Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Thank you all for coming out for the Planning Commission meeting today. We'll go ahead and start our meeting. And before I start, I go over the guidelines for the City of Aiken, the Planning Commission meeting. Meetings are public forums in which many opinions are expressed and the business of the city must be conducted. As such, disciplined, honorable, and professional quorum is paramount. Courtesy and respectful communication is required. During public hearing, all questions and statements for the public shall 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 allow 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 questioned from the planning commissions or opposed to the speaker. And also at this time we're asked that if everyone would put their cell phones on silent. Now we ask for the approval of the work session and the minutes. It's been moved by Commissioner Lasset and seconded by Commissioner Epps. All in favor? Motion carried.

Chairman, I do have a question. Will we be approving the minutes for our special session last week at the next meeting? At the next meeting. Okay. Thank you.

OK, there are no old business. We'll move right into the new business. The first item on the agenda for the night, item A, application number 26-20027, annexation request. Applicant Maureen Simpson, current zoning. residential single family conservation, proposed zoning, residential single family RS-15. Are there anyone here to speak in favor of this motion? Anyone here that want to speak oppose this motion?

Back to the commissioners. Mister chairman regards to application to 6 dash 2, 0, 0, 2, 7 annexation request. Current zoning are C proposed owning RS 15. I make a motion that we move to City Council for approval with the finding of facts and the conclusions of law as written and there are no possible conditions.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson and second by Commissioner Connor that we send this application number 26-20027 annexation request to City Council with the conclusion of law as reading. Are there any questions? All in favor let it be known by raising your hand. Motion carried. Item B, application number 26-20028, annexation request. Applicant, Paul Myers. Current zoning, RC. Proposed zoning, RS-10. Are there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here that will speak opposed? Go back to the commissioners.

I'll propose that we recommend the approval of the annexation and application 2620028 with the conclusions of law as set forth in the written document with no conditions. Second.

Okay.

It's been moved by Commissioner Carman. Second by Commissioner Epps, application number 26-20028, annexation requests, current zoning RC, proposed zoning RS-10, that we send this to the city council for approval, as well as with the conclusion of law as written. Are there any questions?

All in favor, let me know.

Motion carried. Item C. Application number 26-20029, annexation request. Applicant Leonta Williams, current zoning RC, proposed zoning RH-10. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here who opposes? Back to the commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 26-20029, current zoning, RC, proposed zoning, RS-10, I make a motion that we move to City Council for approval with the conclusions of laws written and there are no possible conditions.

I'll second that. Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, excuse me, second by Commissioner Lyson that annexation request application number 26-20029, current zone in RC, proposed zone in RS-10, along with the conclusion of law and no possible condition that we send this to City Council. Are there any questions? All in favor? Motion carried. Item D, application number 26-20030, annexation request, applicant Franklin Martin, current zoning UD, proposed RS-15. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here opposed to this applicant? Back to the commissioners.

Okay, I'll make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council of application 2620030 for annexation and zoning to residential single-family RS 15 with the conclusions of law as noted in the written document. Second. No conditions. Second.

OK, it's been moved by Commissioner Carmen, seconded by Commissioner Connor. Application number 26-20030, annexation request, current zoning, UD, city zoning, proposed zoning, RS-15, that we send this to city council with the conclusion of law as written, no possible conditions. Are there any questions? All in favor of the motion, let it be known. Motion carried. Item E, application number 26-60012, rezone request, applicant William Rogers, current zoning, light industrial, proposed zoning, RML. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here to speak in opposition? Back to the commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 26-60012, rezoning request, current zoning LI, proposed zoning RML, I make a motion that we move to city council for approval with the conclusions of laws written and there are no possible conditions. And I'll second that.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson. Second by Commissioner Lyson that application number 26-60012, rezone requests, current zone, light industrial, proposed zoning, RML, that we send this to City Council for approval with the conclusion of law as written. Are there any questions from the commissioners? All ready for the motion? I mean, ready for the vote. I'm sorry. Thank you. Motion carried Item F Application number two six two three zero zero four concept plan concept plan approval applicant SPCA Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor this applicant I Anyone here that was opposed to this applicant? Back to the commissions.

Do you want to make a motion?

No.

Okay. Well, we're going to be here for a little while for lunch.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 26-23004, concept plan approval, I make a motion that we move to city council for approval with the conclusions of law as written, as well as the four possible conditions.

Second.

Okay, thank you. It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson and second by Commissioner Carmen that the application number 2623004 concept plan that we send this to City Council for approval along with the possible conditions and conclusion of law. Are there any questions for the Commissioners? Ready for the vote? All in favor? Unanimous motion carried. Item G. Application number 2623005, concept plan. Magnite Engler, LLC. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Come forward, sir. State your name.

Hi, my name is Bill Reichart, and I live at 133 Steeple Ridge Road. I would like to support this request, but also make a request of the commission to reconcile an irregularity that exists there. And the property is in zoning that requires a five acre minimum, which is PC planned commercial. This property is two and a half acres. I would like to see if there's a way through some process to see if we can bring those into accordance.

So I'll answer that question actually the property was already zoned planned commercial for that whole piece So that would include all the parcels including the current Lulu's so it was actually zoned playing commercial actually back in 2003 Well, but yes back in 2003 there was a 25 acre tract of which this is now part but the planned commercial

city ordinance 4.3.8 c regulates that all planned commercial properties are to be five acres minimum correct and that entire parcel including lulu's this parcel and the back parcel were all included in the rezoning okay but it was over the five acres does lulu's sit on two and a half acres of property

It was not, it was not parceled out at the time. It was zoned PC for the entire parcel. So that zoning just sat there until such time as a business came in and then they took the, then they broke that out into parcels. But it was already zoned planned commercial for the entire piece. Okay.

Would that be the 11.7 acres, the entire piece?

The entire pace. Yes, I I mean the neighbors my neighbors and I are concerned what's going to happen with that 5 acre parcels well and that's why I wanted to state the hope for a minimum of 5 acres and to have that reconciled with the city ordinance.

Well, anything that will happen on that back piece will have to come back through Planning Commission and City Council, so it won't just happen. It's going to have to come through for their own concept plan. However, the zoning itself is already in place.

Right. But it's okay for the subject of this hearing tonight to come in with a concept plan that's for two and a half acres?

Sir, the concept plan is really not the focus. What you're talking about is actually the underlying district, which is planned commercial. And that was rezoned, that entire piece was zoned planned commercial back in 2003. And so the fact that individual businesses are coming in is really more about the use and less about the underlying district, which is the five acre that you're talking about.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this project?

I'm Bill Howard, 146 Springstone Court. I'm the HOA president for Springstone subdivision. Our neighborhood consists of about 82 houses in there. The only concern we have really is traffic flow onto Whiskey Road. Right now, and look, I understand y'all are city, y'all aren't DOT, but y'all represent us. Y'all have the ability to communicate with South Kline DOT. Whiskey Road to South Kline DOT, I get that. But we have a traffic light there where we can barely get three cars out. at Stratford Hall, at Stratford Drive. We call it Stratford Hall Drive, but it's Stratford Drive at Whiskey Road. We can barely get three cars out to turn left to head to town before the light turns. And then if you come, I encourage any of you to come out there around four o'clock when the plant lets out and try to get through that intersection. Half of the Savannah River site's trying to get down Powder House Road and there's no way to get on to Powder House Road. And I know there was at one point when this whole Lulu's things originally came up, there was supposed to be a restudy of that whole intersection by South Carolina DOT. At least that's what we were told. And that whole thing was to be restructured. But adding businesses back onto this corner again with no deceleration lane coming from town to where they can slow down to turn onto and not get rear-ended from the back end If you're coming from the plant headed back toward town, if you want to turn left to come in, the left turn light, all it does is blink yellow. It never goes green. So we need some help there. And if this goes through, we need you all to help us with that.

Yeah, I'll just update you on that. So obviously they've got to submit a traffic impact analysis, which they have done. It is under review right now. So if the warrants are necessary for turn lanes, they will have to install them. Another aspect is the SCDOT is it's actually that entire intersection is currently under design. Good. For complete reconstruction. As it stands right now, it is scheduled for construction in 2008. So right now they're undergoing, I'm sorry. Wow. Time warp. They're a little behind. Yeah, just a little bit. So at any rate, the first aspects of this, obviously they, excuse me, they have to do the design and they have to do any sort of right-of-way, purchasing it right-of-way they may need.

for that but that but that is the schedule for them to start construction in 2028 okay yeah thank you and discuss with them this problem with the light not being long enough to allow people to get out we've talked with them a lot okay i assume various homeowners call them all the time Okay. I assumed you have it. I just wanted to verify.

But it just, nothing happens.

Understood.

Thank you.

there elizabeth hammond i live at 108 sessions drive in stratford hall and i also most of my concerns have been addressed by this gentleman's comments but i did really want to echo our concerns that a traffic study is should really be reviewed carefully that stratford hall drive doesn't have lines on it it's it's a small road it's really only used for us coming in and out of our neighborhoods and having traffic stop at that sort of it's about the halfway point down the road to make a left turn there as the only way to access those businesses is gonna get pretty dangerous and like the gentleman prior to me mentioned there's already really high risk of accidents in that area just because there's so much traffic that goes through there at rush hour and so many people trying to turn left and it is it's a difficult intersection which I know we have a lot of being a growing city so we all understand that and I think you know the businesses would be a good addition but I do really hope that i know like he said it's a dot issue but i really hope that you guys help us in protecting the residents and the patrons of these businesses with traffic studies additional lights turn lanes you know different road signage things that we need to actually make this an asset to the area instead of a liability

Okay, thank you.

I wouldn't mind actually making a quick comment to that. I'm not sure I would hope that SCDOT is part of what they're doing is their design and everything for this intersection as they would also look at the turn lane warrants and that's what would trigger having a dedicated left turn lights and things of that nature instead of the flashing yellows which I know people get really frustrated with. I don't know if we're certain they're doing that, but I would certainly hope they would do that. So if not, we'll follow up.

Whether they're doing that or not, would that be verified when that traffic impact study comes to you guys?

What they're looking at right now is really specifically for this. Now, they'll be looking at just levels of service, you know, how much traffic is this particular project generating. Primarily, our traffic engineer would be looking at turn lanes, potentially, if it would trigger that. SCDOT, however, they have their own warrants for when they would allow certain turn signals compared to the flashing yellow. So, again, if they're doing a full reboot and spending as much money as they are on this intersection, then I would certainly hope they're looking at the warrants. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

And if I may, I would also add that as residents and citizens here of Aiken, you may want to also reach out to Tom Young with the concerns with DOT. Okay.

to our HOA president. I know he has reached out to DOT many times about that intersection because like the gentleman prior to me said, a lot of our residents call in very frequently on a lot of things. Okay, thank you. But I think they're a little frustrated with the lack of response. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this applicant?

Mr. Matthews, my name is John Engler. I'm with the development, and I appreciate Mr. Howard coming up. I want to stress that Mr. Howard and I were able to meet, spend some time about this development. I explained to him also with us doing the lows across the street that there's already been some right-of-way property conveyed over to SDOT to help with that intersection, and so... I've told this group that I'll do also where I can comes about with this with comments to SDOT to help the intersection. But again, we don't really control the light, as Miss Maria said. So anyway, I want to make sure everybody understands and we will do the traffic study like we talked about. It's already in review, and so we've already processed that as well.

Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition in this application? Okay, back to the commissioners. Hold on, I got a twist.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 26-23005 concept plan, I make a motion that we move to city council for approval with the conclusions of law as written and there are no possible conditions.

I'll second that. We have a comment from the commissioners.

My concern was also the traffic in and out of what you will make motion first.

I was going to say, I think there was just a typo with the conclusions of laws written and as the possible conditions is written. So my apologies with that. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. My, my comment was my concern about the traffic as well. And the fact that, DOT isn't slated to improve that area until 2028, and this building is slated to be completed mid-2027, I want to say. So that's considerably a concern of mine regarding this traffic. I just wanted to put that on record.

Okay. Okay.

I guess this question's for the developer. Do you guys, so there were mentions in the work session of, I guess, like a coffee shop and a dentist. Are these like confirmed tenants? Do you have like signed LOIs?

We do have signed LOIs, so yes, these are the intended uses. We're not ready to convey who specifically those are, but that is the intended use.

and I get that this part may or may not be a little premature depending on where you are in your development process, but have you confirmed water and sewer capacity? Do you have like will serve letters?

We have. We have talked a lot with Thomas Parrot and other people within engineering. So we've had multiple meetings preliminarily before we've come and submitted this to make sure everything was fully vetted and can be done here. So we've tried to meet with all the engineering team as well to understand what's going on.

But you don't have like actual will serve letters like in writing yet?

There is actually utilities and water on this property that service the entire area. The sewer's already on here. The water's already on here as well, if I'm not mistaken. So we have access per the original PUD agreement.

Just to echo that, I did talk to Thomas as well. We talk about when there's concept plans like this. And he assured me that water and sewer was not an issue. He did mention that you would talk to him, which is a good move, I might add, just to make sure it's available. But yeah, water and sewer should not be a problem for this project. And he endorses this project from an engineering standpoint.

Well, I was going to say, the Engineering and Utilities Department do have comments underneath finding of facts on Section 4. They have several bullet points of comments, but all of them are in alignment with what the two gentlemen just said. Correct.

And again, like I said, we're open to working with Mara and her staff on the the sidewalk as long as we can make sure there's no great issues.

I just want to put a comment on the record. I share fellow commissioners' concerns about the traffic and development area. It looks to me you guys have done an A1 job as far as laying it out, the concept plan. My concerns are more with that region, that area of town, and the continued addition of strip malls and the impact upon the traffic. I don't know that that is within my purview to actually affect my vote here, but my concern that I'm expressing has nothing to do with the quality of the work you're doing. It has to do with just the continued addition of strip malls along Whiskey and the additional traffic and the problems that it creates, not just for the people who live in the area, but for the traveling public. So I'm putting that on the record more for the City Council. It's not intended as any criticism of your project in any way.

And I will say too, I remember, I think Charles and I were both there back in 2020 when this first came up. And then I remember it back again in 23 when Parkhurst came up and was denied. And this is the first time that no one came to speak against this, right? This is the first time that no one has come to speak against this. 2020 people were very, you know, quite a few came to speak against it. 2023, obviously even more. And the fact that you guys have been working so long on this, working with all of the HOAs, all of the people, and to come to a project now where finally we have no one to speak against this, does speak volumes for what you're trying to do for the community, trying to find the right fit. And I know it's been a multi-year period to try to find the right fit. Didn't always work out, but I'm glad to see that, you know, you've stuck with it, that you've stuck with communicating with the community and found something that seems to be working for everyone the best that I can. So I do want to thank you for that. Thank you very much.

I guess I have one final question to myself is I see it says National Coffee Retailer. Are there initial Starbucks?

No, sir.

Oh, no, I have to be a no. I'm sorry.

You already have one. Right.

Another question, it's actually for you. Do we know a potential timeline of when the city will complete their review of the traffic study?

She's already had a first round of comments So and that's gonna go back to their traffic engineer and as soon as I guess that gets gets back So, I mean it's it's happening. It generally doesn't take that long. But of course it all is always dependent upon You know whose balls, you know whose court the ball was in so if the traffic engineer and on their side sits on it then we have to wait to Are there any other questions from the commissioners I

Okay, thank you, sir.

And I just wanted to point out with respect to the traffic, which has been a big concern. You know, this is not, this use is, you know, the uses that we have set forth in this application, and it's alleviated by, you know, the traffic study will be approved by SCDOT and the city's traffic consultant. And so that is already a built-in condition. And I understand the concerns and just wanted to point out that condition.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Thanks.

All right, we're back to the commissioners. We already have a motion. Motion.

I just want the record to be clear, though, because I do think Commissioner Clarkson misspoke when he moved and mentioned no conditions. Yeah, but he. Yeah, we.

Yeah, he corrected. Yeah, and he seconded to. So we strike.

All right, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, second by Commissioner Lycett, that application number 2623005, concept plan, that we send this to city council for approval with the conclusion of law as written, as well as the conditions. All in favor, let it be known by raising your right hand. All in opposes? Motion carried, two opposes. Item H, text amendment to zoning ordinance regarding the historic register property designation. Anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this? applicant.

Good afternoon. I'm Ben Lott, chairman of the DRB. Let me start out by saying I appreciate the work session that we had the other day. I felt that to be very productive and look forward to working with you guys on more issues in the future. So thank you all for allowing us to have that joint meeting. I think we kind of covered everything in that meeting, but I'll touch on just a few things for the record. The DRB has had some issues with not being able to rule on properties because of a lack of designations. And the ordinance is written so that we have to have a designation in order to rule. So this is delaying homeowners from being able to take action on their properties. And as a way of not waiting on a UDO rewrite, which is probably sometime in the future, we're trying to take a quicker action in order to solve some of those delays on behalf of the homeowners within the historic district. We had a pretty robust discussion at our joint work session. And if you'll look in the package, We've got a rewrite of the proposed revision from our attorney, Daniel Plowler. And as I looked over the property, the rewrite, I think it kind of touched on all the topics that we had concerns and discussions about. Of course, I can't tell you. that the DRB would vote to approve this because I don't have all the votes. But I feel like coming out of our work session that we had a pretty good general consensus between both boards that we like the rewrite. And so, If this board would take the action to propose this new revision to city council, I would personally look on that favorably.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Any opposers? Back to the commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, in regards to the text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding historic registry property designation, I make a motion that we move to City Council for approval.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson, second by Commissioner Carman. Text amendment for the zoning ordinance in the historic register that we send this to City Council for approval. Any questions from the commissioners? Ready for the vote? All in favor? Thank you. Last item, item I. And item I is a multifamily parking requirement update. And is there anyone here to want to speak in favor? Any opposers? Back to the commission.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I make a motion in regards to the multifamily parking requirements update to send to city council for approval. I second that.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson and seconded by Silent Commissioner Epps. We move this to City Council for approval. All in favor? Motion carried. Now we have a motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. Second. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Commissioners. We are now adjourned.