Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alrighty. We will start with the approval of the minutes from the August 4th meetings. Was there any corrections that need to be made to the minutes before we approve? Do I have a motion to approve the meeting?

It says June the 2nd for the approval.

Let's see. Do we need to approve both the June and August meeting, Chris?

No. I think that's just supposed to be August 4th.

It's just supposed to be August 4th?

I don't know. It just looked, the date looked wrong.

Yeah, on the first page is the approval of the August 4th.

That's what we did at the last meeting. We approved the June minutes.

Okay. Correct. And then is there any changes or corrections that need to be made to the August 4th? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? got a first second from carrie's all those in favor say aye any opposed perfect any addenda to the agenda chris no sir perfect all righty we will move on to new business sd 26-2 the reserve at stonebridge thank you mr chairman um

The entire subdivision, that includes phase one, which you can clearly see is built out, and phase two, which is not, is outlined in red here. You can see East Calhoun running diagonally up the middle of your screen here. The elementary school is here. And Publix parking lot and all that sits up here off of East Greenville Street there at the corner of your screen. Does everybody know where we are? yes sir the applicant request preliminary plat approval for a single family uh... detached subdivision the proposed development consists of twenty one lots on twenty eight point seven four acres the pd document for the development was approved in two thousand four along with preliminary plat for the entire subdivision phase one of the development consists of sixty lots has been completed. Originally, 45 lots were planned for phase two. So let's kinda unpack that a little bit. So in 2004, they got approval for a PDD document, okay? That is essentially a rezoning And you, the planning commission, looked at that, the planning commission at that time, looked at it and sent it to town council for approval because it is essentially a rezoning. That was approved by town council. They then came back to you for a subdivision approval, a layout of the subdivision for phase one, and the planning commission then approved it. So now they're back. for phase two approval of that subdivision. It's important to know that this is your all's decision and does not move forward. This is your decision. You're not a recommending body here like you were for an annexation or a rezoning. It's not going to town council. You're it. Does everybody understand that process? I just want to make that clear. uh... this subdivision flat complies with the specifications of the pvp document uh... they are And this is for phase two. The minimum lot size in phase two is 14,000 square foot. The density is 0.73 lots per acre. Residential setbacks are front yard 15, the side yard per the PDD is 15, and the rear yard is 10. The perimeter setback, which is on the exterior of this development, is 10 foot. So that's another important thing I didn't mention earlier. This is a legacy PDD. You all recommended approval of the UDO, which essentially changed Most, it touched all zoning districts throughout the city last month at your last meeting. This is a legacy PDD. This document stands from 2004 and it will continue through. So they will be complying with the requirements listed in that PDD document. That PDD document was included in your packet. It's basically two pages. but I'll point some things out here. So the minimum lot, you'll see down here, the minimum number of lots is 125. It's important to note that the original plan in phase two had 45 lots. Now they're, I'm sorry, they're only asking for 21. So that's less than half of what was originally approved back in 2004. Again, the lot sizes, the minimum lot size is 5,500. So in phase two, they're looking at something that's considerably larger lot than what was originally proposed. So the point is they're well in compliance with the PDD document. Any questions?

I have a question. In what ways would this not be complying with our new

PDD?

That's a good question. Without having done a review of it against the new UDO, again, because this is continuing a legacy PDD, I would say, depending on the zoning that was applied to it, it would probably comply. with SR or NR. The lot sizes are comparable to SR. And I'm sorry, SR is like a suburban zoning district. It's the least dense of the single family housing districts. Answer your question? Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

so the the concern that i have the question is what sort of overview uh documentation do we have of traffic flow studies and the economic impact of more high density homes and the concern is uh near midway intersection midway crestview there are tons of homes over there and we're flooding Calhoun Street, Midway Road with more and more homes and I'm just curious to know what, how are we mitigating that and is that soon?

So that's a good question too. And I'll dance around it a little bit. The new UDO, again, that was passed last Monday, does require a traffic study for certain subdivisions if they hit a certain level of development. Again, because this was a continuing, a legacy PDD, there is no traffic study required in the code for this development. As for road improvements, I am more than happy to get back with you on any planned road improvements in the area. I just don't know that off the top of my head right now. But to answer your question, there's nothing required in the ordinance or this PDD document for a traffic study.

Chris, has there been any feedback from the community or anything on this new department?

No, sir. We've had no calls. Okay.

With that being said, I'll open it up to any discussion amongst the board. You might have any comments, questions, anything like that.

I do. Yeah. I'm looking at the existing zoning as PDD on your first page here, and it says the minimum lot size 14,000 square feet. And I go to the 2004 document, and it says the minimum lot size in Stonebridge, at least, is only fifty-five hundred square feet. Now, I'm assuming that that's not in compliance.

So that's a minimum in the PDD document, that's a minimum of five thousand five hundred square foot. The 14,000 square foot is for phase two. So it's to point that they are abundantly in compliance in that area. Does that?

OK. So what you're saying is the existing phase has smaller lot sizes. And I think I can see that on the screen. But these are going to be bigger lots.

Yes, sir. Correct. Significantly.

Significantly bigger. Again, going back, there were 45 lots originally planned for Phase 2, and they're only asking for 21 in the subdivision.

I got you. Okay, so, and it's 43, no, it's 28 acres, and there's 21 lots. Is that...

Yes, sir. Okay, now. Yes, sir.

Some of that is probably the lake.

Yes, sir. So that, yes, there's some common area. There's some stormwater detention. All that, there's road right away. All that starts adding up. So your lot area is never going to match up to your total.

But needless to say, significantly bigger than what's there right now.

Yes, sir. Again, looking at it from a density standpoint, it's less than half of what was originally approved.

But the frontage, I guess, the linear foot across the frontage road is really driving this. I mean, just because the lot gets deeper, I mean, I don't know how much more you could put here. So I'm just making the point that just because the lots are bigger because we deepened a lot It doesn't really do anything to reducing the count You can only fit so many houses across it, you know a road right?

Understood. Yes. Now I will say I will it looks like these lots are about a hundred around a hundred foot wide and which they could be considerably smaller, and there are considerably smaller lots approved with a smaller width.

Any other discussion? Is the applicant here?

The applicant is here if you have any questions of them.

Yeah, would the applicant like to say anything? Please state your name.

Good evening. My name is Don Chapman. I'm the developer and the architect and the builder of all the homes in phase one. So phase, I just want to make sure to probably answer your question. We have phase two designed with 45 lots that match the PDD document. And so technically, I think the way it's written, we wouldn't even have to come back. We could just build 45 homes. I felt like the market's probably a little bit different. We're trying to create a new product for Anderson just as we did when we built FACE. We were the first ones to do what we did. And so the goal of this is that we're going to create lots that are three times the size. roughly three times the size, and we're also going to The caliber of the home with the larger size is going to be able to have a little bit larger footprint of homes. So that may get adjusted. So everything is going to go in the opposite direction of what most developers do. Most developers try to put as many lots as possible, try to put as many homes on each of those sites as possible. So our goal was to try to pull back and do something a little bit different. It's also going to be a private road that's gated, which is a little bit different for the city of Anderson.

Great.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

You're saying you don't need any approval to do the 45 lots originally?

No, it was already designed, correct? It was already designed and approved. And the one change I think that I would say that we brought the property into the city of Anderson, got it annexed, with the understanding of what we were putting forth was going to be approved. Because we didn't want to... annex it and then find out we couldn't do any of what we were trying to do so um we we created a model we had no we had no negative response i actually walked the neighborhood spoke to everybody before we even developed phase one um and then the phase two it's you know was that was the goal to try to do something a little bit different not just do 45 more of what we already did so the idea is you're you're requesting or you're looking to grow the lot sizes essentially that's that so we're trying to create a a a different model than phase one uh with with increasing the lot size decreasing the amount of lots so the density goes down more trees get saved the houses aren't as close together so i think that's kind of usually what most municipalities want to see is less lots. So that was kind of our goal.

Mr. Shep, can you give me an idea of what a 14,000 square foot lot is in acreage, maybe?

Yeah, so the phase one, to give you an idea, those lots typically, most all of them that you see down in front of the lake and all the way around the subdivision, except when you get back into it with a flare, those were 65 by 125. Okay. If you go to phase two, I think the minimum width of the ones that are in front of the lake that are on the back side of the road, those are 95 feet by 200 feet or so. The minimum lot size, I think the smallest lot in the subdivision, there's only one or two that are the 14,000. There's some that go as much as .6. I think lot... 19 and 20 might be 0.6 acres. Even the ones, if you notice on the phase, when you enter lots one, two, and three, they even get wider because they're not as deep. So we can maintain that. I think those are 0.4 or 0.5. So our goal was to not make anything, to try to stay three times the size.

I understand, thank you.

any other questions for mister chappin i'll just add that i i think that uh... the biggest hesitation from ever the community is just like density and sounds like the applicant it is is going to significantly decrease the density of of what potentially could be in this space correct yet so just a couple of numbers to add to what you just said so actually there are twenty four fewer lots

with this subdivision than there were. And that equates to about 2,400 fewer average daily trips. which is your concern about traffic.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here. I'm not completely following it. This thing was already approved for 45, which we all agree that we're improving from that. What we're doing now is better than what was before. What are we talking about here?

The ordinance requires that you all approve the subdivision layout.

Even if it's better than... Even if it's less. Okay.

This is a new subdivision layout, so it has to come to you all for approval.

Mm-hmm. Any other comments from the board? Does anybody have a motion? We have a motion. Carrie, do we have a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. So that is, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, five to one approved. Chris? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any board business or staff report?

The only staff report is, and we've already talked about it, at your last meeting you forwarded on to town council the UDO. Town council approved that on the second reading, not this past Monday, but the Monday prior to that. The only additional thing I would say is that look forward to continuing education coming up later this year. Okay?

Perfect. If that is everything, we will call the meeting adjourned. Thank you.