Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Everyone, welcome to the City of Aiken Planning Commission meeting. We'll now get started. Before we get started, I will remind everyone, if you will, please silence your cell phones. And also, I would like to take a few minutes to go over the guidelines for the City of Aiken Planning Commission meeting. Meetings are public forums in which many opinions are expressed and the business of the city must be conducted. As such, discipline, honorable and professional decorum is paramount. Courtesy and respectful communication is required. During the public hearings, all questions and statement from the public should be directed to the chair. If you wish to speak, raise your hand and I will recognize you Please approach the podium and state your name and address. In order to follow an opportunity for everyone who wishes to address the planning commission, speakers should limit their comments to the subject being discussed. Each speaker will be given five minutes to address an issue and may only address an issue once unless questions from the planning commission are posed to the speakers. The clock is down. I'll be running the timer here. So when you get to three minutes, four minutes, I'll raise my hand and let you know you got a minute or two left, okay? All right, moving right along. We are now asking for the approval of the minutes. So moved.

So seconded.

Commissioner Clark, moved. And Commissioner Lysette, second. All ready for the question? If there's no question, then all in favor, raise your hand. Approve of the amendments accepted as written. There are no old business on the item. Moving down to item number three, new business. Application number, excuse me, 26-20024, annexation request, Maddie and Brandy Beatty's. Current zoning is RC, proposed city zoning RS-10. Are there anyone here that'd like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this applicant? All right, back to the commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 26-20024, current zoning RC, proposed zoning RS-10, I make a motion that we move to City Council for approval with the conclusions of law as written, and there are no conditions, Mr. Chairman.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, second by Commissioner Clarkson, and Commissioner Epps that we send this to City Council for approval. With the conclusion of the law, there is no possible conditions. Are there any questions? All in favor, raise your hand. None. Motion carried. Application B, another annexation request applicant to Nia Huggins and trustees of the Huggins Living Trust. Current zoning, rural development as proposed city zoning, general business. Anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant?

BURTON FINE CRANSTON ENGINEERING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT 452 ELLIS STREET AUGUSTA GEORGIA This request is actually tied to item 2C on the agenda. I'm not sure if you all would like to wait on a presentation on those two simultaneously, but I'm happy to introduce this annexation request. So the applicant is also the owner of the adjacent property to the west on the other side of Bluebird Lane. This request is to annex this property into city limits with the general business zoning. And then item, I believe it's $3. be on the agenda is to rezone the adjacent parcel to general business as well, and the intent there is so that the applicant can close on the parcel to be annexed in and acquire the right of way of Bluebird Lane from the SCDOT so that those properties can be combined into a contiguous tract of land and marketed for commercial use. Those negotiations with the DOT have already began. We've submitted applications for right-of-way abandonment and acquisition. But in order to acquire the right-of-way in its entirety, he must own both sides of it. Are there any questions by the Commission for me?

Commissioners have any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Okay back to commissions.

Mister chairman regards application to 6 dash 2 is 0, 0, 2, 5, current zoning are you D proposed zoning GB make a motion that we moved to City Council for approval with the conclusions of law as written and there are no conditions.

It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, seconded by Commissioner Conner, that we send application number 26-20025 to City Council for approval with the conclusion of law, and there's no possible conditions. Are there any questions for the commission? All right. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. Motion carried. Thank you. THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 3C, APPLICANT B52, LLC, LOCATION, ROUTE OF MASON PARKWAY, APPLICATION NUMBER 26-60011, REZONING, CURRENT ZONING, RS10, PROPOSED ZONING, GB. ARE THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICANT?

As I mentioned previously, the two applications are tied together. This property is actually part of the larger parcel above it, which came through the Planning Commission, I believe, back in December for rezoning. That rezoning was accepted by city council to allow for multifamily use. And due to the complexity of the adjacent parcel and the subject property in front of you, We decided to separate the two applications to make it clear, and the applicant was also in negotiations to purchase the Bluebird parcel. But the intent's to rezone this property to general business and combine the two parcels and market the property for commercial use.

Any questions from the commissioners? All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I do have a statement, yeah.

Okay. Being the commissioner that kind of represents the area, thank you for looking at developing that. I really appreciate it.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Okay, back to the commissioners. Are there any questions? Comments from the commissioners? Ready for the vote?

We have to make a motion.

Ready for the motion. Oh, we're sorry.

The motion, I'm sorry, yeah.

Anybody who's quiet. I move that regarding application number 26-600.

which seeks to rezone a stated tax parcel from residential single-family RS-10 to general business before to the City Council with our recommendation of approval and with the noted conclusions of law. Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Carman, as well as seconded by Commissioner Epps, that application number 26-60011, rezoning, current zoning RS-10, proposed zoning GB, we send this to City Council with the conclusion of law, and there is no possible conditions. Are we ready for the vote? All in favor? Motion carried. All right. Down to application three D and E. Application number 26-20026, annexation, and number 26-23-003, concept plan, the owner, Mabry Enterprise, current zoning unincorporated, UD, proposed zoning plan commercial. Are there anyone here to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here to speak in opposition to this applicant? All right, back to the commissioners. We have any questions? We're ready for the vote.

Motion.

Motion. Okay.

I'll make the motion regarding application.

6-20026, which seeks annexation of the subject property. And application 26-23003, which is concept plan. approval that we forward this to City Council with our recommendation of approval with the following conditions. No conditions regarding the annexation. The concept plan approval should be conditioned that the provision or extension of water and sanitary sewer services shall be contingent upon the service availability and civil review. Second, that any freestanding signage be monument style in accordance with the LDR Whiskey Road corridor study standards. Third, that the building be repainted in an earth toned color palette and the color approved by the planning director. Neon or bright colors should be avoided. No purple. Four, that the driveway entrance on Murrah Avenue be upgraded and compliant with the zoning ordinance and driveway changes will be required, an encroachment permit from SCDOT. Fifth, that a revised concept plan listing conditions of approval and any changes required by city council be submitted within 180 days. And six, that the applicant signs an agreement stating the conditions of approval within 180 days. I don't see the listing of findings of conclusions of law, but findings of that.

It's on the webpage, conclusion of law. I believe it was an accidental omission.

Yeah. So anyway, let me get to it here. We may be just out of finding support the conclusions that the proposed annexation and concept plan approval will be compatible with the comprehensive plan primary undeveloped character of the property and the surrounding area public utilities and transportation facilities.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Carman, seconded by Commissioner Epps that application number 260026 annex section and number 26-23003 concept plan proposed zoning PC, current zoning UD, that we send this to the city council for approval with all the conditions as well as the conclusion of law. Are there any questions for the commissioners? We're ready for the vote. All in favor? Motion carried unanimously. All right. And the last item on the agenda for tonight is 3F. Is this a text amendment to rezone ordinance regarding the historic registered property designation? Are there anyone here to speak in on behalf of this?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm Rebecca Seymour. I am the staff liaison for the DRB. I know we had a lengthy conversation in the work session, but if there are any questions you'd like me to try and address on the record here, I'd be happy to try and do so.

Any other questions from the commissioners? No questions. Thank you. John, you have anything you want to say?

No, I'm just going to say it. I appreciate the openness that we had in our meeting, and hopefully that will continue. Well, not hopefully. I know it will continue as we dig further into all the issues that we have for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay back to the commissioners.

I was going to Mr. Chairman regard to the text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the historic registry property designation like to make a motion that we table this. And Mister chairman just to open up comment on my first and foremost want to thank John McMichael for being here. I've been on planning commission for for quite a few years now and this is the first time that I've ever gotten spoken to someone on DRB in an official capacity so Thank you so much, John, for making that effort and coming out here. And Mr. Chairman, I would also like to state for the record that I believe this commission would like to formally request a meeting with the DRB in order to discuss this issue and any other issues that might be relevant to both of our parties here. Thank you very much.

And further that we table it. Yeah, he's, did he say table? Sorry, I missed that. Okay.

As well as all the concerns that the commissioner have, we'll ask that you write them up, get them tomorrow, and we'll be able to all see them before we sit down with the DRB.

I would second.

Okay.

I said that.

Okay. Okay, it's been, excuse me. It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, as well as second by Commissioner Lycett. The text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the historic registered property designation, that we table this with the idea that we'll meet with the DRB, as well as the commissioners who was writing their concerns up, given tomorrow, we all will meet and have a meeting scheduled with them at a later date. All in favor of the motion? That'd be number. Motion carried. Thank you, all adjourned. Thank you. All right. We can have a motion to adjourn.

So moved. So moved.

Second. Meeting adjourned.