Planning & Zoning Commission - Special Meeting

Listen to the community. And now we have a treasure that will live on forever in the history of this city. And let's cut this ribbon. How about that? Let's get it open. Let's do it.

The meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the June 9, 2026 special meeting of the City of Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is John Collins and I'm the chair of this commission. Hanukkah, will you do the invocation?

Good evening. As we begin this commission meeting, let us pause to seek divine wisdom. understanding and guidance in the work before us may our discussions be fueled with respect integrity and a sincere commitment to serving the best interests of our community let us the board be reminded that we are servants first and from a grateful heart we give thanks to those who serve our city We ask for discernment as decisions are made that affect our residents, businesses, and future generations. May we work together with civility, fairness, and a shared dedication to the common good. This is our humble decree. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Allen Thomas, Clayton Sell.

Here.

Zach Woodmansey.

Here.

William McCurry.

Here.

John Collins.

Here.

Brad Carter.

Here.

Carlos White. Toya Jacobs. Kimber Stone. Anna Carollo. Here. Thomas Remington.

Here.

And Grice Bell. We have four of them.

All right. Our next item is the approval of the agenda. It's a simple agenda, so I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And against, say nay. All right. agendas proved new business uh... request by i h s development l l c to rezone a total of forty two point zero seven acres from all office to track one all our office residential high-density multifamily four point eight two acres track to are six residential high-density multifamily nine point three seven acres track three are six s residential single-family, 16.13 acres, and track 4, R15S, residential single-family, 11.75 acres, for the property located along the eastern right-of-way of Charles Boulevard and at the current terminus of Interlude Drive. Staff presentation by Shantae Gooby.

Good evening. Thank you for being here. So I'm going to start. This property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the city. This is an aerial photograph for you. So it's on the eastern side of Charles Boulevard. It's roughly in between Tucker subdivision, which is up at the top. And then we have Grace Church to the south. We have numbered all of the tracks for you. I just put future home of a church because the church has kind of a long name. But if you've driven by there, you'll see that it's currently under construction. And then I'm going to show you where the stub out to interlude drive and you'll see why I'm pointing that out to you. So this is a survey of the property. They have color coded it for you. So the tracks go in order. So one, two, three, and four. And we'll go through the acreage and the request as we get a little further to the end. This is a photograph of the property taken from Charles Boulevard. So Tucker would be to your left. Grace Church would be to your right. And then along the horizon, you can see where the church is being built, where that orange silt fence is. And then that's also Tucker subdivision along the horizon. And then this is a photograph from the stub out of Interloo Drive. So Tucker would be behind you in this picture. So this property is showing you that there is an activity center at the intersection of Fire Tower Road and Charles Boulevard. Again, that's where we would expect commercial activity, commercial development. So this slide is showing you a breakdown of the differences in traffic. So for the current zoning of the property, which is office at full build out, it would generate an estimated 2600 trips. And then under the proposed rezoning at full build out for those four tracks, it would have about 2200 trips. So that's a net decrease of 439 trips. The property is located in the cannon swamp work watershed. So if stormwater rules apply, it will require 10 year detention. The property is not located in a special a special hazard area. There are some potential wetlands which are basically along the creek here on the eastern side. There are no jurisdictional streams or buffers. So track one was rezoned to office back in 2017. The balance of the property was rezoned single family. And then in 2022, tracks two, three, and four were rezoned to the current office zoning. So I'm going to break down the anticipated development, but in the end, I'm going to give you some totals just to make it a little easier. So under track one, which is almost five acres, under the office zoning, it could be roughly 30 to 35,000 square feet of office. Under the requested zoning, it would be 50 to 55 multifamily units. For track two, again, that's right at nine acres, estimated to accommodate about 70 to 75,000 square feet of office space. Under the requested zoning, you're looking about 100 to 120 multifamily units. Track three. It's about 16 acres. Under the current zoning, it would yield about 135 to 140,000 square feet of office space. Under the requested zoning, roughly 90 single-family lots. And then track four at the very back. Under the current zoning, it would be about 85 to 90,000 square feet of office space. Under the requested zoning, it would be about 25 to 35 single-family homes. So in total, under the current zoning, this property, all four tracks, could yield roughly 320 to 340 square feet of office space. Under the requested zoning, you're looking at roughly 150 to 170 multifamily units, which would be on one and two. And then for the remaining tracts three and four, you're looking at about 115 to 135 single family lots between tracts three and four. So on the future land use plan, I'm going to kind of start back here at the corner of Fire Tower and Charles Boulevard. That shows commercial. It transitions into office, which is where the church is. And then from there, it transitions into traditional neighborhood, medium to high density. So the requested zoning can all fall under the umbrella of the traditional neighborhood, medium to high density. So with that, staff, again, I'll show it again. The future land use plan is on your left-hand side. The zoning map is on your right-hand side. In staff's opinion, the request is in compliance with Horizon's plan and the future land use character map. Staff recommends approval, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Yes. Sorry for being late. Can you go back to the actual... zoning signed in the grass area so I can make sure I'm in the right place.

Which one?

Did you have an actual photo of the zoning? You know, when we start off, you always have the photo of the zoning.

So we've got that one at Interlude and that one at Charles.

Right. And is this the same area, if I'm not mistaken, where the big, I don't know if it's a school or church. Okay.

To the right of the church.

To the right of the church. And then there's a house. Okay. So I remember the church and there was issues about, well, there was concerns about the stormwater runoff and the neighborhoods behind it. And there was like potential flooding and stuff like that. Is that the same? Is it going along the same?

Are you talking about the new church?

Right, the new church, right. With his concerns from the neighborhood about the water and the flooding and stuff like that. So is this the same acreage that's going along with this?

Let me do this.

Okay.

So this is where the church is.

Okay.

So we got tracks one, two, three, and four.

Okay. It's on the other side. Okay. All right. That was my concern.

That's all right.

Any other questions? All right. The public hearing is open. The first speaker will have five minutes with each additional speaker having three minutes until 30 minutes has expired. Is there anyone present to speak in favor of this request? No? Okay. Is there anyone present to speak in opposition to this request? All right. The public hearing is closed. Is there any discussion of this request?

Is there any data that we have about the traffic implications of changing the rezoning?

She gave that to us. It's actually a decrease if they built out into office, which is what it's zoned for now.

I think it was a decrease of $449. Is that what it said? I'm scrolling down to it right now.

But up by about $2,200 from the field.

That was more of my concern. I don't think anybody agrees that Charles Boulevard is not at capacity now. Other than the DOT. I'll keep my mouth shut on that. Because Charles Boulevard is already challenging to get through at rush hour, particularly when school gets out. And even though there are no schools on Charles Boulevard, it still becomes a challenge with all of that. And so I am concerned about if we add let's just let's use the low numbers of 265 units of housing of both single family and multi-family and give them two cars that's over 500 cars just from that neighborhood alone and it's not that's using the low estimates and i think that that is something that we need to look at because With the church, and if you look at it on Sundays and theoretically on Wednesdays and any other day that they have church activities, that's additional cars. And it's quite a large church. It can hold quite a large amount of people. And I am worried about it clogging up Charles further than it already is. And I'm not sure if anybody else is.

And we do expect there to be Charles road access, not just via interlude, right, to these places? Yes. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's okay. Right. So that even means that more of Tucker, if they're trying to go south, would unload through that potential roadway as well.

And there's no immediate plans for a traffic light, correct? Correct. at whatever intersection would then be created with the development.

That probably comes later on. Seems like it's bill first, traffic second.

Let's hear from our traffic agents.

What's the exact question?

At the future intersection of this new development.

For this development, yeah.

There's no immediate plans for any sort of traffic light or direction system that can allow people to actually turn left out of there.

The state would require that the new access point, which, again, there's no site plan for this, so we haven't seen anything. But I would assume... that the state would, one of the comments would be to align their driveway opposite exchange drive. So it's a four way, we don't have any conflicts with left turns. They would also require that they have a driveway permit for Charles and they would also require that they build a right turn lane northbound into that site. That's what they've done at each of these parcels that are all connected north, not connected, but sequentially south to north. They're all kind of lined up. That's what they did for, what was it? There's a parcel, excuse me. There's a parcel to the south of this The Charles, which was another housing development. And that's exactly what they've submitted a plan for that. just modified that plan a little bit to be less intensive, but the plan and the comments from the DOT were exactly that. They wanted a driver permit to Charles for the access and they wanted a right turn lane going into the site. They would probably not even require a TIA for this traffic and back study because that threshold, that volume is less than their, their bottom threshold for it, the TIA, they would definitely meet with the developer ahead of any site plan creation to tell them this is where the access point should be and this is what the improvements on Charles will be. There's obviously already a left turn lane out there, the whole length. So if there wasn't, that might've been a comment, but it's five lane section, so. Does that answer the question? Yes. Thank you.

But I have one also. A session or two ago, there was another parcel that was up, and you were explaining the definition of capacity, but it was also letters that goes with that. Right. So how would that affect the letter grading if this was approved?

Well, like Shante said, we did not provide specifically for this parcel, the traffic report, because the traffic was projected to be less. But I guess I did anticipate this question. So the existing ADT on Charles is about 23,800, 23,800. And the level of service D design number is 29,900, which is roughly 79%. But like I was explaining at the last meeting for whatever parcel that was, that's level of service D. There's a full level of service above that, which is a range of capacity for level of service C. That might be another 12% on top of that. So, That being said, maybe it's currently operating high 60%, low 70%. And there's no plan to do anything to that section. It's already five weeks. The only improvement that could be made on that and will happen, maybe not in our lifetime, but- Evan's an old tar. Will be to put a median and take away the left turn lane and just provide accesses to the main drives and any signalized intersections. Because that would raise the capacity, but there's a lot more priorities in the city than putting a median down that section of Charles.

Okay, that was it for me.

So in those numbers, if I heard you correctly, you said that it's currently, it was right around 23,000 was the ADT, and then this would add about 2,300, but that still keeps it in D, right?

Oh, yeah.

Okay. All right. We were still in D. Oh, yeah.

I mean, it's only adding like 3% to the ADT, but when you do the math, it's, you know, I mean, that's the difference. It's not just the difference in ADT. it's the difference of the future volume over that design ADT. And it would be, yeah, it would raise it maybe 2%. Okay.

Thank you. Is there any other board discussion or would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to advise that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and to adopt the staff report which addresses plan consistency and other matters.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. Motion passes. And I guess that brings us to adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. We are adjourned. Thank you.