’s future land use is as shown in Figure 10.


FINAL REPORT 25

Figure 10: PA Route 233 Corridor Study Area Future Land Use



26

Zoning Districts

Penn Township’s zoning ordinance dates to 2006 and manages land use, lot size, building

heights, and development densities. The zoning ordinance contains the following

districts:

Conservation (C) – This zone is intended to preserve and protect the Township’s

sensitive environmental features, as well as to protect life and property by

limiting development in areas with severe development constraints. Permitted

uses include: forestry‐related, fisheries, public and non‐public parks and

playgrounds, natural areas or wildlife refuges, single family dwellings, and drive‐

in produce stands. Minimum lot size is 4 acres. There are no parcels within the

study area that are zoned Conservation, even though approximately 30 percent

of the Township is zoned for this use.

Agricultural (A) – This zoning district is composed of areas within the township

whose predominate and use is devoted to agricultural activities and is established

to protect and stabilize agriculture as an on‐going and economic activity by

permitting only those land uses and activities which are either agricultural in

nature or act in direct support. Moreover, the district is intended to protect

productive farmland, the Township’s most important natural resource. In

addition to agriculture, other permitted uses within this district include single

family dwellings, churches, fire stations, and other public buildings. A majority of

the study area (56 percent) is zoned as Agricultural, although it should be noted

that only one parcel has an agricultural easement. Overall, the study area

contains over 781 acres that are zoned as Agricultural.

Residential (R) ‐ Residential zones within the township are centered in

established rural communities or adjacent to significant community development

areas. The Township permits a variety of uses within this zone, including

residential, agricultural, schools, and a variety of low‐density commercial

applications (e.g., barber/beauty shops) and home‐based businesses. There are

several parcels consisting of 37 acres within the study area that are zoned as

Residential, consisting of just 3 percent of the study area’s land area. These

parcels are centered on the Village of Centerville and fronting along Walnut

Bottom Road (PA 174).

Commercial‐Industrial (CI) – This zoning district is intended to provide locations

for those areas necessary to meet the Township’s commercial needs, and goods

and services of a commercial nature. It is also intended to permit and encourage

limited industrial development that would be compatible with surrounding

residential or agricultural areas. Development within this zone is expected to

access the roadway network through major roadways, as opposed to lower‐


FINAL REPORT 27

order, neighborhood streets. Typical permitted uses entail a wide variety of

commercial and industrial applications, including warehousing and distribution

centers. There are approximately 617 acres, or 43 percent of the study area, that

are zoned for these uses.

Quarry (Q) – The Quarry zone is intended to reserve an area of the township for

quarrying operations and the processing of quarrying materials. These areas lie

outside of the study area.

Floodplain (FP) – The Floodplain District is intended to restrict development in

flood prone areas to those uses that will not be damaged by periodic inundation

or that will not increase flood heights be reducing the floodway cross‐sectional

area. There are no parcels zoned as Floodplain within the study area.

The study area includes three different zoning districts, as shown in Figure 11.


28

Figure 11: PA Route 233 Corridor Study Area Zoning Districts


Table 1 summarizes zoning provisions within the study area.


FINAL REPORT 29

Table 1: Penn Township Zoning Ordinance Summary

Zoning District Code Minimum Lot Area

Max. Lot Coverage

Parcel Count

Acreage Percent of Study Area

Agricultural A 44,000 ft2 10% 32 781 56%

Commercial/ Industrial

CI 5 acres/ 10 acres

70% 15 617 43%

Residential R 20,000 ft2/

10,000 ft2 10% 17 37 3%

Source: Penn Township Zoning Ordinance Notes: One acre equals 43,560 feet2. Minimum lot size in the Agricultural District may be required to be increased to accommodate on‐lot sewage disposal (and an alternative site) as determined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Minimum lot areas within the Residential District are dictated on whether or not public water or sewer services are available onsite. Minimum lot sizes in the Commercial/Industrial District differ, depending on whether the use is considered a “Small Area Use,” or a “Large Area Use.”


30


FINAL REPORT 31

Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement


32

The study process included two formal opportunities for public participation, consisting

of a pair of public open houses held at various stages of the study process.

OpenHouse#1:IssueIdentificationThe Township conducted its first study open house at the township building on the

evening of October 8, 2015. The purpose of the open house was to introduce the study

to the public and identify any issues over and above those that had already been outlined

and discussed in a draft Community Assessment Report. Meeting participants were

presented with an overview of the study, and encouraged to provide comment. An exit

survey was also used to capture public preferences, leading up the identification of

development scenarios. The Township promoted the meeting through area newspapers

such as the Carlisle Sentinel, the Newville Valley Times‐Star, and through direct mailings

to all property owners within the study area. A total of 30 people attended this first open

house.

The Township also administered an exit survey as part of the open house to capture

additional information on individual levels of concerns related to traffic safety, economic

development, land use, and other issues. Table 2 depicts the results of the exit survey,

which represents the viewpoints of 22 individuals.

Table 2: Open House Exit Survey Results (by percent)

Issue Importance

High Medium Low

LAND USE/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

a) Planning for the development of additional warehousing and distribution centers

41% 9% 41%

b) Strengthening Township ability to manage land use 32% 26% 14%

c) Identifying areas for potential zoning changes 27% 41% 41%

d) Agricultural land preservation 68% 23% 9%

TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION

e) Directing truck drivers to warehousing destinations (signing)

73% 18% 5%

f) Widening the lanes on Centerville Road under I‐81 55% 5% 26%

g) Addressing traffic conflicts related to the rest area 27% 36% 27%

h) Providing areas for overnight truck parking 27% 14% 45%

i) Enforcing traffic laws (e.g., speeding, etc.) 59% 32% 5%

j) Accommodating bicycle, pedestrian, and horse and buggy traffic

41% 27% 27%

k) Improving public transportation (CAT) service 27% 32% 36%

l) Improving the park and ride lot 27% 27% 41%

Source: Penn Township Community Survey


FINAL REPORT 33

The Township also asked a series of questions to better gauge public perceptions and

preferences across a range of study topic areas. The results are depicted in Table 3.

Table 3: Open House Exit Survey Results: Public Preferences (by percent)

Question Strongly Agree

Agree Don’t Care/ Don’t Know

Disagree Strongly Disagree

a) The interchange/Exit 37 should be modified to better accommodate truck traffic.

50% 18% 9% 0% 23%

b) More areas within the township should be rezoned to Commercial/Industrial.

9% 14% 0% 23% 55%

c) The Township does a good job in protecting agricultural and residential areas from warehousing development.

14% 41% 22% 5% 18%

d) I feel safe when traveling on Centerville Road.

18% 32% 5% 9% 36%

e) The Township should be doing more to develop recreational opportunities within the community.

9% 50% 31% 5% 5%

f) The Township should consider public‐private partnership opportunities for providing additional areas for overnight truck parking.

9% 32% 22% 14% 23%

g) Others? (write‐in)


A third exit survey question asked respondents to indicate what types of new land uses

they would like to see develop within the study area. Figure 12 demonstrates public

response to this important question, which was used to guide the identification and

characteristics of the development scenarios. Nearly half of all survey respondents

indicated a preference for agricultural land uses, or vacant, undeveloped land.


34

Figure 12: Public Land Development Preferences, Penn Township


Highlights of other common themes expressed at the open house included:

Traffic/Transportation

Interest was expressed in PennDOT improving the interchange. The proposal in

fact was rated as a “high priority” by 65 percent of survey respondents. The

Township has approached the MPO regarding placing a proposed project on the

region’s long range transportation plan. There are competing concerns that an

improved interchange will introduce more truck traffic and the types of land

development that may not necessarily be welcome in Penn Township.

Environmental conditions were cited by many after years of warehousing

development throughout the Cumberland Valley. Air quality concerns from idling

trucks in particular were raised by the public.

As one resident noted: “We need to be concerned about children’s health and

safety” as part of the study process.

The location of the rest area and the lack of a weaving lane between it and the

northbound on‐ramp of I‐81 is also a safety concern.

Some substandard pavement conditions along PA 233 were mentioned, including

the presence of sink holes.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

None / No Development Desired

Manufacturing

Commercial / Industrial

Residential

Office

Agricultural

Percent

Land Use Type


FINAL REPORT 35

Existing signing along PA 233 does not appear to do an effective job in directing

truckers to the area’s warehouses.

Land Use

The public expressed concerns with the impact the new warehouses would have

on taxes, surrounding property values, and the ability to sell their own properties

once and if additional warehouses move into the area. With the recent arrival of

warehouses, the Township in fact has been able to eliminate taxes, including the

occupational tax and property taxes.

The public also raised concerns on zoning and how potential changes would be

made after the study is completed.

The decline in new housing starts in the township was attributed as much to the

rise of warehousing development as much as any influence by the soft economy.

ScenarioDevelopmentThe Township identified three development scenarios based on the following inputs: 1)

input received from the public open house/exit survey, 2) local knowledge of the study

area, and 3) professional planning judgment from officials within Penn Township,

Cumberland County Planning, and the Township’s planning consultant. The scenarios

consider a planning horizon out to the year 2036 and allow planners and decision‐makers

to be able to understand and anticipate the impacts of prospective developments.

The scenarios are as depicted and defined in Table 4.

Table 4: PA Route 233 Development Scenarios

Scenario Description

Base Case Describes how the area could be expected to develop over the next 20 years, based on the land use management provisions in place in 2016.

Build‐out Represents a worst case scenario – if the area were to “build out” to the maximum extent allowable by existing zoning and other land use ordinances.

Public Preferred Incorporates public preferences as gleaned from the study open house.

For the traffic analysis, the reader should note that the projected change in traffic volume

is a function of the specific land use scenarios. Land use characteristics serve as “inputs”

into the traffic model. Thus, each land use is assigned a trip generation rate which is the

number of trips a particular land use produces and attracts per one specific unit of

measure. For example, for every single family dwelling unit, there is an average of 9.55


36

trips generated per day. These rates are established by the Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE) and were used to develop trip tables for each of the three scenarios which

represent the changes in land use and the corresponding changes in trip generation. Trip

generation rates are as depicted in Table 5.

Table 5: Illustrative ITE Trip Generation Rates

Rates

Land Use Base Unit AM Peak ADT ADT Range

Residential

Single Family Home per dwelling unit

.75 9.55 4.31‐21.85

Apartment Building per dwelling unit

.41 6.63 2.00‐11.81

Condo/Townhome per dwelling unit

.44 10.71 1.83‐11.79

Retirement Community per dwelling unit

.29 5.86

Mobile Home Park per dwelling unit

.43 4.81 2.29‐10.42

Recreational Home per dwelling unit

.30 3.16 3.00‐3.24

Retail Shopping Center per 1,000 GLA 1.03 42.92 12.5‐270.8 Discount Club per 1,000 GFA 65 41.8 25.4‐78.02 Restaurant (High‐turnover) per 1,000 GFA 9.27 130.34 73.5‐246.0 Convenience Mart w/ Gas Pumps

per 1,000 GFA 845.60 578.52‐1,084.72

Convenience Market (24‐hour)

per 1,000 GFA 65.3 737.99 330.0‐1,438.0

Specialty Retail per 1,000 GFA 6.41 40.67 21.3‐50.9 Office Business Park per employee .45 4.04 3.25‐8.19 General Office Building per employee .48 3.32 1.59‐7.28 R & D Center per employee .43 2.77 .96‐10.63 Medical‐Dental per 1,000 GFA 3.6 36.13 23.16‐50.51 Industrial Industrial Park per employee .43 3.34 1.24‐8.8 Manufacturing per employee .39 2.10 .60‐6.66 Warehousing 1,000 GFA .55 3.89 1.47‐15.71 Other Service Station per pump 12.8 168.56 73.0‐306.0 City Park per acre 1.59 N/A N/A County Park per acre .52 2.28 17‐53.4 State Park per acre .02 .61 .10‐2.94


FINAL REPORT 37

Rates

Movie Theatre w/Matinee

per movie screen

89.48 529.47 143.5‐171.5

Saturday (PM

Peak)

Day Care Center per 1,000 GFA 13.5 79.26 57.17‐126.07

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Trip generation numbers – or background traffic growth rates – for the Base Case Scenario

was derived using trip generation rates from PennDOT’s Bureau of Planning and Research.

PennDOT has estimated an annual traffic growth rate of 0.68 percent for Rural Non‐

interstate roadways in Cumberland County. This rate was compounded to the study

horizon year of 2035.

OpenHouse#2:ReviewofDraftRecommendationsThe Township hosted a second public open house on April 14, 2016. The purpose of the

meeting was to present a set of draft recommendations to the public to obtain feedback.

The planning team presented an overview of the study and the recommendations being

proposed. A question and answer period followed, and participants were encouraged to

complete an exit survey, the results of which are documented in Table 6.

Table 6: Public Preferences on Proposed Study Recommendations

Statement Comments/ Suggestions

a) Revise the Township Zoning Ordinance to allow for stand‐alone Commercial and Industrial zoning districts

Enough already

b) Revise the Township’s Zoning District map to account in part for proposed changes in the zoning districts

Oppose changes so don’t agree

with revisions

c) Develop an Official Map

none received

d) Adopt an Access Management ordinance

Help regulate access to Rt 233

e) Approach Unilever concerning dedicating their existing driveway to the Township

Who will then be responsible for

the cost of maintaining the access?

Unless Unilever or successor is

responsible, unfair to local

taxpayers.


38

Statement Comments/ Suggestions

Please consider option of traffic

circle rather than traffic light.

f) Develop a Noise Ordinance

But if do noise, should also do light

ordinance. Character of Township

is being destroyed.

Adopt a light ordinance as well. We

are losing too much of our night

sky.

g) Use the provisions of Act 209 to pay for off‐site transportation improvements (impact fees)

none received

h) Expand/improve the existing park and ride lot

State owned?

It works as it is now.

Vandalism is an issue of the park &

ride.

i) Petition PennDOT and the Harrisburg MPO for needed changes to the Exit 37 interchange

none received

Other issues raised by the public during the meeting included:

Bus stop concern at 811 Centerville Road ‐ 3 accidents in last 6 weeks

A request for a light ordinance to better manage light pollution from the area’s

warehouses

The stop bar on northbound PA 233 at the I‐81 southbound ramp may need to be

moved back

Township planning commission members in the audience also requested a video of the

diverging diamond concept.

The study’s improvement options and implementation plan are presented in greater

detail in the following chapter.


FINAL REPORT 39

Improvement Options and Implementation Plan


40

Background/Overview

The PA 233 study process has included the development of a profile of existing conditions

within the study area, a facilitated public open house, and meetings with the township

planning commission to discuss potential improvements. The following list was offered to

the study steering committee as a starting point for further discussion. The

recommendations address the following study issues:

Improve safety and protect the capacity of the PA 233 corridor

Discourage the number of new truck trips on PA 174, Walnut Bottom Road

Limit development north of the interchange to agricultural, or low‐density

commercial uses

Manage the number of new access points onto the PA 233 corridor

Address the lack of a weaving area on I‐81 northbound between the

interchange and the rest area

Recommendations are discussed here in greater detail, and are in no priority order.

Draft Study Recommendations

Revise the Township Zoning Ordinance to allow for stand‐alone Commercial

and Industrial zoning districts.

Revise the Township’s Zoning District map to account in part for proposed

changes in the zoning districts.

Develop an Official Map.

Update the Comprehensive Plan.

Adopt an Access Management ordinance.

Approach Unilever concerning dedicating their driveway to the Township.

Update the Township’s Noise Ordinance.

Use the provisions of Act 209 to pay for off‐site transportation improvements

(impact fees).

Improve the existing park and ride lot.

Petition the Harrisburg MPO for needed changes to the Exit 37 interchange.

Consider sound barriers as part of any interchange improvement.

Consider enlarging the rest area on I‐81 northbound.

A discussion of the recommendations addresses the following subheadings:

Statement of the recommendation itself

Details surrounding the recommendation

Why it is necessary

Recommended priority

Expected benefits

Level of community support.


FINAL REPORT 41

A. Revise the Township zoning ordinance to allow for stand‐alone Commercial and

Industrial zoning districts.

Priority: HIGH Benefit: Providing further definition to the Township’s zoning ordinance will provide the municipality with greater management over the type of land uses being proposed in the future.

Planning Level Cost Estimate: $5,000

Public Preference: At both study open houses, the public voiced a desire to maintain the area’s agrarian character.

Background: The Township zoning ordinance currently features 6 zoning districts and

dates back to 2006. Commercial and Industrial uses are currently rolled up into one

district with a wide variety of permitted uses. Segregating these uses will allow the

Township to have greater management over the type of land uses being proposed in

the future. The Cumberland County Planning Commission has created a draft of both

district zoning chapters, which could be used as a starting point by the Township.

Action:

The Township planning commission should review existing uses that are allowed

by right within the existing Commercial/Industrial zoning district classification

and segregate these uses within a stand‐alone Commercial and Industrial

districts. Proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance should be reviewed by the

Township solicitor and presented to the supervisors for adoption. The study makes

recommendations as to how certain parcels should be rezoned, and are as

depicted in

Table 7 while Figure 13 shows the existing zoning designations of the study area

parcels.


42

Table 7: Proposed Study Area Zoning Changes Parcel Number

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Comments

1.2 Commercial/

Industrial Industrial

‐ Would continue to accommodate warehousing uses proposed; preliminary plans have already been submitted

1.3 Commercial/

Industrial Commercial

‐ The study proposes this parcel be reserved for commercial traveler services, including hotel and restaurant as examples

1.4 Commercial/

Industrial Commercial

‐ Parcel could accommodate a 100k SF shopping center if the drive‐in “turns over”

2.6 Agricultural Commercial

‐ Constitutes as the only instance of “up‐zoning” in the study area; would accommodate uses complementary to the warehouses

2.7 Commercial/

Industrial Industrial

‐ Should serve uses that are complementary to the warehouses

2.9 Residential Industrial

and Residential

‐ Zoning for this parcel would be split between the two uses, and follow the parcel’s natural features

2.11 Commercial

/Industrial Industrial

‐ A 2M SF warehouse has been proposed for the Ickes property

2.12 Agricultural Agricultural

‐ Tract should remain as Agricultural to serve as a buffer between agricultural/residential and warehousing activities.


FINAL REPORT 43

Figure 13: Study Area Parcel Numbering (by Zoning District Classification)


44

B. Develop an Official Map.

Priority: HIGH Benefit: The Official Map would help implement the recommendations of this land use study and the comprehensive plan by preemptively identifying those areas that would be needed for the public interest, such as transportation improvements. It ensures future development is compatible with the Township’s goals.


Public Preference: The Township’s desire for an Official Map to guide future decision‐making regarding land use and transportation has been a stated desire from the outset of the study process.

Background: Article IV, Section 401 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code

(MPC) grants authority to municipalities like Penn Township to create an Official Map

and ordinance. The purpose of the Official Map would be to account for right‐of‐way

needed for service roads, changes in interchange geometry, and relocation of certain

township roads. Service roads are needed to protect future capacity of the PA 233

corridor, particularly north of the existing Unilever driveway intersection with PA 233.

Points of access onto US 11 and PA 233 for a potentially redeveloped parcel 1.4

(current site of the drive‐in movie theater) should also be noted, as well as a proposed

realignment of Hair Road.

Under the MPC, listing all or a portion of a particular property on an Official Map

provides notice to landowners and developers of the municipality’s goals for public

infrastructure in that location. The designation on the Official Map does not

constitute a taking in and of itself, but gives the municipality an opportunity to

negotiate acquisition of property, or other rights to a property, before any

development occurs on the property. Essentially, the municipality has the first right

of refusal to acquire the necessary property before it develops, whether by purchase

or eminent domain.

The power of an Official Map can be further enhanced if compliance with the Official

Map is incorporated into other Township land use ordinances, such as the Subdivision

and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) and/or the Zoning Ordinance. For

example, the MPC authorizes a SALDO to require public dedication of land. Using this

power, the SALDO could require public dedication of land identified on the Official

Map.


FINAL REPORT 45

C. Update the Township Comprehensive Plan.

Priority: HIGH Benefit: This action provides a relatively inexpensive solution for improving safety and capacity along PA 233 and throughout the township.


Public Preference: The public has expressed a desire for improved planning within Penn Township.

Background: The comprehensive plan is the “North Star” among the township’s planning

tools in representing the community’s interests. The plan highlights a vision and a

statement of objectives of the municipality concerning its character and future

development. The plan addresses community concerns that are broader than just land

use and transportation, and include recreational needs, housing, community facilities and

utilities, and others. The state’s Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) recommends that

municipalities review their comprehensive plans for currency a minimum of every 10

years. Although the township’s current plan was last amended in 2013, this

recommendation is timely, especially given current development trends and ongoing

pressure for new development within the township. The comprehensive plan serves as a

guide for all other planning documents and tools, including the official map, zoning

ordinance, and subdivision and land development ordinance.

Action:

The Township planning commission should develop an Official Map for

consideration and adoption by the Township supervisors. PennDOT and other

state agencies have developed guidance on this through Publication 703 (June

2011). The supervisors must provide a 45‐day review period and a minimum of

one public hearing prior to adoption. The need for an Official Map is important,

given potential improvement options being explored for the Exit 37 interchange.


46

Action:

The Township planning commission should update the municipal comprehensive

plan. Supervisors have expressed a desire for all the township’s planning‐related

documents to be in synch with one another. An updated comprehensive plan

could include the outcomes of the PA Route 233 Corridor Study as well as establish

a foundation for the township’s other land use management ordinances, including

the zoning ordinance, and the subdivision and land development ordinance. New

tools proposed by this study would also be shaped by an updated comprehensive

plan, and would include a new official map, and access management policy. Other

initiatives could include a potential Farmland Overlay district to make the existing

Agricultural District more “ag‐friendly.”


FINAL REPORT 47

D. Address access management needs throughout the corridor.

Priority: HIGH Benefit: This action provides a relatively inexpensive solution for improving safety and capacity along PA 233 and throughout the township.


Public Preference: The public has expressed a desire for greater management of access to PA 233/Centerville Road through the study process.

Background: Protecting the safety and capacity of the PA 233 corridor can be

accomplished in part through the adoption of an access management ordinance. The

intent of the ordinance would be to control the number and spacing of new driveways

and points of ingress and egress onto PA 233. For reference, PennDOT in 2006 developed

a model access management ordinance, which can be accessed here:

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20574.pdf.

Actions:

The Township planning commission should develop an Access Management

Ordinance for consideration and adoption by the Township supervisors. This

would address techniques such as shared driveways and parking areas, driveway

lengths, and the encouragement of new development to access the public

roadway network through lower‐order roadways such as Township roads. Over

time, the Township should attempt to obtain an average spacing of 250 feet

between access drives. PennDOT’s model ordinance can be accessed online at

http://www.penndot.gov and can be used as a guide in developing a local

ordinance.

The Township should approach Unilever concerning a possible dedication of its

existing driveway to the municipality. In tandem with the previous action, the

Township should investigate the potential of taking ownership of this private road.

Future access to adjoining parcels could then come from this roadway, as opposed

to creating additional points of access onto PA 233.


48

E. Update the township’s noise ordinance and address lighting.

Priority: MEDIUM Benefit: Would help industrial uses such as warehouses to be a “good neighbor” to the township’s existing residential areas by helping the area avoid safety and nuisance problems related to excessive noise and obtrusive lighting.


Public Preference: This recommendation received strong support from those who were in attendance during the second public open house.

Background: The Township has done a good job in recent years in trying to manage the

environmental impacts caused by the development of warehouses within the rural

community. An example of this includes a required 20‐foot berm to block warehouse

noise, including vehicular back‐up alarms. The Township currently does have a noise

ordinance, but it is inadequate. Such an updated ordinance can address development

related to warehouses, but can also address nuisance noises such as truck garages, impact

wrenches, fireworks, and church clarions. As a recommendation, a noise ordinance can

limit the allowable noise level(s) at different times of the day for different zoned areas

(i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) and protect residential areas. The maximum

allowable noise levels are typically higher during daytime hours and lower during

nighttime hours.

Likewise, a lighting standards could be added to the zoning ordinance to manage the

amount of glare and light pollution caused by industrial uses such as warehouses.


FINAL REPORT 49

F. Use the provisions of Act 209 to pay for off‐site transportation improvements

(impact fees).

Priority: HIGH Benefit: Helps fund transportation improvements, or incremental improvement needs, made necessary by new development.


Public Preference: Surveys of the public have registered general agreement with the recommendation.

Background: Article V‐A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC),

commonly referred to as Act 209, can be used by municipalities to pay for off‐site

transportation impacts, such as improvements to the PA 233 interchange with I‐81. The

Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted the law to ensure that the cost of needed capital

improvements can be applied to new developments in a manner that will allocate the

cost of those improvements among developers. This power is given to municipalities such

as Penn Township that have adopted a municipal comprehensive plan, subdivision and

land development ordinance, and zoning ordinance. There are currently no municipalities

within Cumberland County that administer their own Transportation Impact Fee

ordinance.

Actions:

The Township planning commission should develop a Light Ordinance for

consideration and adoption by the Township supervisors. The lighting ordinance

can be included within the Township’s existing Subdivision and Land Development

ordinance, or developed as a stand‐alone ordinance. Regardless, the ordinance

should address several key issues, including: maximum allowable illuminance at

the property boundary, permitted luminaire types, aiming and shielding,

maximum mounting heights, excessive glare, curfew hours, and penalties for code

infractions. The ordinance should also cover how light would be measured, as well

as how complaints would be addressed.

The Township should update its noise ordinance for consideration and adoption

by the Township supervisors. Such an ordinance could include allowances or

exemptions for certain uses, such as authorized emergency vehicles or utility

companies, bells or chimes from schools or religious institutions, lawn care and

maintenance equipment, power tools between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and properly

permitted construction. Also possible exemptions could include sporting events,

establishments with entertainment permits, parades, and special events and

engines regulated by PennDOT.


50

Impact fees only apply to new development proposed after the Township publishes a

notice of intent that it plans to adopt impact fees. Developments currently “in the

pipeline” are grandfathered in under existing regulations and would not be subject to pay

the impact fee. The Township should carefully evaluate the status of proposed

developments prior to beginning the impact fee process to ensure an impact fee would

be feasible.

Enacting an impact fee is a five‐step process beginning with establishment of an advisory

committee to oversee the process. Three reports then need to be generated: a land use

assumptions report, a roadway sufficiency analysis, and a capital improvements plan. The

process culminates with the adoption of an ordinance.

Following the MPC requirements, traffic impact fees could be used to fund up to 50

percent of the cost of the interchange improvements. Impact fees are collected at the

time of building permit issuance for new development in the designated service area.

G. Improve the existing park and ride lot.

Priority: LOW Benefit: Encourages use of modes other than the single‐occupant vehicle for travel.


Public Preference: This issue did not register as a high priority among the public.

Background: The 50‐space park and ride lot is unimproved. Improvements such as

enlarging the size of lot, with improved lighting could be accomplished as part of an

overall interchange improvement. Moreover, a realignment of Hair Road could improve

safety and economic development potential by taking local traffic away from the

interchange, and providing for a four‐leg intersection with the new warehouse driveway

that is currently planned for the opposite side of PA 233 (or parcel 1.2). Capital Area

Transit (CAT) serves the park and ride lot, which serves as an intermediate stop on its

longer distance, Route 81 commuter service between Harrisburg and Shippensburg.

Action:

The Township planning commission should use the provisions of Act 209 to

leverage the availability of private funding to fund public improvements, where

possible. A typical impact fee levy is in the range of $1,500 to $2,000 for each

proposed peak hour trip, which would have the benefit of generating $1.5 to $2.0

million in revenue. See also PennDOT Publication 639: Transportation Impact Fees

(2009).


FINAL REPORT 51

Figure 14 and Figure 15 provide more information on the commuting characteristics of

the township’s resident workers.

Figure 14: Penn Township Resident Worker Destinations (2014)

Source: U.S. Census LEHD

Action:

Consider the improving the park and ride lot as part of any design for an

improved interchange. The park and ride is an important facility for the township

and the greater Newville area, helping to facilitate intermodalism and journey‐to‐

work trips. While Penn Township has become more of an employment destination

in recent years, it remains a net exporter of labor, as a majority of the township’s

resident workers commute to destinations outside of the township such as

Harrisburg (30 miles away) and Chambersburg (25 miles) for employment.


52

Figure 15: Penn Township Journey‐to‐Work Commutation Patterns (2014)

Source: U.S. Census LEHD

H. Address safety and capacity needs at the Interstate 81 interchange.

Priority: HIGH Benefit: Addresses safety and capacity at the interchange, as the “Do Nothing” alternative is forecasted to yield unacceptable levels of service by 2035.

Planning Level Cost Estimate: Upwards of $15 million, depending upon option chosen

Public Preference: Public preferences are mixed on the future of the interchange, as some want to see safety and capacity improved, while others acknowledge (as a benefit) the limiting factor the interchange has on development within the area.

Background: Interstate 81’s interchange with PA 233/Centerville Road is Penn Township’s

“front door” to the national highway network. The interchange was constructed in the

early 1960s and appears on the regional long range transportation plan as a long‐range

need. The arrival of warehousing activity in Penn Township and throughout the

Cumberland Valley is challenging the 60‐year‐old design of the interchange. The

juxtaposition of the interchange with a rest area on the northbound side of the interstate

also introduces concerns with heavy trucks plying the grade of the northbound onramp

trying to merge with other truck traffic that is decelerating into the rest area. The

Township is also interested in addressing the horizontal curvature of PA 233 through the

interchange as part of any proposed improvement.


FINAL REPORT 53

The study advanced five alternatives, which are described in more detail in the following

points:

No Build (Do Nothing) – The “no build” alternative is included as a baseline

from which to plan. This alternative would retain the existing transportation

infrastructure, including lane configuration and intersection traffic control.

While this alternative is the least expensive option, it results in unacceptable

levels of service for several movements by 2035.

Improved Diamond – This alternative includes an additional traffic signal at

the northbound off‐ramp of Interstate 81, and additional turning lanes on PA

233 and both I‐81 off‐ramps. The addition of turning lanes on PA 233 would

effectively remove the existing shoulders, which would affect non‐motorized

travel through the interchange. The lack of a shoulder would also make future

maintenance and protection of traffic much more challenging as future bridge

work is being performed. This alternative would provide acceptable levels of

service for all movements through the intersection through 2035. Figure 16

graphically illustrates the Improved Diamond Interchange option.

Figure 16: Improved Diamond Interchange Alternative

Partial Cloverleaf – This alternative yields the most improved level of service

and entails the construction of new loop ramps and the relocation and/or

removal of existing ramps. The I‐81 bridge structures would be widened to

accommodate acceleration lanes, thus increasing the weaving area distance

between the northbound on‐ramp and the deceleration lane for the nearby

rest area. This option provides the best operation for PA 233 traffic passing

through the interchange since there would be no traffic signals within the


54

interchange. Hair Road would also be relocated as part of this option. Figure

17 illustrates the Partial Cloverleaf option.

Figure 17: Partial Cloverleaf Alternative

Diverging Diamond – This option represents a relatively new traffic technique,

as there are currently no diverging diamond interchanges (DDI) in

Pennsylvania (although one is under construction and others are being

considered). This design favors movements coming on and off the interstate

(in Exit 37’s case, this represents approximately 75 percent of all traffic). The

on‐ and off‐ramps would be YIELD–controlled, while through traffic on PA 233

would be controlled by signals on either side of the interchange, and their

movements would be reversed (see Figure 18). As such, it reduces conflicting

traffic for left turning movements. The alternative, while relatively

inexpensive, provides mixed results, with superior levels of service for

interstate‐related traffic coming at the expense of through movements on PA

233.


FINAL REPORT 55

Figure 18: Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative

Relocated On‐ramps – This option moves the on‐ramps further away from the

interchange to align with proposed realignments of local roads. This

alternative features a lengthened northbound on‐ramp that would run on an

alignment behind the existing rest area before entering I‐81 at a point nearly

0.7 mile north of the interchange. The new on‐ramp for northbound I‐81

would be two lanes. Turning lanes would be added to PA 233 and a new traffic

signal added at the northbound off‐ramp’s intersection with PA 233. Hair Road

and the existing park and ride lot would be relocated to a point north of their

existing locations. This option also includes sound walls along the south side

of I‐81.

Estimated Cost < $2 million


56

Figure 19: Relocated On‐ramps Alternative

All the alternatives exhibited varying degrees of effectiveness, and are as depicted in

Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 at the end of this chapter.

Actions:

Petition the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (the metropolitan planning

organization encompassing Penn Township), to move the Exit 37 interchange to

near‐term phases of the long range transportation plan. The development of the

region’s 2019 Transportation Improvement Program begins in spring 2017.

Getting the interchange onto nearer‐term phases of the long range plan is likely

not feasible, given the overwhelming demands across the region for

transportation funding. The Township should present the results of this study to

the Harrisburg MPO for consideration as future plans and programs are

contemplated.

Develop a Point of Access Study for the Exit 37 interchange. FHWA requirements

dictate that any change to an interstate interchange require a Point of Access

study.

Estimated Cost $5 million


FINAL REPORT 57

I. Consider sound barriers as part of any interchange improvement.

Priority: MEDIUM Benefit: Mitigates noise being generated by truck traffic using the interchange.

Planning Level Cost Estimate: $750 million

Public Preference: This recommendation was not formally presented to the public, although options oriented toward mitigating noise (such as updating the Township’s noise ordinance) were well received.

Background: A common complaint associated with the development of warehousing in

the area is related to unwanted noise pollution. Other non‐point sources of noise

pollution come from the trucks that service the warehouses found within the study area.

The on‐ramp to I‐81 northbound at Exit 37 features a grade that causes heavy laboring of

vehicle engines, which increases traffic noise levels to surrounding areas. Traffic noise can

be mitigated through the use of berms or other man‐made features for noise abatement.

J. Consider enlarging the rest area on I‐81 northbound.

Priority: MEDIUM Benefit: Removes potential for truckers to park along the Exit 37 on‐ and off‐ramps.

Planning Level Cost Estimate: $1 to $5 million

Public Preference: This recommendation was also not formally presented to the public, although there were concerns expressed with improving traffic safety as it related to trucks within the study area.

Background: PennDOT (then the Department of Highways) built the rest area and opened

it to travelers in the early 1970s. There are vending machines and overnight parking

available at the rest area, including 22 spaces for trucks.

The shortage of available truck parking in Pennsylvania has been well documented, most

notably through the state Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) study of 2007, which

Action:

Consider sound walls as part of any final design for an improved interchange. The

proposed sound wall buffering township properties from I‐81 would add

approximately $750,000 to any improved interchange design. Acoustical engineers

can evaluate sources and patterns of noise to determine if noise barriers would be

appropriate and cost effective as part of any interchange improvement alternative

that would be advanced.


58

noted that I‐81 is a priority corridor within the state, and one that exhibits unmet parking

demand.3

Truckers routinely fill the rest area to capacity before parking along the shoulders of the

on‐ and off‐ramps at Exit 37, which poses safety, efficiency, and environmental impacts.

This also causes pavement distress for the shoulders along these ramps, which were

intended only for short‐term parking. An expanded rest area would have a dual benefit

of serving travelers while addressing the need for additional truck parking along the I‐81

corridor and within the study area.

There are currently no projects programmed involving the rest area, although the

Department does plan to make electrical upgrades over the near‐term.

3 A 2012 study done by Shippensburg University for the I‐81 Corridor Coalition inventoried the availability of truck parking spaces along the corridor, concluding that there were just over 2,600 total truck parking spaces (commercial and rest area) throughout the state.

Action:

The Township should approach PennDOT’s Facilities Department regarding

planning and programming options for the rest area. Future coordination should

be done in conjunction with the Harrisburg MPO involving any future planning and

preliminary engineering design work for the adjacent interchange. Option 5 of the

interchange alternatives for example includes direct access to the rest area from a

proposed on‐ramp to I‐81 (see Figure 19).


FINAL REPORT 59

Table 8: Interchange Scenario Comparison Matrix Interchange Scenario

Description Pros Cons Estimated Cost

No Build Retains existing interchange

configuration and traffic control + Least expensive option ‐ All but two movements operate in a failed condition by 2035

N/A

Improved Diamond

Signalize both ramp intersections with PA 233

Widen ramps to provide separate turning lanes

Additional turning lanes

Use shoulders to add a lane under the bridge

+ Short‐term, easy to implement + Would buy time until the structures on I‐81 would need to be replaced in ~30 years

+ Limited‐to‐no right‐of‐way acquisition required

‐ Would lose the shoulders under the bridge for horse and buggy movement

‐ Future MPT of bridge work would be a concern

$1M

Partial Cloverleaf

Construct new PA 233 SB to I‐81 NB loop ramp

Construct new I‐81 SB to PA 233 SB loop ramp

Relocate PA 233 to I‐81 SB ramp

Relocate I‐81 NB to PA 233 ramp

Widen bridge structures for acceleration lanes

Remove existing NB on‐ramp

Relocate Hair Road

+ Addresses lack of weaving area before the rest area

+ Best improvement to operations (LOS “B” in AM and PM)

‐ Most expensive option ‐ Could not be developer‐funded

‐ Significant right‐of‐way acquisition required

$5 ‐ $15M

Diverging Diamond

Signals control only through movements

PA 233 through movements reversed through the interchange so left turns don’t require crossing opposing traffic

On‐ and off‐ramps are YIELD controlled

+ Gives priority to traffic interchanging with the interstate, or 75% of the traffic

+ Short‐term, easy to implement + Would buy time until the structures on I‐81 would need to be replaced in ~30 years

+ Limited‐or‐no right‐of‐way acquisition required

‐ Does not work as well for through traffic on PA 233 (LOS “D” and “E” NB in PM and AM peak, respectively)

‐ Limited shoulder width under the bridge for horse and buggy movement (median required to separate reversed traffic movements)

< $2M


60

Interchange Scenario

Description Pros Cons Estimated Cost

Relocated On‐ramps

Moves existing on‐ and off‐ramp alignments farther from the interchange to align with proposed realignments of local roads.

+ Opens up area at the interchange’s NW quadrant for commercial development

+ Addresses the lack of a weaving area before the rest area

+ Removes traffic from I‐81 bridges + Increased spacing between ramp terminals could allow left turn lanes to be constructed beyond the I‐81 overpass, allowing shoulders to be maintained under I‐81

‐ Significant right‐of‐way acquisition required

‐ Providing access from the relocated Exit 37 northbound on‐ramp into the rest area will be challenged by creating a merge area with a high speed differential

$5 M


FINAL REPORT 61

Table 9: Interchange Scenario Level of Service (seconds of delay) – Weekday A.M. Peak Hour*

Movement 2013 Existing Diamond

2035 Existing Diamond

2035 Improved Diamond

2035 Partial Cloverleaf

2035 Diverging Diamond

A: I‐81 NB to PA 233 NB D (57.9) F (3028) D (57.9) C (50.3) D (58.4)

B: I‐81 NB to PA 233 SB C (47.8) F (2478) C (40.7) C (35.3) A (0.9)

C: I‐81 SB to PA 233 NB C (36.7) F (169) D (55.4) A (10.2) A (2.7)

D: I‐81 SB to PA 233 SB D (55.3) F (206) D (61.4) D (71.0) B (22.0)

E: PA 233 SB to I‐81 NB B (22.0) E (88.4) C (36.4) A (0.0) B (25.2)

F: PA 233 SB to I‐81 SB A (3.6) C (51.5) A (0.0) B (28.9) A (0.0)

G: PA 233 NB to I‐81 NB A (0.0) A (0.0) C (31.7) C (36.9) A (2.7)

H: PA 233 NB to I‐81 SB A (7.3) F (547) C (47.1) B (25.7) C (34.5)

I: PA 233 SB thru interchange B (19.5) E (85.9) B (15.5) A (14.0) C (38.3)

J: PA 233 NB thru interchnge A (4.6) F (545) C (34.5) A (8.5) E (90.6)

Overall Interchange B (19.5) F (519) C (38.4) B (23.0) B (28.9)

Table 10: Interchange Scenario Level of Service (seconds of delay) – Weekday P.M. Peak Hour

Movement 2013 Existing Diamond

2035 Existing Diamond

2035 Improved Diamond

2035 Partial Cloverleaf

2035 Diverging Diamond

A: I‐81 NB to PA 233 NB C (44.3) F (17203) D (64.5) D (56.2) C (47.7)

B: I‐81 NB to PA 233 SB B (27.6) F (17002) B (28.8) C (41.2) A (1.5)

C: I‐81 SB to PA 233 NB C (48.0) F (242) C (51.0) B (22.0) A (5.9)

D: I‐81 SB to PA 233 SB D (63.7) F (269) B (28.4) C (54.2) C (32.5)

E: PA 233 SB to I‐81 NB B (24.1) C (45.2) C (44.2) A (0.0) B (27.9)

F: PA 233 SB to I‐81 SB A (8.6) B (18.0) A (0.0) B (28.9) A (0.0)

G: PA 233 NB to I‐81 NB A (0.0) A (0.0) B (28.9) D (64.2) A (2.7)

H: PA 233 NB to I‐81 SB A (13.9) F (199) C (40.2) B (28.5) C (34.2)

I: PA 233 SB thru interchange B (21.6) C (42.7) B (20.2) B (15.7) C (51.1)

J: PA 233 NB thru interchange

A (11.2) F (196.3) C (30.9)

A (11.8) D (78.6)

Overall Interchange C (32.3) F (2392) C (36.1) B (29.3) C (30.3)

Key: Level of Service (Experienced Travel Time); Experienced Travel Time = Control Delay from signals, stop control, and yield control + Extra Distance Travel Time (such as loop ramps); Source: Highway Capacity Manual (TRB) *Note: From a Level of Service perspective, the Relocated On‐ramp Alternative would be very similar to the Improved Diamond Alternative.


62

Table 11: Implementation Plan Matrix Project/Initiative Actions Priority Timing Lead

A. Stand‐alone Commercial and Industrial zoning districts

Revise Zoning Ordinance (text and map) to segregate Commercial and Industrial uses within the township. Recommendations by specific parcel are included elsewhere within this report.

High Medium‐term Township planning commission

B. Official Map Develop an Official Map to address proposed interchange improvements and to identify future areas to be acquired for public purposes.


C. Comprehensive Plan Update the comprehensive plan. High Near‐term

Township planning commission

D. Access Management Develop an Access Management Plan.


E. Noise and Light Ordinance Develop ordinances to manage noise and light.

Medium Medium‐term Township planning commission

F. Enact Impact Fees (Act 209) Leverage private dollars for public transportation improvements.

High Ongoing Township Supervisors

G. Park and ride lot In tandem with future work proposed for the Exit 37 interchange.

Low Long‐term PennDOT

H. Address safety and capacity needs at the Exit 37 interchange

Develop a Point of Access Study; petition HATS to put the interchange on a future TIP for design work.

High Long‐term PennDOT

I. Consider sound barriers as part of any interchange improvement

Investigate this element as part of any preliminary engineering work Medium Long‐term PennDOT

J. Consider enlarging the rest area

Coordinate with the Harrisburg MPO and PennDOT’s Facilities Department as progress is made on Recommendation H.

Medium Long‐term PennDOT

Note: Near‐term = 0‐1 year; Medium‐term = 1‐2 years; Long‐term = > 2 years


FINAL REPORT 63

Contact Information:

Brian Funkhouser, AICP, Project Manager

4431 North Front Street, 2nd floor

Harrisburg, PA 17110

(717) 213‐6236

[email protected]

PA Route 233 Corridor Study FINAL REPORT - Squarespace · Penn Township PA Route 233 Corridor Study...

Documents

Transcript of PA Route 233 Corridor Study FINAL REPORT - Squarespace · Penn Township PA Route 233 Corridor Study...