upstate comprehensive plan analysis - ten at the...

Upstate Comprehensive Plan

AnalysisPrepared by the Clemson University City and Regional Planning

Program

Fall 2014

Greenville County

Pickens CountyOconee County

Abbeville County Greenwood County

Union CountySpartanburg County

Cherokee CountyAnderson County

Laurens County

1

Table of Contents

I t odu tio …………………………………………………….What it Mea s to e the Upstate ……………..….Cou t “ apshots……………………………………………Co p ehe si e Pla A al sis a d Mat i ………Upstate Futu e La d Use……………………………….La d Co e Assess e t…………………………………Regio al “WOT A al sis………………………………..Co lusio s…………………………………………………..P oje t Li itatio s………………………………………..Futu e Resea h……………………………………………Appe di ………………………………………………………

2

IntroductionThe Cit a d Regio al Pla i g Maste ’s p og a at Cle so U i e sit is the o l p ofessio al graduate program accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board in South Carolina. It has produced more than 530 graduates since achieving full accreditation in 1973. With a stated focus on integrating both theory and practice into its curriculum, the program prepares students to engage the critical planning issues that face communities in the 21st century.

During their tenure at Clemson, students apply theoretical knowledge to local issues through projects that integrate both Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology and fieldwork. Students further engage the Upstate planning context through public assistantships at local agencies and participation in events sponsored by the South Carolina chapter of the American Planning Association. The project team consists of 6 second- ea Maste ’s a didates ith a range of professional backgrounds including Anthropology, Psychology, Public Policy, and Computer Science.

The u e t p oje t is a a al sis of ea h of the te ou t ’s o p ehe si e pla s to highlight regional trends. Although it does not include content of additional planning documents within each county, it can be used in conjunction with those documents as a tool to promote regional o e satio a out o o issues. This stud ’s o lusio s a e li ited the fa t that its

findings are based on comprehensive plans that were written at different points in time, opening up the possibility that some of the plans no longer reflect the reality of their communities. In addition, the study is limited by the fact that one county does not have a comprehensive plan and several counties were unable to provide future land use data.

Nevertheless, we hope this will be a useful product for Ten at the Top and Upstate planners to foster discussion of issues that affect the region as a whole. It is the first effort of its kind to compile data from the Upstate counties and analyze them from a regional perspective.

3

What it Means to be the UpstateO igi all k o as the Up ou t , the te ou ties that ake up the p ese t da Upstate have always played an important role in South Carolina history. From the Revolutionary War battlefields of Cherokee to the antebellum homes of Abbeville, the Upstate is proud to retain a strong sense of this history. The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor stretches from the coast up to the western corner of the Upstate, drawing tourists to its historic, natural, and cultural resources. Many of the counties have capitalized on these resources as economic development opportunities by promoting cultural tourism.

The Upstate has abundant natural resources, such as Lake Keowee and Lake Hartwell, which are assets both for their scenic beauty and their recreational draw. Residents enjoy these lakes for camping, fishing, and boating. The Cherokee Foothills Scenic Highway and the recent proliferation of multi-use trails in several counties provide opportunities to enjoy “outh Ca oli a’s atu al eaut .

The Upstate has a long-standing reputation for its industriousness and entrepreneurial italit . I the late ’s, the egio ega its ise to e o i g the te tile apital of the o ld, led G ee ille at its e te . Mill illages popped up a ou d the egio a d

developed into close-knit and thriving communities. For nearly a century these villages served as a framework for life in the Upstate, organizing their own sports leagues, churches, and neighborhoods.

Lake Hartwell,

Anderson County

Union Cotton Mills,

Union County

4

As economic realities and technology have changed around the country, the Upstate has shown resilience in its ability to adapt. With the influx of international companies such as Robert Bosch in Anderson and BMW in Spartanburg, the Upstate has successfully re-invented itself with a focus on high-tech manufacturing and research. In addition to reviving the economy of the Upstate, these companies have enriched its culture by bringing thousands of international employees to live and work in the region. They have added their own traditions to those that South Carolinians have always celebrated, resulting in a more diverse set of cultural offerings in the Upstate.

Given the strength of its economy and its location along the growth corridor of Interstate 85, the Upstate is poised for continued development in the coming decades. Recently completed projects like the inland port will ensure that the Upstate remains competitive moving forward.

Since the formation of Ten at the Top in 2010, the unique counties and municipalities of the Upstate have begun a renewed effort to share information and ideas to address multi-jurisdictional issues such as the transportation network, air quality, and economic development of the ten upstate counties. This ability to work together comes from an understanding that many of these issues affect the Upstate as a whole. Similarly, a positive change in one of the Upstate’s ou ties is a positive change for the other nine upstate counties.

An Upstate Ma o aptu ed this e spi it pe fe tl he he espo ded to eside ts’ i ui ies a out att a ti g thei it ’s o ase all tea sa i g, We al ead ha e o e, a d its a e is the G ee ille D i e.

What it Means to be the Upstate

Fluor Field,

Greenville County

BMW plant,

Spartanburg County

5

Greenwood should celebrate the opening of a new factory in Laurens. Cleaner air in Pickens means cleaner air in Oconee. This new wave of regional cooperation is a recognition of the interconnectedness of the ten counties. It does not mean that every issue ill ha e a lea o e-size-fits-all app oa h, ut it does ea that the e ti e Upstate benefits when each upstate county shares its point of view and seeks mutual gains with the others.

Ten at the Top has convened many meetings over the past several years to foster discussion among various stakeholders of the ten-county region. These conversations are centered on fi e d i e a eas, hi h ha e ee ide tified as i po ta t fo us a eas fo the Upstate. This project is an important step in continuing these conversations, as it is the first time a g oup of people has gathe ed all the Upstate’s o p ehe si e pla s a d ele a t data i one place to analyze them.

At its heart, the project has been designed to highlight trends and issues facing the Upstate,

based on comprehensive plans and GIS data. It begins with an inventory of each of the

ou t ’s o p ehe si e pla s, hi h is a o je ti e a to displa the t pes of p oje ts and policies that the community would like pursued. The inventory is a quick way to assess

the efforts being made across all ten counties, and what is unique to each county.


Presbyterian College,

Laurens County

Clemson University,

Pickens County

6

The o i ed Futu e La d Use ap is a o e la ap of ea h ou t ’s i di idual futu e land use map, for the counties that had a future land use map. There were 4 counties that

did not have future land use maps so the current land use of those counties were used for

evaluation. It also includes the maps of the largest municipality in each county. This

p odu t is a isualizatio of the Upstate’s pla ed g o th patte s a d ill allo ea h county to see the compatibility of its future plans with neighboring counties and

u i ipalities. The g ou d truthing aps a e a a to o i e ou t -level data to

paint a regional picture of multi-jurisdictional issues. These maps offer a finer level of

detail than the comprehensive plans or future land use maps.

The SWOT analysis is an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

facing the Upstate, based on the information gathered from the previous steps. It

synthesizes these data into regional trends.

Fi all , this epo t i ludes ou t s apshots fo ea h of the Upstate’s ou ties. These a e desig ed as eada le su a ies of ea h ou t ’s ke assets a d defi i g featu es. They will also point out any specific issues or opportunities that each county may want to

consider as they relate to adjacent counties.

This report is a valuable step in furthering regional cooperation in Upstate, South Carolina.

The authors hope that it will provide a framework for discussion and that it will lead to

further research and collaboration. They would like to thank Ten at the Top staff members,

Upstate planners and stakeholders, and Clemson faculty who provided input and guidance

throughout this process.


Gaffney Prime Outlets,

Cherokee County

Burt-Stark Mansion,

Abbeville County

7

County Snapshots

An analysis of the full scope of issues surrounding planning in the Upstate is provided in this

report, but there are often occasions in which planners have limited windows of opportunity to

communicate planning issues with policymakers and the public. For this purpose, county

snapshots have been developed as one-page summary documents for each county. These

documents show where each county is located within the Upstate and highlight its main points

of interest, including its most populous municipalities.

In addition, the snapshots list some of the most important themes for each county as

evidenced by the comprehensive plans. The snapshots can be shared with the general public

to promote discussion and generate policy ideas.

8

County Snapshot: Abbeville County

Key Themes from the Comprehensive Plan

• Desire to retain small-town feel and character

• Takes pride in historic homes and architecture

• Highway 72 near Greenwood is key growth area

• Effectively marketing for industry and tourism

• Land is mostly preserved open space

County Characteristics

County Population: 25,417

County Seat: City of Abbeville

Municipal Populations > 1,000:

• Abbeville – 5,237 (County Seat)

• Calhoun Falls – 2,004

• Due West – 1,247

• Honea Path – 3,597

• Ware Shoals – 2,170

Points of Interest:

• Abbeville Opera House

• Erskine College

• The Civic Center

9

County Snapshot: Anderson County

Key Themes from the Comprehensive Plan*

• Significant growth along Highway 153 near Greenville

• Maintenance of water quality through stormwater management

• Diversification of housing to accommodate young professionals and older adults

• Preservation of agricultural land to support local food production

• Interest in multi-jurisdictional cooperation to address air quality issues



County Seat: City of Anderson

Most Populous Cities & Towns:

• Anderson – 26,686 (County Seat)

• Belton – 4,134

• Honea Path – 3,597

• Williamston – 3,934

• Pendleton – 2,964

Points of Interest:

• Anderson University

• A de so Fa e ’s Ma ket• Tri-County Technical College, Pendleton

and Anderson Campuses

• Ashtabula Plantation

10 *The Anderson County comprehensive plan analysis was produced using the draft document written in 2010. The document has not been approved by the Anderson County Council to date.

County Snapshot: Cherokee County


• Desire to attract industry for job growth

• Historic/scenic corridors and sites

• Ideal location for new businesses based on existing transportation network

• Cultural activities

• Focus on rural land uses



County Seat: City of Gaffney


• Gaffney – 12,414 (County Seat)

• Blacksburg – 1,848

• Chesnee – 868

• Smyrna – 45

Points of Interest:

• Gaffney Regional Shopping Outlet

• Cowpens National Battlefield

• Kings Mountain National Military Park

• Veterans Museum

11

County Snapshot: Greenville County


• Most populous county in South Carolina

• Regional hub for medical facilities

• Consistently low unemployment compared to the rest of the State

• Concerned about air quality and congestion levels

• Regional employment hub, attracting 50,000+ in-commuters

• Most farms in the Upstate, 4th most in the State



County Seat: City of Greenville


• Greenville – 60,709 (County Seat)

• Greer – 25,515

• Mauldin– 23,808

• Simpsonville – 19,056

• Fountain Inn – 7,898

Points of Interest:

• Downtown Greenville

• Paris Mountain State Park

• Swamp Rabbit Trail

• Furman University

• North Greenville University

12

County Snapshot: Greenwood County


• Focused on energy conservation

• Significant interest in airport improvements and expansion of alternative transportation opportunities

• Fo us o Upto ede elop e t a d revitalization

• A robust health care and R&D cluster

• Concerned with protecting forest land and areas with historic significance



County Seat: City of Greenwood


• Greenwood – 23,222 (County Seat)


• Ninety Six – 1,998

• Hodges – 155

• Troy – 93

Points of Interest:

• Lander University

• The Greenwood Civic Center

• Heritage Trail

• Lake Greenwood

• Piedmont Technical College

13

County Snapshot: Laurens County


• Interested in developing a public transportation system

• Focus on expanding water capacity to support new growth

• Focus on better marketing of historic sites

• Working to decrease soil erosion

• Focus on expanding economic partnerships in the region



County Seat: City of Laurens


• Laurens – 9,139 (County Seat)

• Clinton – 8,091

• Fountain Inn– 6,017


• Gray Court – 1,021

Points of Interest:

• Sumter National Forest

• Presbyterian College

• Lake Greenwood

• Musg o e’s Mill• Ha o d’s “to e• Hayes Station

14

County Snapshot: Oconee County


• Interested in regional collaboration through shared initiatives and shared services on projects such as watershed and solid waste management

• Interested in growing public transportation system

• Abundance of recreational and cultural opportunities to support eco-tourism industry

• Concerted effort to use utilities as a guide for development siting



County Seat: City of Walhalla


• Seneca – 8,102

• Walhalla – 3,801 (County Seat)

• Westminster – 2,418

• West Union – 291

• Salem – 135

Points of Interest:

• Oconee State Park

• Lakes Jocassee, Hartwell, and Keowee

• Issaqueena Falls

• Duke Po e ’s Wo ld of E e g• The Chattooga River

15

County Snapshot: Pickens County

Key Themes from the Comprehensive Plan*

• Focusing sewer expansion along US 123 and US 93

• Goal to build off of existing public transportation system to service aging and disabled populations, as well as students

• Desire to coordinate multi-county effort for cultural events and facilities

• Highest percentage of residential land use in the Upstate

• Interested in regional collaboration to improve I-85 corridor



County Seat: City of Pickens


• Easley – 20,098

• Clemson – 13,905

• Central – 5,159

• Liberty – 3,269

• Pickens – 3,126 (County Seat)

Points of Interest:

• Clemson University

• Southern Wesleyan

• Cherokee Foothills Scenic Byway

• Table Rock State Park

• Tri-County Technical College (Easley Campus)

16 *The Pickens County comprehensive plan analysis was produced using the draft document written in 2010. The document has not been approved by the Pickens County Council to date.

County Snapshot: Spartanburg County


• Goal to reduce congestion by increasing public transportation and bike-ped options

• Looking to increase growth management in unincorporated areas

• Beautification of gateway entrances from primary highway access points into downtowns and CBDs

• Preservation of scenic areas and creation of more greenways and trails



County Seat: City of Spartanburg


• Spartanburg – 37,013 (County Seat)• Greer – 25,515• Woodruff – 4,090• Lyman – 3,243• Duncan – 3,181

Points of Interest:

• Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

• BMW Manufacturing Facility

• Cherokee Foothills Scenic Highway

• Wofford College

• USC Upstate

• Converse College

17

County Snapshot: Union County


• Union County does not have a current Comprehensive Plan



County Seat: Union


• Union – 8,393 (County Seat)

• Jonesville – 911

• Lockhart – 488

• Carlisle – 436

Points of Interest:

• Sumter National Park

• Rose Hill Plantation State Park

• Rose Hill Mansion

• Broad River

18

Comprehensive Plan Analysis and MatrixTo guide the team assessment of multiple planning documents, as well as to present results in a format that will be simple to navigate for final document users, a matrix for key planning elements will be used to evaluate the extent to which each comprehensive plan supports specific strategies. The plans will be evaluated for the type of coverage they provide for each sub-element. The evaluation criteria are detailed in a legend on the following page.

In order to generate the matrix by which all plans were evaluated, the research team began with eight of the nine elements mandated by the South Carolina legislature, and created sub elements within each according to a review of a diverse selection of comprehensive planning guides. The Priority Investment element was not evaluated given that several of the counties did not include the element in their comprehensive plans, while the counties that did include the element addressed it in different ways. Commonly included information, as well as frequently utilized planning strategies among this literature, became the basis for which the breadth of content of each element within each county plan would come to be evaluated. However, this was an iterative process as each team member, beginning with a baseline of sub-elements for each planning element, would update the sub-elements as new relevant categories emerged throughout the course of the review.

For each individual planning element, a single team member was assigned to complete the analysis. The rationale for this process was to maintain the greatest degree of consistency across the different county plans. Another level of consistency built into the model was the criteria for which each planning sub-element was judged for its level of coverage. To minimize the subjectivity of individual interpretations, criteria were generated for which the team member could judge either their presence or absence within the sub-element, as opposed judging based on a scale or various degrees of completion. These criteria were thoroughly vetted in a group training process to ensure that the team had a uniform understanding of how the criteria were to be applied.

The intended benefit of this system is to make it easier to recognize which elements are in agreement among the majority of plans, and therefore presenting opportunities for collaboration on critical issues between the jurisdictions. Furthermore, if many counties display a lack of support for a key planning element, this may indicate the need for investigation of the issue at regional meetings and conferences.

Planning Elements

Population

Economic

Natural Resources

Cultural Resources

Community Facilities

Housing

Land Use

Transportation

19

Comprehensive Plan Analysis and Matrix

A Plans mentions or describes the issue

B Plan demonstrates data analysis regarding issue

C Plan describes previous or ongoing efforts to accommodate or adapt to the issue

D Plan suggests general goals for adaptation

E Plan sets specific methods for improvement or adaptation

F Plan establishes monitoring and metric for evaluation of specific programs

Matrix Legend

20


POPULATIONAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Minority Populations AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB

Educational Attainment AB AB ABC AB AB ABE

Growth Management AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB ABE

Attraction/expansion/retention AB

Aging ABDE ABCDE AB AB AB ABDE ABC ABC ABCD

Densification AB AB AB AB AB AB AB

Poverty AB A ABC AB AB ABE

Concentrated Poverty AB ABE

Segregation/Enclaves

21**The Pickens County Comprehensive Plan Analysis was produced using the draft document written in 2010. The document has not been approved by the Pickens County Council to date.

*The Anderson County comprehensive plan analysis was produced using the draft document written in 2012. The document has not been approved by the Anderson County Council to date.


POPULATION

Factors Described in Each of the

Comprehensive Plans

Minority Populations

Aging Population

Growth Management

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Population Projections for the Upstate

Abbeville Anderson Cherokee Greenville Greenwood

Laurens Oconee Pickens Spartanburg Union

22


ECONOMICAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Aging Workforce AB

Agricultural Development AB AD AD ABCDE AE AD AD

Below Poverty Line AB AB AB AB AB

Brownfield ABCD

Business Retention/Expansion A D AC A AD

Chamber of Commerce AD AB A

Citizen Participation AD

Clusters AB ABD AD

Commercial/Retail Development AB ABD ABCD A AD A

Cost of Living ABD AB AB AB AD

Culture AD ABCDE A

Diversification A ABD AD ABCD A AD AD

Downtown Revitalization A ABCDE A AC

Economic Development Corporations/Organizations ACDE ACD ACD ABC A

Education ABD ADE ABCD ABD ABDE AC

Entrepreneurial Development AD ABCD AD

Equitable Growth A AD AD ACD A AD AB

Executive Housing

Export base ABCD A A ABC AD

Exporting Labor AB AB A

Funds and Grants ADE

Greyfield/Vacancy ABCDE

Hispanic Population AB

GIS A ADE

Growth Impacts AD AE AD ABCDE AD ADE ABDE

Housing/Workforce AD AB ADE

Housing/Jobs Balance A

Infill AD ABCDE AD AD

Importing Labor AB AB

Incentives ABDE ABCDE AD

Incubators ABC

Industrial Recruitment AD ABCD AD ABCD AD AD ABD

Industrial Site Inventory AE ABDE AE AD

Industrial/Business Park ABE AB ABCD AD

Inter-Jurisdictional Partnerships ADE AD ABCDE ACD ABCDE A

Labor Force Participation ABD

Land Use/ Controls/Zoning AD ADE AD ABDE AD ADE AD

Low Income/Wages ABD ABD AB A ABD AB ABD

23


ECONOMICAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Marketing AD AD ACD ADE

Mixed Use AD

Organizational and Leadership Development AD ACDE AD AD

Outdoor Recreation AB ABCDE AB AD

Permiting and Approval AD AD

Planning AD ADE

Public/Private Infrastructure ABE ABCD AD

Quality of Life/Amenities AD AD AD AD A A

Residential Development/Attraction A AD AB A

Retail Leakage A

Road Network AB

Small Business ABCD

STEM Education AD AD

Tax Revenue AD AD ABD ABC

TIF Districts

Tourism A ABCDEF A ABD ADE

Transit /Housing/Jobs AB

Transport infrastructure ADE ABD AD AB AD ABCDE AD

Unemployment AB AB AB AB AB AB A

Unions AB AB AD

Workforce Development AD ABD ABCD AD A

Young Graduates AD ABD AD

Utilities General Development AD AD ACD ACD AD

Water AD AB AD ABCDEF

Sewer AD AB AD ACDE AC

Solid Waste ABDE

Stormwater AD

Gas AB

Electricity AB

Telecommunications AB

Air AB AB ACDE A

Rail AB AD

Agriculture AB AB ABDE AB AB ABD

Administration and Government AB AB AB AB AB AB AB

Certified Trades A AB

Construction ABD AB A AB AB ABD AB

Education Services AB A AB AB AB

Entertainment, Art AB AB AB AB

Environmental Services AB AB

24


ECONOMICAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Finance and Insurance ABD AB AB ABD ABD AB

Headquarters ABE A AD

Knowedge/High tech, Information Technology AB ABD AB ABD AB A AD

Manufacturing AB ABCD AB AB AB A AB ABD

Medical/Health AB AB AB ABCD AB A

Natural Resources/Mining AB AB AB AB

Real Estate AB AB AB ABD AB

Professional Services, Science, Management AB AB AB AB AB AB ADE

Services/Retail/Hospitality ABD AB AB AB ABD ABD AB

Textiles AB AB AB ABD A AB

Transportation/distribution ABD ABD AB AB AB ABD AB

Utilities AB AB AB AB

Wholesale ABD AB AB AB AB ABD AB




33%

33%

33%

22%

22%

22%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Growth Impacts

Inter-jurisdictional

Boundaries

Land Use/

Controls/Zoning

Education

Incentives

Tourism

Transport

Infrastructure

Percentage of Upstate Plans With Goals AND

Methods for Adoption by Factor ECONOMIC

Dominant Regional Strategies

Agricultural Development

Diversification

Industrial Recruitment

Transport Infrastructure

Unemployment

Administration and Government

Manufacturing

Transportation and Distribution

Wholesale26


NATURAL RESOURCESAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Food Systems

Agricultural Preservation ABCD ABD AD ABDE AB

Surface Water AB ABCDE AB ABC ABCDE AD ABCDEF ABCD ABCDE

Impervious Surface AD AD ABE

Air Quality ABCDE ABCF ABDE AD A

Regional Parks Expansion and Preservation A ABC AB

Soil Quality ABD ABCDE A A ABDE ABDE ABDE AB ABDE

Floodplains AD ABCD A A AD AD ABDE

Wetlands ABD ABCD A A ABCDE

Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution ABCD ADE ADE AC A

Point Source Pollution A

Groundwater ABCD ABD AD AB ABDE

Water Supply A A A

Forests ABD ABCD AB ABDE ABD ABD ABCDE

Habitats ABDE A ABCD ABDE

Corridors

Biodiversity A AB AB A ABD AB

Invasive Species A

Endangered Species ABD A AB AB AB ABC ABD ABDE

Scenic Resources and Eco-Tourism AD ABDE AB A AB ABD ABD

Mineral Extraction AB AB AB

Land Conservation A ABCDE ABCD ABD




55%

44%

22%

22%

22%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Soil Quality

Watershed

Health/Surface

Air Quality

Stormwater/

Nonpoint

Forests

Habitats


Methods for Adoption by Factor NATURAL RESOURCES


Comprehensive Plans

Watershed Health; Surface Water

Soil Quality

28


CULTURAL RESOURCESAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Performing Arts AB ABD AB A AB AB AB ABDE

Fine Arts A A AB AE A ABE AB A

Arts Center AB AB AB ABCE AE AB AB

Museum ABC AB ABCDE AE AE AB AE

Library AB ABCD AB ABC AB AE AB

Historic Preservation ABD AE AE ABCD AD ADE ABE ABCDE

Archaeological Resources ABE A

Federal and State Funding AE A ABC A A A

Regional Partnerships D ABE AE A

Community Organizations AB A AE A AD ABC

Community Centers A A

Historic Sites ABE ABCE AB AB ABD ABD ABDE ABCDE AB

Historic Districts ABE ABE ABDE AB AB

Community Festivals AB A ABE ABE A ABE AB

Scenic Byways and Trails AD A ABDE AB

Public Art AE

Arts Incubators

Sports Leagues A

Historic Preservation Overlay Districts A A




22%

22%

11%

11%

11%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Historic Preservation

Historic Sites

Performing Arts

Museum

Historic Districts

Scenic Byways/Trials


Methods for Adoption by Factor CULTURAL RESOURCES


Comprehensive Plans

Historic Sites

30


COMMUNITY FACILITIESAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Stormwater Structure ABDE AE ABD AE A AB

EMS ABF ABDEF A AB ABD ABE ABE ABD

Water Quality ABCDEF AE AE A ABDEF ABDF

Water Conservation AE AE ABDE ABE

Water Utilities ABC ABC ABCE ABD ABEF ABCD ABDE ABDE ABCD

Police Service ABF AB A ABF AB ABE ABE ABCDF

Fire Service ABEF ABDF AE AB ABEF ABDF AB ABCDEF

Recreation ABCF ABDE ABDE ABF ABCDF ACE ABE ABDE ABCDEF

Schools K-12 ABD ABCD ABEF ABDEF ABCDE ABC ABEF ABC ABDEF

Higher ED AB ABCD AB ABD ABC AB ABC

Health Systems AB AB AB ABE ABC ABE ABCD

Solid Waste Facilities ABC ABD A AB ABCD AE ABDE AB ABD

Recycling AB ABE A ABF AB AE AE ABC

Sanitary Sewer ABD AB ABE ABDEF ABDE ABCD ABDE ABCD ABDE

Libraries AB ABCDEF AB AB ABC ABCE AB ABD

Public Parks ABDF ABDEF ABD ABF ABCDF AC AE ABCDE AB

Regional Partnerships AD ADE ACE

Prisons AB ABCE ABDE AE A ABDE

Dispatch Centers A ABC A

Emergency Services AB AB

Multi-Use Trails AC AB AD AB ABE ABF

Federal and State Funding A ADE ABE

Courthouses A A AD A AB A ABD

Administrative Buildings A AE ADE AB ABD

Electrical Utility ABE A

Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities ABE

Natural Gas AE ABE




44%

44%

33%

22%

22%

22%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Recreation

Sanitary Sewer

Schools K-12

Water Quality

Water Utility

Public Parks

Prisons


Methods for Adoption by Factor COMMUNITY FACILITIES


Comprehensive Plans

Water Utility

Recreation

Schools (K-12)

Solid Waste Facilities

Sanitary Sewer

Libraries

Parks

32


HOUSINGAbbeville

County

Anderson

County

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County*

Spartanburg

County

Affordable Housing A ABD AD AD ABCDF A ABD ABCD ABD

Aging Stock AB AB AB AB AB

Architecture Review AE ACE

Brownfields ABC

Code Enforcement AC ACD AD AD ACDE ACDE

Cost-Burdened Renters AB AB AB AB AB

Cost-Burden Owners AB AB AB AB

Densification ADE AD AB

Diversification ADE AD AD ABD AD AD AB

Elderly Housing A AD AD ABD A A ABC AC

Energy-Efficiency ABC

Foreclosures A AB AD

Historic Preservation AD ABCDE AE

Housing Agency and Committee ADE ADE A ABCD

Housing For Special Needs AD A ABD AD AC

Housing Funds and Grants AD ACDE AD AD AC ABCD

Housing and Jobs AD A AD

Incentives AD AD ACD AD AD

Inclusionary Zoning ADE

Infill AD AD AD AD AD A A

Inspection AE

Infrastructure AD A ABCDE AD ADE A ADE

Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation AD AE ADE AD ABCD

Land Development Regulations AD AD AD

Lakes A AD A

Land Conservation AD A AD AD ABDE A

Land Cost A A

Lending A A A AC AC

Low Values AB AB AB AB

33


HOUSINGAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Manufactured Housing Standards ADE ABC ADE AB ACDE

Middle-Income Housing ADE A A AB

Mill Villages ABD

Mixed-Income Neighborhoods AD A

Mixed-Use ACD AD AE

Neighborhood Associations ACD

Neighborhood Plans AD ADE AD

Non-Profits AD AD ABC

Overcrowding AB AB

Ownership A AB AB AB ABD AB AB AB AB

Parks, Open Space Expansion and Development AD AD ADE

Pedestrian Shed AD

Public Housing Assistance AB A A ABCD

Public Housing AB A ABCDE

Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing ADE AD ADE

Rental Market AB AB

Regional Partnerships AD AE

Rehabilitation AD AD ACD AD AD ABCD

Road Network A

Sprawl AD AD AD AD AD

Substandard AB ABC ACD AB AB ABD ABD ABD A

Transit AD AD

Utility Service A A ADE

Vacancies ABD AB AB AB AB ABD

Vehicle Ownership AB

Zoning Controls and Compatible Uses ADE AD ADE AD AD

Zoning Controls and Affordable Housing AD AD AD




33%

33%

22%

22%

22%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Infrastructure

Manufactured

Housing Standards

Code Enforcement

Housing

Agency/Committee

Regulatory Barriers

to Affordable

Housing

Zoning

Controls/Compatible

Uses


Methods for Adoption by Factor HOUSING


Comprehensive Plans

Affordable Housing

Home Ownership

Substandard Dwellings

35


LAND USEAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Residential Expansion AC ABC AC ABCE ABCDE AC ABCDE ABC ABCDE

Commercial Expansion AC ABCDE ABCDEF ABCDEF AC ABCDEF ABCDE ABCDE

Commercial Strip Development AC AC A

Industrial Expansion AC ABCD A ABCDE ABCDE AC ABCDEF ABCDE ABCDE

Utility Service Expansion A A ABCDE A A AE

Public Service Expansion A AE

Mixed-Use Development ACE ABCD ABCD ABCDE ACE ABCDE ADE ABCDEF

Infill and Redevelopment AC AC A ACE

Smart Growth ABCD A ACD ABCDEF ABCDEF

Agricultural Preservation AC ABCDEF ABCDE ABCDF AC ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE

Open Space Preservation AC AB A A ABCDE AC ABC ABE

Hazard Areas Classification ABCDE A

Environmental Sensitivity AE A A ABC AE AB ABCD ABC

Existing Land Use Issues ABCE A ABCDE ABCDE A ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE

Future Land Use ACE AB ADE ABCDEF ABCDE ACE ABCDEF ABCDEF ABCDE

Existing Zoning District ABC

Highway Corridors AE ABCE

Land Development Suitability AE AB

Urbanized Areas A AE A ADE AC

Rural Townships ABE AE AC




67%

67%

56%

56%

56%

44%

33%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Commercial

Expansion

Future Land Use

Industrial Expansion

Agricultural

Preservation

Existing Land Use

Issues

Mixed Use

Development

Residential Expansion

Smart Growth


Methods for Adoption by Factor LAND USE


Comprehensive Plans

Residential Expansion

Industrial Expansion

Future Land Use

37


TRANSPORTATIONAbbeville

County

Anderson

County*

Cherokee

County

Greenville

County

Greenwood

County

Laurens

County

Oconee

County

Pickens

County**

Spartanburg

County

Public Transit AB AB ABDE ABCDE ABCDE AD ABDE

Freight and Passenger Rail AB AB AB ABCDE ABD ABCD AD AB

Bikeways and Bikes AB ABE A ABCDE ABCDE AD ADE

Sidewalks, Pedestrians, Walkability AB ABE A ABCDE ABCDE ABD ADE

Trails and Greenways ABE ABD ABCDE ACDE ABCD ADE

Regional & Local Connectivity, Street Patterns, Commuting

PatternsAB A AB AB ABCD ABD ABD AD AB

Scenic Corridors, Street Plantings, Aesthetics A ABE ABCD ABDE ABCDE ABD ABCDE

Industry & Employment Connections AB ADE ABCD ABCD ABD ADE A ABD

Bridges and Culverts ABCE ABE

Transit-Oriented Development AB

Right-of-Way Acquisition and Preservation A ABCDE AD

Road and Infrastructure Improvements ABC ABCDE ABCDE A ABCDEF ABCDE ABCDE ABDE ABCDE

Demand Management, LOS, Road Classifications, Safety ABCDEF ABCDE ABC ABCDE ABCDE ABDE ABCDEF ABD ABCDE

Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Air Quality A ADE ABCDE ADE ABCD A

Parking AB A ADE AB

Complete Streets A

Traffic Signals, Intersections, Signal Timing A A ABC

Air Transport ABDE ABCDE ABCD ABCDE ABC

General Financing ABCE ADE AB ABCDE ABCDE ABCD ABCD ABDE




78%

78%

45%

45%

33%

33%

33%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Demand

Management

Infrastructure

Improvements

Public Transit

General Financing

Scenic Corridors

Air Quality

Bikeways

Sidewalks and

Walkability


Methods for Adoption by Factor TRANSPORTATION


Comprehensive Plans

Regional and Local Connectivity; Street

Patterns; Commuting Patterns

Demand Management; Level of Service;

Road Classifications; Safety

Road and Infrastructure Improvements

39

Upstate Future Land Use

The project team retrieved ArcGIS Future Land Use files from the counties that were able to provide them. Each county has a different approach to its future land use map. In order to make the combined map more useful, the tea ollapsed ea h of the ou t ’s u i ue la d use categories into the following:

• Low-Density Residential

• Medium-Density Residential

• High-Density Residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Public

• Open Space, Recreation, and Agriculture

• U.S. Forest

• Municipal

Cherokee, Union, Laurens, and Abbeville County did not have future land use maps. The land uses represented in the model are representative of the current land uses for each of those respective counties.

This map allows planners to compare land use patterns across jurisdictional borders and sheds light on current development strategies. It is a tool to identify key challenges and opportunities, such as incompatible development patterns or potential inter-jurisdictional partnerships for community facilities.

40

Land Cover Assessment

Comprehensive Plans and Future Land Use Maps are intended for use as a guide to direct short-term and long-term local development. Using the United “tates Geologi al “u e ’s U“G“ Natio al La d Cover Data Base, planners can understand where development has occurred over time. USGS uses increments of five and ten year studies of land development. For the purposes of this analysis, the time periods from 1992-2001 and from 2001-2011 were selected to provide the most up-to-date analysis of land coverage in the Upstate.

New development was defined as any land classification that changed to developed open space, low density, medium density, or high density. Because there are a wide variety of classes in the National Land Cover Database, any other changes to la d o e e e atego ized as othe ha ges. Between 1992 and 2011, the majority of new development occurred along major transportation corridors and around existing urban areas. Within this time period, the majority of growth in the Upstate occurred between 1992-2001. Full statistics for land cover change can be found in the Appendix.

41

Land Cover Assessment

42

Regional SWOT Analysis

Using information gathered from the county comprehensive plans and the first four parts of this project as a guide, the team conducted a series of regional analyses to highlight the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) to the Upstate region by element.

Specifically, the SWOT Analysis focuses on cross-jurisdictional topics such as the transportation network, watershed quality, and economic development strategies. Although some of these topics are more relevant to some counties than others, the current analysis attempts to analyze how some of these trends will positively or negative affect the Upstate.

Co p ehe si e pla s e ist as a efle tio of a o u it ’s olle ti e isio . The “WOT a al sis focuses on the issues that are most consistently identified in the comprehensive plans of the Upstate. It can be used in conjunction with other planning documents and data to inform proactive public policy and to foster regional partnerships.

53

Po

pu

lati

on

Strengths

• Projected population growth for the region

• Increasing ethnic diversity enriches range of

cultural offerings in the Upstate

Weaknesses

• Uneven levels of educational attainment

• Decline of population in municipalities to

suburban and rural areas

• Unemployment rates consistently above state

and national averages

Opportunities

• Increased immigration into the region

• Workforce development programs to meet

needs of incoming industry

Threats

• Need for expanded facilities and services to

accommodate the aging population

• Challenge of retaining young, educated

graduates

• Lack of coordinated strategies to combat

concentrated poverty

54

Eco

no

mic

Strengths

• Strong regional development organizations such as Upstate

Alliance

• Widespread development of local Economic Development

organizations

• Widespread support for industrial recruitment strategies

• Common recognition of the potential impacts of

development

• Public Private partnerships for R&D

• Infrastructure support industrial development

• Strong support for workforce development through

educational strategies

• Quality higher education institutions

Weaknesses

• Little mention of business expansion and retention strategies

• Low wages and income compared to state averages.

• Programs for entrepreneurs/small business fairly absent in

planning elements

• Low retention rate for young graduates

• Lack of housing near places of employment

• Lack of specificity of economic development strategies

Opportunities

• Planning for agricultural development

• Marketing for outdoor recreation and tourism

• Increased land use controls to assure the availability of

industrial/commercial land

• Inter-jurisdictional partnerships for industrial parks

• Attraction of industry based on improved quality of

life/amenities

• Concentration of industry on existing infrastructure/infill

development

Threats

• Uncertain funding for future transportation improvements

• Increased mechanization of industry

• Shrinking manufacturing employment

• Diminished air quality potential impediment to growth

55

Na

tura

l R

eso

urc

es

Strengths

• Widespread support for strategies supporting soil

quality

• Abundance of water for utilities and recreational

purposes

• Awareness of watershed health and methods for

adaptation

• Strong presence of regional/local conservation

organizations

• Awareness and documentation of endangered

species

Weaknesses

• No comprehensive inventory of point source

water pollution outfalls

• Need for greater groundwater awareness and

preservation

• General lack of discussion of stormwater

management regulations

Opportunities

• Desire for regional air quality improvement

strategies

• Prospect for regional approaches to watershed

health

• Joint marketing of opportunities for eco-

tourism

Threats

• Development pressures on environmentally

sensitive and scenic areas

• Loss of forest and habitat

• Increased runoff and associated water quality

concerns

• Loss of prime farmland to development

56

Cu

ltu

ral

Re

sou

rce

sStrengths

• Abundance of historic sites dating back to

Revolutionary and Civil Wars

• Public support for protection of historic sites

• Performing and fine arts centers clustered in

municipalities

• Many unique local festivals and traditions

Weaknesses

• Lack of public art

• Some counties lack inventory of cultural and/or

historic resources

• General under-marketing of cultural resources

• Lack of cultural opportunities for diverse age

groups

Opportunities

• National Heritage Corridor as vehicle to market

counties' cultural and historic resources

• Openness to use of historic preservation

overlay districts

• Libraries could offer training for the aging

population

Threats

• Many historic sites are on the National Register

but lack funding for maintenance

57

Co

mm

un

ity

Fa

cili

tie

sStrengths

• Consensus to develop a regional multi-use trail

system

• Strong presence of higher education

institutions

• Extensive health care system

• Several state and national parks

Weaknesses

• Aging sewer and water infrastructure

• Number and complexity of special service

districts

• Uneven geographic distribution of community

parks

Opportunities

• Workforce development programs through

local colleges

• Better coordination of sewer expansion for

future growth

• Desire to create locally-tailored evaluation

metrics for community facilities

• Regional partnerships to support expanded

recycling

Threats

• Narrow rural roads in some counties make it

difficult for emergency vehicles to pass

• Little mention of planning for assisted living

facilities despite aging population

58

Ho

usi

ng

Strengths

• Natural resources promote strong residential

growth

• Strong support for equitable housing growth

• Robust home ownership

• Overall support for infill development

• Planners oriented toward land conservation

• Awareness and planning for diverse housing

needs

Weaknesses

• Scarcity of affordable housing

• Lack of housing for the elderly

• Cost burdens (Tenants paying more than 30% of

their income in rent)

• Concentrations of manufactured housing

• Uneven support for mixed use development

• Historical preservation of housing infrequently

emphasized

• Lack of emphasis on credit and lending

Opportunities

• Growing housing market for retirees

• Breadth of support for inter-jurisdictional

partnerships

• Exploring incentives for affordable housing

development

Threats

• Under-regulated residential growth

• Lack of energy efficiency contributing to

housing cost

• Uncertainty of future housing funds/grants

• Low growth in family households

• Regulatory barriers to affordable housing

development

59

Lan

d U

seStrengths

• Increasing consciousness of sustainable,

compact development patterns

• Abundant supply of open space

• Regulations support industrial/commercial

development

Weaknesses

• Sprawling land use patterns dominate much of

the Upstate

• Development patterns outpacing community

facilities and services

• General lack of zoning

Opportunities

• Large tracts of undeveloped land provide

flexibility

• Better integration of transportation and land

use planning

• Focus on redeveloping and revitalizing

downtowns

Threats

• Development pressure on prime farmland

• Insufficient protection for established

residential areas from incompatible

development

• Incompatible land uses across county borders

60

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Strengths

• Interstate 85 connects the Upstate to Atlanta

and Charlotte

• Extensive freight rail network

• Greenville-Spartanburg Airport and smaller,

regional airports facilitate connections to local

and national markets

• Wide variety of scenic highways

Weaknesses

• Limited public transit coverage

• Abundance of automobile-oriented

development

• Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities

• Poor road quality

• Absence of transit oriented development (TOD)

Opportunities

• Open space and waterways could act as

corridors for a regional greenway and multi-

use trail network

• Commuting patterns create demand for cross-

county transit

Threats

• Lack of sufficient funding for infrastructure

improvements despite increased usage of

roadways

• Increased congestion leads to poor air quality

and the possibility of falling out of attainment

• Sprawling land use patterns are not pedestrian

friendly

61

Conclusions

One of the fundamental goals of this project was to identify trends in the comprehensive plans of the Upstate counties. The first step of this analysis was to distill the content of the plans into the standardized framework of the planning element matrices. The matrices are a quick and easy way to identify the topics that counties are focusing on and the ways in which they discuss them. The team used the details of the matrices to communicate the overarching themes affecting each policy area in the Upstate. There is a substantial amount of overlap between some of the elements, demonstrating the holistic nature of the planning profession. Poor air quality is an environmental concern, but it is equally concerning from a public health and economic development point of view. Promoting infill development over sprawl is efficient in terms of community facilities, but it may also benefit public transit and reduce development pressure on sensitive environmental areas.

Regional Environmental Resources

Environmental quality has emerged both from the comprehensive

plans and from conversations with local planners as an issue that is

both cross-jurisdictional and related to many of the planning

elements. The Upstate is fortunate to have tremendous assets in its

hydrological systems, prime farmland, and scenic beauty, which

contribute significantly to the ecological and economic health of the

region. The comprehensive plans indicate both the value and

vulnerability of these resources, suggesting a need to mitigate the

impacts of development in the region through land use controls and

coordinated public policy.Lake Keowee

62

Conclusions

All nine of the plans discussed watershed health, with six of the plans describing previous efforts to address the issue and general plans to improve water quality. Four of the plans recommend specific water policy strategies, including land development regulations to reduce stormwater runoff. Watershed health was most thoroughly covered by the counties in the northwest corner of the region, as this is the location of Lakes Jocassee, Keowee, Hartwell, and Greenwood. The quality of these water sources will depend heavily on cross-jurisdictional efforts to reduce the impact of development. Even the counties that are not directly adjacent to a lake must be included in these efforts, as the tributaries extend across political boundaries. A number of counties rely on the lakes for drinking water, and the regional economic impact of their recreational draw is significant.

. The comprehensive plans indicated the need for a comprehensive inventory of point

source pollution outfalls in the area. Five plans address non-point sources of

pollution through stormwater management in their natural resources element. One

plan discusses previous efforts to address the issue and two plans set specific goals

for future remediation. New impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots

contribute to non-point source pollution by preventing water from naturally filtering

through soil and vegetation before reaching ground and surface water supplies.

Although an increase in impervious surface is inevitable with new development,

there are strategies to reduce runoff. Three plans raised the issue of increasing

impervious surfaces and established goals to address it in the future. For example,

G ee ood Cou t set the e pli it st ateg of i easi g the i pe ious su fa e atio e ui e e ts fo iti al ate sheds of the ou t as ell as e ou agi g

development with pervious surface (Greenwood County, 2011). Any long-term

strategy to improve watershed health will need to include all stakeholders within the

watershed. Planners could help facilitate this process.

Furman University Rain Garden

(Greenville County)

63

Conclusions

Another regional concern that emerged from both the natural resources and economic elements was the wealth of prime agriculturalland, the continuing economic importance of the agricultural sector, and the need to protect prime farmland and soil from theimpacts of unregulated development. All nine plans engaged soil quality, with five of them recommending specific goals. In Anderson Cou t , he e % soils a e lassified as p i e fa la d o fa la d of state ide i po ta e, st ategies ha e e ol ed to e phasize the importance of this resource in land development, such as the maintenance of agricultural districts as well as the future requirement that infrastructure projects minimize their impact on prime agricultural land (Anderson County, 2013). Seven plans discussed agriculture in terms of economic development and six offered goals to support the sector. This topic was covered mostextensively by Greenwood County, which pointed out that its farms have increased in productivity even as the aggregate number offarms has decreased. The increasing consolidation of agricultural markets could create economic challenges for small and mid-size producers. Some counties have begun regional efforts to preserve smaller-scale farmland. For example, Greenwood County describes its five- ou t pa t e ship ith the He itage Co ido Fa e s Asso iatio , a d the o ga izatio ’s effo ts to i t odu e an agriculture component to the National Heritage Corridor. With the regional presence of several major agricultural institutions, the Upstate could create regional partnerships to support agricultural development and the preservation of important soil.

Air quality is a significant issue facing the Upstate, not only for physical health of residents, but the also the economic well-being of the region. If portions of the Upstate fall into non-attainment for EPA air quality standards, as they have done in the past, it will be more difficult for the Upstate to attract industry. Despite the regional importance of the issue, our research found only five counties engaging the topic in comprehensive planning. This may be a reflection of the fact that critical areas for ground level ozone are surrounding the I-85 corridor that intersects five counties in the study area. However, with the regional importance of this corridor and the role it plays in transporting goods and the workforce throughout the region, a broad-based effort to manage travel demand may be one way to reduce emissions. Eight of the plans include goals to reduce congestion through travel demand, with five of these including goals to increase the provision of public transit. The significant level of commuting between counties might be anopportunity to reduce demand through expanded transit service.

64

Conclusions

Ma of the pla s dis uss the pote tial to apitalize o the egio ’s atu al resources for recreation and tourism. Seven plans mention ecotourism in their

atu al esou es se tio , hi h ould fo a pa t of the egio ’s o e all tou is and marketing strategy. A common theme in the cultural resources sections was that the counties are rich in historical sites, but they often lack a comprehensive inventory or marketing strategy to promote them. Five plans discuss tourism in relation to economic development, with three of them including goals to enhance current efforts.

Oconee County includes ecotourism as one approach for diversifying its economic base, observing that the tourism industry is the second largest employer statewide. Directly related to this plan is an explicitly defined set of strategies for the protection of natural resources and scenic areas, with special emphasis on the Highway 11 corridor. This highway begins in southern Oconee County and runs northeast through Pickens, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Cherokee County. Scenic Highway 11 is frequently mentioned in the comprehensive plans as an important natural resource, and is another opportunity for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in terms of its maintenance and marketing efforts outside the region. The Cherokee County plan warned of unfettered housing development near the highway, and the potential degradation of its scenic qualities. Taking these factors into account, the Upstate seems to be aware of how these resources contribute to the overall wealth of the region and determined to protect them.

Laurel Fork Falls (Pickens County)

65

Conclusions

Economic and Human Potential

The most frequently cited economic development tools in the Upstate are the diversification of the economic base and strategies for targeted industrial recruitment, with seven plans discussing these approaches. The regional focus on these strategies is attributed to the decline of textile manufacturing over the past few decades. The Upstate has retained its interest in manufacturing, but hasnarrowed its focus to include sectors with advanced technology, high growth potential, and high wages. It has benefited from its location and strong transportation links to the larger regional markets of Atlanta and Charlotte. However, in order to successfully recruit advanced manufacturing firms, professional services, and knowledge-based industries, the Upstate must also prepare its workforce with adequate skills and education to fill the jobs. Six plans mentioned the link between education and economic de elop e t, a d the all eithe des i ed futu e goals o p e ious effo ts to i ease thei ou t ’s edu atio al attai e t. This is encouraging because parts of the Upstate have traditionally lagged in both educational attainment and educational funding per pupil. The increasing presence of higher education institutions and new research and development facilities connected to industry clusters, su h as those e tio ed i A de so a d G ee ood’s pla s, suggest i eased oppo tu ities fo o kfo e de elop e t i the Upstate.

Another component of the regional economic strategy is future land use planning. Seven plans identified land use controls as a critical tool to promote the development of industry. Proactive planning prevents prime industrial land from conversion to other uses and allows for the coordinated development of infrastructure. In addition, this type of planning reduces future conflicts between incompatible land uses. These discussions tended to under represent goals and strategies for small business and entrepreneurialdevelopment. Because a vast number of jobs are created by small businesses, it was surprising not to see a more robust coverage of the area. However, it may be that small business development is relegated to smaller area plans and community development, while county-wide plans focus on a broader view.

66

Limitations

The fundamental focus of the research was the analysis of land use and development strategies in the Upstate region by comparingcomprehensive plans, one of the fundamental documents that guide these processes from a public policy perspective. Certainly, there is significant insight to be derived from an examination of the essential components of these plans, identifying the primary differences and commonalities in order to illuminate the potential for collaboration, as well as possible areas of disagreement as multiple jurisdictions navigate through collective challenges and manage common resources. The team would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to all of the planners and professionals who contributed their time, resources, and expertise to this project.

The majority of the data for this project was derived solely from these documents, while a robust and voluminous trove of regional data and designs, there were limitations in relying solely on comprehensive plans to generalize about regional trends. For example, if a particular strategy or concept is missing from the majority of plans, this may either indicate that it is irrelevant to the upstate planning context, or that it was overlooked or intentionally omitted. Two very different conclusions derive from either scenario, presenting a challenge to the team in interpretation.

There was a significant issue presented by the age of several plans reviewed by the team. With the amount of time elapsed since the drafting of several comprehensive plans, the team was at times concerned in regard to the potential obsolescence of certain data. Comprehensive plans, while in general are future oriented documents, are drafted at a point in time and may heavily reflect the most salient concerns of that particular moment. Therefore, this analysis reflects a synthesis of numerous points in time, which complicates the comparability of these documents. In certain cases the team was tempted to reach beyond the comprehensive plan, to update the data presented with more contemporary information applicable to the material discussed in the document. However, to carry out this process consistently throughout the analysis of all nine plans would have expanded the scope of the project significantly, in addition to fundamentally altering the nature of the inquiry.

67

Limitations

Incomplete data was also a barrier to a fully realized product. The absence of one county plan as well as missing elements and land use maps from several counties reduced the breadth of analysis in the final document. The priority investment element was excluded from analysis in the matrix due to the insurmountable differences in the presentation of the data, in addition to being excluded from several plans. It is infrequently the case in which a research study has perfect data on which to rely, but it is imperative that the shortcomings be acknowledged at the outset in order to fully inform the reader in generating their own conclusions from the material presented. Despite these deficiencies in specific sources, there was sufficient information to present a substantive exploration of the significant themes of county-wide planning in the Upstate region.

68

Future Research

For a more holistic view of comprehensive planning in the ten counties, future research should take into consideration the

comprehensive plans of the major municipalities in the study area, in addition to the county seats. The fact that a significant

amount of the growth in the study area has occurred in unincorporated places, and the vast amount of land is covered in

county planning makes our project a necessary first step to assessing the dominant land use trends and planning issues in the

region. The opportunities for collaboration that were discussed in the county plans were frequently made in reference to

their municipalities. Therefore, the ability to magnify the future land patterns of the county and municipal boundaries would

demonstrate how these partnerships are borne out in reality. As we have drawn in our conclusion, some of the sub-elements

that we have investigated within the nine planning elements could be potentially more oriented toward municipal planning

processes than county wide planning. Taking these factors into account, exploring the plans of the major municipalities in

the ten counties would provide a more robust view of how our sub-elements and associated criteria are represented in the

upstate.

69

Appendix

-

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

Abbeville Anderson Cherokee Greenville Greenwood Laurens Oconee Pickens Spartanburg Union

Urb

an

La

nd

Co

ve

r (m

ile

s2)

TATT Urban Land Cover Change

1992

2001

2011

Source: U.S.G.S.70

Appendix

County 1992 2001 2011 Change (92 – 11)

Abbeville 29.02 34.86 35.67 6.65

Anderson 102.69 130.21 139.71 37.01

Cherokee 36.12 43.95 45.42 9.29

Greenville 170.74 205.38 227.28 56.55

Greenwood 45.80 55.39 57.85 12.04

Laurens 54.69 70.50 73.08 18.39

Oconee 42.26 63.20 68.01 25.75

Pickens 56.42 76.76 80.66 24.25

Spartanburg 144.99 170.57 185.51 40.52

Union 25.67 27.74 28.57 2.90

Total 708.41 878.56 941.75 233.34

TATT Urban Land Cover Change (in miles2)

Source: U.S.G.S.

71

Appendix

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

USA South Carolina TATT

Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

Ra

te

TATT Population Growth Rate

1990-2000

2000-2010

Source: U.S. Census72

County 1990 2000 % Change 2010 % Change2

Abbeville County 23,862 26,167 9.7% 25,417 -2.9%

Anderson County 145,196 165,740 14.1% 187,126 12.9%

Cherokee County 44,506 52,537 18.0% 55,342 5.3%

Greenville County 320,167 379,616 18.6% 451,225 18.9%

Greenwood County 59,567 66,271 11.3% 69,661 5.1%

Laurens County 69,567 70,293 1.0% 66,537 -5.3%

Oconee County 57,494 66,215 15.2% 74,273 12.2%

Pickens County 93,894 110,757 18.0% 119,224 7.6%

Spartanburg County 226,800 253,791 11.9% 284,307 12.0%

Union County 30,337 28,539 -5.9% 28,961 1.5%

TATT 1,071,390 1,219,926 13.9% 1,362,073 11.7%

South Carolina 3,486,703 4,012,012 15.1% 4,625,364 15.3%

USA 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2% 308,745,538 9.7%

Appendix

TATT Population Growth Rate


Appendix

-

500.0

1,000.0

1,500.0

2,000.0

2,500.0

Po

pu

lati

on

De

nsi

ty (

Pe

rso

ns/

mil

e2)

TATT Population Density Change

1990

2000

2010


Appendix

Source: U.S. Census

1,300

1,350

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1990 2000 2010

Po

pu

lati

on

De

nsi

ty (

Pe

rso

ns/

mil

e2)

Year

Cumulative TATT Population Density Change

75

County 1990 2000 2010

Abbeville 822.2 750.7 712.6

Anderson 1,413.9 1,272.9 1,339.4

Cherokee 1,232.1 1,195.4 1,218.6

Greenville 1,875.2 1,848.4 1,985.3

Greenwood 1,300.5 1,196.4 1,204.2

Laurens 1,272.1 997.1 910.5

Oconee 1,360.6 1,047.7 1,092.1

Pickens 1,664.3 1,442.9 1,478.0

Spartanburg 1,564.2 1,487.9 1,532.5

Union 1,181.7 1,028.6 1,013.6

Total 1,512.4 1,388.6 1,446.3

Appendix

TATT Population Density (Persons/mile2)

Source: U.S. Census

76

County Last Update

Abbeville County 2007

Anderson County 2012/2007*

Cherokee County 2004

Greenville County 2009

Greenwood

County2011

Laurens County 2011

Oconee County2010

Pickens County2010/2004**

Spartanburg

County1998

Union CountyNone***

77

Upstate County Comprehensive Plans – All comprehensive plans can be accessed by clicking here.

**The Pickens County comprehensive plan analysis was produced using the draft document written in 2010. The document has not been approved by the Pickens County Council to date.


***Union County does not currently have an adopted comprehensive plan for the county.

Appendix

http://www.tenatthetop.org.php53-14.ord1-1.websitetestlink.com/2015-comprehensive-plan-review

upstate comprehensive plan analysis - ten at the...

Documents