Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Lexington Planning Commission meeting. This board is comprised of town residents who are appointed by the town council and serve without pay. This is our regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, May 20th, 2026. This meeting is being broadcast live on the Town of Lexington's YouTube channel. Speakers must sign in before 8 AM on the sign-in sheet posted at the door. Speakers will be called to the podium off the list collected. Speakers are limited to three minutes. I am Frank Berry, the Chairman of the Town Election Planning Commission. Other Planning Commission members present are... Good morning, I'm Brian Amick.

Good morning, I'm Oscar Kaufman. Good morning, I'm Jamie Fite.

Good morning, I'm Joe Robertson.

Good morning, Betsy McCall.

At this time, I would ask Commissioner Fite that she would give our invocation.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day and for the opportunities together in service to serve our community. Grant us wisdom as we consider the decisions before us and guide us to act with fairness, integrity, and good judgment. Help us to listen with open minds, to speak respectful, And to seek what's best for all those we serve, both now and for the future generations. May our work today contribute to the well-being, growth, and unity of this community. We also ask your blessings over our military, first responders, and all those who serve, both in our local community and across the nations. Protect them, strengthen them, and watch over their families. Amen.

Amen. Please join me in a pleasure, Lisa. The meeting will now come to order. We have no deletions to the agenda. Next item is approval of the minutes from the April 22 meeting. Do I have a motion? Make a motion to approve. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. That is unanimous. New business items. Annexation Lexington County Tax Map 00549601031 located at 186 Zinker Road.

good morning alan h gates joey gates norma taylor marty gates gary gates and bruce gates owns approximately 72 acres on zinker road and has petitioned to annex the property properties in town near this one are zoned industrial and protected residential zinker road is classified as a local road the property is shown on the future land use map as an employment light industrial area The Comprehensive Land Use Plan describes this area as a node intended to accommodate a mix of industrial, office, makerspace, flex tenant, and storage uses designed to support employment-generating development. These areas are characterized by business activity occurring primarily within buildings while allowing for limited outdoor storage and loading manufacturing activities. The applicant is requesting the property be zoned with protected residential zoning and Zinker Road should be classified as a local road.

All right. We have anyone signed up to speak to this?

Yes, we have Robin Jones and Bruce Gates, which are the applicants.

Okay. Would you all like to say something?

Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of the Gates family. As you know, this track is... Could you state your name and your address? Robin Jones, Lexington, South Carolina, Augusta Highway. Is that ample enough? Do you want the entire address? Okay. Anyway, this tract of land has been on the market, I think, for approximately eight years. And I think that the Planning Commission recommended that this tract be used as an industrial site if it were to be annexed into the town. And so we attempted to work with the people in the Lexington County and the town of Lexington Economic Development Department to try to secure an industrial user that would be suitable for the site. And as you know, it's a fairly good size site. But after about a year of working with the town and the county, we've not been able to do so. The family would be delighted to sell it to an industrial buyer if the town or the county has someone of that nature, but we're just not having any success at that. We have had, however, a great deal of success with residential buyers. I think that you guys or the council has been approached and the planning commission has been approached many times with Residential use, but it has been denied. And so we would like to make an appeal to the planning commission that you make a suggestion to the town council that we'd be allowed to use this track either annexed or not annexed, but provide us with water and sewer. So that we can sell this track to a residential developer and allow it to be developed for residentially. Now we have 6 siblings in the family. And times running out in fact, 1 of the family members has recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. And so this track was left as an asset by Homer and Barbara Gates to the 6 siblings. And so. You know, it's this money's needed and some of these family members may not be around to use this money if we continue to delay the development of this track. So we'd like to appeal to the members of the planning commission to make a recommendation to the town council that we'd be allowed to proceed with a residential development either through annexation or just provides with the water and sewer without annexation. And so that's any questions.

Well, first, I would like to say that the Planning Commission does not grant water and sewer. That's not what we're tasked here to do. We're tasked here to... rezone or look at zoning or annexation of properties.

We understand that.

So that would not be a decision that we would make today whether or not we annex or whether or not we don't annex. We don't make that decision.

The problem we're having, Mr. Berry, is that your recommendation at this council level or this planning commission level goes to the town council. For us to get water and sewer, we have to be annexed in. It's One of those things that we can't get the water and sewer for residential development without being annexed in. But once we're annexed in, you guys have recommended and imposed an industrial overlay on this property. And the likelihood of us finding an industry that will take down 77 acres in the town of Lexington right now is probably slim to none. We've tried. All right.

Thanks very much. You need to say anything? Okay. Thank you. Is anybody else signed up?

No.

Okay. That's it for all the... For that item, yes. Alrighty. I do want to say that this body has spent numerous hours on our comp plan and we have our five-year review next year. So we will be going through this again. Again, As I stated in our opening, we volunteer. We're town residents. And we put all our heart and soul into the comp plan. And we will continue to do so when we do it again. So I do want to say that and let that be known that it's just not something we did. We did based off of our consultant. the surrounding properties in that immediate area is how we came to our decision. So I do want to put that out there that this will be coming back up for us to do a redo of the comp plan.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a comment or two. I know the family would like the best of this real estate. I think it would be beneficial for both the Planning Commission and the Council if we could see a site plan of what might be proposed in the way of residential. Just to rezone it and annex it as residential without seeing some sort of plan, I think is inappropriate possibly. I don't know. I know the, is it Brookstone?

Down the street, yeah.

Down the street. It's my understanding, at least, that folks who have bought in that neighborhood are complaining now about the train coming through there. The train's been there a lot longer than Bookstone. And I just wonder if, and I know you all are ready to sell the property, and I'm not trying to delay things, but would you consider... Withdrawing today and coming back with a site plan showing what you're considering?

That has been done, I think, on three separate occasions and each time I've been told it was denied at planning commission level. And I think it has something to do with density. Um, if I'm not mistaken, this track would allow up to between four and five homes per acre. Not that the gates have any desire to see four or five homes per acre on this track, but you know, these developers seem to want to increase density for the most obvious reasons. But, um, So I think what's happened is you've seen plans that have presented to you guys or the council level and possibly you two at 300 some odd homes. Is that correct at one point, Jessica?

Historically, I don't know the numbers. I don't remember the lots, but the historic denials on those submittals was not because of density. It was because of the comprehensive land use plan showing that this should be light industrial.

Okay, well, it was not due to hearing different things. I'm the third or fourth realtor to get involved in this. The first three failed, but I've been told that density was real high. One of the subdivisions with D. R. Horton, which, you know. I agree with it, actually, that it was too many homes. But at any rate, the family has tried many different ways to get this property sold. And each time it's shot down, either we've been told through planning commission or the town council level. So we just don't know which other way to go. Residentially, and we would be open to a number of homes that would be more suitable to the town and to the county. If it's 200 homes, I think the gates would be fine with that. Or if it's 175 homes, or if it's a PUD, planned unit development with a mixture of industrial, retail, and residential. I think the last people that attempted this was Great Southern. And I was told that the town might possibly be interested in 15 acres of this property for a parking site for utility trucks.

No, sir.

These are things that are coming to me. I can't tell you. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.

One thing I would comment about your statement about the possible PUD is that that might be something that could be looked upon favorably if it was... local commercial up front with residential in the back done nicely. I'm not a planner, but I'm just thinking that if it's zoned PR protected residential and with the industrial across the street, which is 24 hours, and on one side it's industrial, with the buffers that would be required and maybe a berm for for protection from lighting and noise for the neighborhood, it would eat into a lot of the property, I would think.

It would, and we've looked at that concept. In fact, I think that concept has been presented. We looked at a daycare on the front entrance, residential mix, and then some live-work retail on the pond site. In fact, the family even agreed to dedicate some of the property along the pond site to the town for a town park. And so we've looked at all kinds of scenarios in the last year and four months since I've been involved with it. We went to Shad Decor to see if they would be willing to buy a portion of it. We talked to International Paper, the industry you're speaking of across the street, to see if they would be interested in buying all of it. So we worked with NAI Avant through the economic department with some buyers that they had but that never panned out. and so we've tried just about every avenue there is and quite frankly time is running out for some of these members in this family that may never live long enough to see the benefit of this property that their mother and father paid for so We're hoping that we can get that zoning. If not, we're fine with just getting the water and sewer, but it's hard to get the water and sewer and just stay in the county and outside the town limits without approval through the council. So thank you.

Anybody else got any questions, comments, or do I have a motion?

I'll just comment. I agree with Mr. Amick's comments a moment ago. I think straight residential on this site, being surrounded by industrial on all sides and also shown in the future land use map as industrial, I think some kind of PUD or split zone option may be more favorable.

have a question for jessica if i could jessica if if this is denied this morning what is their timeline for having to come back with a different request there is no timeline if you all make a recommendation this morning we will then take that recommendation to town council's next regular meeting and so town council will have an opportunity to you know look at that take your recommendation and into consideration and they would ultimately have the deciding vote on whether or not it makes it pass first reading. If it is approved at first reading as requested, then it would move on to a public hearing and second reading. And then if it is denied at first reading, then instead. They would then have the opportunity to speak with town council if they wanted to at that time about the water and sewer, I would assume, as long as the council allowed them to to make that request. It would be up to the mayor who runs that meeting.

Excuse me. From a timing perspective for the family, if they were to withdraw this morning and come back a month from now with a plan to show us that they might consider, would that move more quickly than the other process?

No.

Right. Okay.

May I make one more statement?

The Idea of coming back to you guys with a plan. I gotta tell you, we're experiencing deal fatigue on this particular property. There are only so many developers in the town and. Every developer in this town has approached this property, but some of them spent some money in engineering and planning and only to be denied. And so. They are now. They're taking the position when I call them now that, hey, we just don't want to touch it. It's got a bad rap. It's not going to be approved. And so when you say, let's come back to the planning commission with a plan, that's going to require that I get another developer involved, which means he's got to spend money. And they're exhausted. They don't want to do it anymore. And so I need something concrete that says, we're going to let you develop this residentially, whether it be a PUD. You know, PR, I think after I spoke with Jessica, the PR, protected residential zoning, was the most likely to be approved with the Planning Commission and Town Hall Council.

To be clear, I did not say that. I said that PR is the most restrictive zoning. And also, to clarify, We did meet with one developer about a potential PUD on this site, but it never made it past staff meetings to come before you all with a plan. A PUD cannot be approved without a plan because that has to have an official planned unit development document that creates basically its own zoning ordinance for that location. And so we have to have those documents and that plan to be able to approve it at that level. And that also gets approved by town council, similar to a PUD that you all just went through the past few months on another property. So it'd be that same procedure if it was a PUD on there. So just to clarify those comments.

Well, I apologize. I'm not trying to imply that she did anything improper. But after talking with her about that. We understand where you're coming from. Yeah, yeah. A lot of conversations with a lot of different departments and a lot of confusion. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.

I'll make a motion to deny the request for annexation and zoning classification. All right.

To be clear, is that a recommendation to town council? Okay, I just want to make sure we're clear on what our role is. Thank you.

So the motion is to deny the annexation requirement.

To recommend to town council.

All right, do we have a second?

I'll second it.

One opposed.

One opposed. Thank you very much.

Can I say one thing? No, sir.

I'll hide it in this crowd for a minute. Thank you. And we have, just for the record, we got, I guess, traffic court is next. I'm seeing them out there moving. Okay. Item number two, American Leadership Association.

American Leadership Academy is proposing a gymnasium, classroom, and sports complex expansion at 105 and 109 Innovation Place. The expansion would include the addition of approximately 34,227 square foot of building containing a full-size gymnasium and additional classrooms. a full stadium field with track and bleachers, and the addition of approximately 10,700 linear feet of on-site stacking. The proposed expansion is anticipated to increase the school's capacity from approximately 1,700 students to 2,600 students. As presented, the project meets all zoning requirements. The project will also appear before the Board of Architectural Appearance to ensure compliance with applicable architectural appearance standards. The traffic impact analysis, prepared for the proposed American Leadership Academy expansion, evaluated existing and projected traffic conditions in the area surrounding the school. Based on the study, the following improvements were recommended. Geometric modifications at the intersection of Glassmaster Road and Brunner Road to accommodate left turn movements. Geometric modifications at the intersection of Glassmaster Road and Brunner Road to improve right turn movements. minor geometric alignment modifications at the intersection of Industrial Drive and South Lake Drive to allow concurrent operation of the existing traffic signal. construction of a north round right turn lane on South Lake Drive at Innovation Place into the school campus. All improvements are subject to SCDOT review, approval, and standards. Consideration will also be given to dualization of the interior roundabout between the upper school exit and Innovation Place. The Planning Commission should consider the proposed expansion and associated transportation and circulation improvements including the relocation of vehicle stacking from public roadways to the interior of the site in its evaluation of this request. David Palin, who is with American Leadership Academy.

Good morning, my name is David Palin, 656 South Main Street in Greenville, South Carolina. I am the civil engineer landscape architect representing ALA Lexington and we also have Eric Dillon here who is our traffic engineer who prepared the study, the traffic engineering study and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all have.

Okay. Assurance, at least, if we approve this plan today, what assurances are we going to be given that all the traffic plans are going to be installed and functioning prior to you all occupying that building? Because the reason I say that is you all, the school came before this body, and we gave them permission or approval to build The upper school, the second, they went out there and built both at the same time. It created traffic nightmares. So I can tell you one of the things that's going to weigh heavy on my decision is assurances that this is going to be approved if I move forward with an approval.

Sure. So we have not only been speaking with Randy and Jessica here with the town, but we've also, the traffic study has gone to District 1 of SCDOT and also to the state level, David Meekins, who oversees all the school facilities and has to approve traffic studies for schools. all the school facilities and the project has to go through the office of school facilities at the state level to be permitted. Jack Bonnet is leading that process for us and they have made it clear to us that we will not get plan approval until they see the drawings done for all the recommendations that you see on this sheet here. Now I will add one more thing and Eric might actually be the better one to answer this, but The one caveat in there is all improvements are subject to SCDOT review and approval and standards. There's also right-of-way issues that we're moving forward with the survey for all these offsite improvements that are recommended here to determine where the right-of-way is. So again, David Meekins has sent an email that was very blunt and said that the state will not give their concurrence letter to approve our plans until they see all of these recommended approvals designed and submitted for permit. And who was that email from again? David Meekins, M-E-E-K-I-N-S.

and he's in Columbia with SCDOT. Can you make sure that that email is sent to the town staff and Randy, our traffic engineer?

Randy might have been copied on, but yes, the answer to that is yes.

But what I hear you say is it's got to be approved on paper, but we need the assurance that it's physically done before those buildings and those facilities are occupied. That is our biggest concern.

And that's the condition that OSF has said that they will put on us, and we've discussed that with Jessica and Randy as well, that... Yes, those improvements would all need to be constructed and functioning before we have...

I know you guys are from Greenville, but I can tell you, coming that way during school time, traffic was backed up on I-20 when they first opened that school for several weeks, and that was not a fun thing.

And I can tell you from doing charter schools like this all over the state, whenever we open a new school, the first several weeks are very chaotic because the parents aren't sure what to do. It's taken longer to get kids out of cars than it should and that kind of thing. And the staff has the opportunity to see how the plan is working and make adjustments to that. So That is fairly typical, but after those first three to four weeks, things typically get better.

Yeah, we understand that, but what they're saying is we were misled. We were told one facility was going to be used, two facilities were used. That's a deception. So I understand there's a traffic issue in a school first half. Every fall there's a traffic issue, right? Everybody figuring out. But what we're saying is we need an assurance the wool's not being pulled over our eyes. There's a sour taste in our mouth over this.

Well, the traffic was all year long. It wasn't those first few weeks. It was every single day. Every single day. It was awful.

understand and just so you all know I was not part of that first phase that was done so I can't necessarily address those we do have representatives from the school here if you'd like to hear from them but I can tell you the town has made it clear on Jessica and Randy's side the state office has made it clear they're aware of the traffic issues that happened the first time so they've all made it very clear to us that without these improvements recommended in the report. And on the site plan, we're basically doubling the amount of onsite stacking. So it's going from roughly 6,000 linear feet to 11. And the school operates on two different bells. And just based on the calculations that we've done with a school population of 2,600, If it was one bell schedule and everybody was coming at one time, we would need 13,000 linear feet of stacking to control those cars. Under two bell schedules... you can kind of extrapolate the math. You would need 6,500 and we're providing over 11. So we feel like from an onsite perspective, we've done everything we could to get the maximum amount of onsite stacking that we can get. And we still understand we need to go before the parents commission because some of that stacking is happening in the front yard. Now we're going to be lower in elevation and we're going to screen it with landscaping and such so that it's not as apparent as you know just seeing it as the first thing you see from the school. But we we understand We were made aware when we first started the project of issues that happened the first time around, and we're doing everything we can to make sure that that gets better.

I think the original question was, what is the assurance? What assurance can you give us?

Well, other than saying we can't get approved plans from the state to start construction on the building prior to those plans being designed and they're not going to give us a certificate of occupancy until those plans are installed. I don't know what other assurance I can give.

All right. Thank you very much.

I'll just reiterate the comments that others have already made and say that there was a lot of problems with traffic when the school first opened. It's gotten a lot better, but that was thanks in a big part to a lot of time and effort from town transportation staff and SCDOT. We want to make sure that we don't fall into that trap again, which is why we'd like to see some assurances if we can. um just for the record can y'all talk about the town and d.o.t's involvement in the preparation of the traffic study and outside of the office of school facilities has the district been involved at all uh eric dillon uh infrastructure solar engineering a traffic engineer on this project and did the tia uh easily south carolina need to address um

And I've worked on several charter schools and schools, public schools throughout the state and in other states as well. To go to your question, we scoped the project through the town of Lexington as far as study intersections. We scoped it through DOT, not only the district office, which is the local office that runs the area, and the headquarters office, where David Meekins works out of, who is the liaison officer for OSF. Basically OSF, Office of School Resources, worked with David and they get all that together. So all the scope was done through them as far as what needed to be on this traffic study. And basically the traffic study unfolded We agreed to basically count, get the traffic there now, my school's in full session, full tilt, So we come up with a number of students, a number of cars, what's going on there. Basically, the study lays out what's going on now. Then we do a build model. We grow traffic, not only the school traffic impact, the 900-some students, but we also grow traffic based on growth factors through the roadway system. And then come up to a build year and apply that.

Sure. Yeah, so I guess it sounds like the town has been heavily involved, and I get the impression DOT, at least at the district office, may not have reviewed these recommendations yet?

I've talked to Lori Campbell, who's the district traffic engineer. I talked to her yesterday. She has not had time to review it. Assistant Matt Kelly, who I think had kids going with this school, he was very interested. He's reviewing it. He's went to headquarters now. But she has not had time to look it over yet. So we're just kind of waiting on her confirmation. But we did get confirmation from headquarters and their traffic staff. They reviewed it and had no comment on it.

Okay. Yeah, I think the recommendations you've got seem reasonable, and it's what I would expect to see with the addition that the school is proposing. One additional thing that I would like to see, and if y'all could coordinate this with SCDOT, would be in front of the QT and Circle K on Industrial, or sorry, Glassmaster. The school traffic in the mornings especially blocks up those driveways, and there's a lot of traffic. That's the only way you can get back from QT to the interstate. is by making that left turn so if there's an option to be able to put do not block markings and signage to help alleviate that problem i think that would be be helpful i see the line on our agenda as well which i don't think was in the traffic study because it's interior to the site but it says consideration will be given to dualization of the interior roundabout what is that going to include is there going to be an analysis to see if that's needed or

So that came from a discussion that we had with Jessica and Randy last week after they'd had a chance to look at the traffic study and it was so Randy had kids going to this school too so he was in the lines a lot and that was an observation that he made was that the exiting lane from the lower school drop-off had to cross the entrance lane into the upper school drop-off. And so he noted that if there was one car blocking that drive, it gummed up the entire works. So he asked us to just study one section of the traffic circle from the exit lane of the drop-off to the exit to innovation and see if we added a second lane in there, would that help free flow the exiting movement? So we agreed that we would take a look at that and we'll work closely with Randy on that one.

Okay. Yeah, please do because roundabouts are great, but if the roundabout gets blocked up, then all that traffic's going to end up on the roads, which then we have a whole new problem. So I appreciate y'all looking at that.

That's all you got? Yeah, that's all I got. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Edwards. Would you like to shed some additional light on this matter?

Yes, so I'd like to be the transportation director of Town of Lexington. First, I guess I'd like to provide some clarification to what was expressed as a concern as to how the original site was approved and presented as under the cover of darkness, some other stuff happened. While that may seem true to this body, that's not true as in the process. So the original site with the lower school only was a year prior to when the school actually ultimately opened. And that was unfortunately the last time that this body would have an opportunity to see it, simply because schools are governed by the Office of School Facilities, which is the state education. Okay, so, and then there's no question that the opening of ALA created significant issues, both traffic as well as internal coordination, cooperation with planning department in the town. And so there was a lot of lessons learned and through efforts on our side and in trying to work with ALA to get to good on the original build We had many discussions with OSF who admitted that the manner in which they handled opening charter schools of this size was different than what their governing rules did because typical charter schools prior to this size. new era was just very small schools, 100 students, those types of things, where this is much more of a significant impact to any area. So OSF has taken that and confirmed that this school would, in fact, get corrected if anything was ever done. So we have their assurance that OSF that they would not issue a CO until 100% of the, and when we say that, the issues are at least through Eric's study, are resolved as well as then any of the security issues, those types of things that happen on a typical school campus, they've acknowledged that they've changed or are changing the way they look at charter schools across the state. And that's through our cooperation with Jack Bonnet who they referenced And so then, of course, Meekins has stated that, you know, they've looked generally at the traffic, recognize that there's significant improvements being made, don't really take any issues with it. We did confirm that Lori at District 1 has not yet had a... you know, opportunity due to some changeover in staff to get that taken care of. Because I think we've had the study, Eric, two weeks? Yeah, so I recognize that, but Lori and I are in contact and she essentially leans on what we Whether we want to admit it or not, our bar is generally a little higher than SED EOTs, so she tends to lean to our recommendations. So I haven't gotten any negative feedback from her. I like Joe's comments. That, of course, for clarification, is a commercial driveway, which EOT has somewhat of a pretty strong position, but it's my attempt or intent to work with Lori in this specific case, you know, to see if there can be an exception made for doing a do not block X while they're not always followed. They're at least an effort, you know, to try and alleviate that because it's certainly something we've observed and none of the improvements identified will address that other than there will be improved efficiency at the signal For clarification the what will be done is the lanes would be split on industrial from Currently, it has to run as a split phase signal, so that takes up additional time. These lanes would then be split. There'd be a token amount of construction work there in front of Whataburger, which would allow for some lane reconfiguration, which would allow that signal to run in concurrent timing. So the lefts from each side would move concurrently, which would improve the efficiency just naturally. I'm not quite sure. I think Eric's looked at the measure And then, of course, there is a long-term plan. It's been identified in the local transportation improvement plan, which is why the previous discussion, you know, is near to my heart, only because those types of developments drive those major improvements, which would be to actually add an additional right turn lane at industrial level. if there is additional development back industrial Boulevard. So, but this effort does in fact provide the efficiency that's needed by going back to a concurrent configuration. So everything of course is subject to SEDOT review and approval, but that's a standard language. So I just hope that the body at least hears from a clarity standpoint that there's a lot more involvement and certainly more control, if you will, than what was had at the previous level. So OSF issued the CO originally on the building without any reason for ALA to come back to us. So there was never afforded an opportunity. And then finally, if you get the schematic with just the overall site plan, if you look closely, there is a significant amount of stacking being provided on the site. So one of the things from a traffic standpoint that we appreciate is that if this thing doesn't work well, it's gonna not work well internally and be a ALA problem and not a town and traffic problem. So that's one of the things that we saw as, Hey, you know they're maximizing their site. We told them this is a definite great step forward. I obviously wish a lot of this was in place initially open, but you know it is what it is and so I think a la heard us loud and clear that nothing was going to go forward without addressing the traffic issues that we've experienced and we do not expect to have the same challenges that we had. on the original opening. So those are all my clarifications.

I do have a question. The railroad is so close. It's like 1,366 feet from Innovation Place to the railroad. And it's a tight squeeze right there. The more we widen, the tighter the squeeze is because we can't just add a lane over the railroad. Is that being looked at as how is that bottleneck being affected by all of this?

know Eric if that I mean it's a typical to the the one thing that was sort of on the cutting floor if you will but we kept it was the additional right turn lane going into an innovation so there was some discussion about that. basically is it really warranted because of the additional that lane kind of acts like. But what our ultimate goal in the traffic world is is we want both of those lanes full all the way down to the zipper merge. And the right turn lane, we believe, will actually help alleviate some of that and allow people going through to continue through instead of blocking off traffic and backing up into the Glassmaster intersection. So I hear what you're saying, and it's not a one day that will actually be widened across the railroad. We may not see it, but it'll need to happen ultimately. So I hear what you're saying.

Can we slide over?

So again, that's not something specific like how many cars went there. There's also identified in the local transportation improvement plan is that there's an issue there at Railroad Avenue, but that certainly is not an ALA task to address. So we believe that the right turn lane provides the efficiency that the school actually needs and will help address and get that zipper merge back to operating as well as it possibly can.

Randy, you mentioned improvements at 6 and Industrial? Yes. Can those be done before those buildings are completed and it's occupied?

Yes. The answer is yes, and they will need to be. I mean, I think that's the thing with OSF is that, and it's probably not something ALA wants to hear. They'd prefer them to be separate, I'm sure. But at the end of the day, the comments I've heard are this will, in fact, be addressed prior to an occupancy, which OSF controls.

This is a question for the school. When do you see these buildings being completed or these new additions being completed?

So if everything goes according to plan, we plan on starting to move dirt this summer. Obviously, the stadium complex whole site has to be cleared and graded, so there's significant work there. The building pad is kind of already pad ready. It's relatively flat. And the idea would be to have an opening for 2027, 28 school year. Yeah, so all of 27. Yeah.

And I guess for clarity, the so the improvements, um, are are not like they're all like small improvements. So I think that's the one thing that is to their advantage to be able to accomplish. It's not like we're really trying to, you know, uh, I can't really think of anything specifically, but it really is just, I don't want to use the word token, but they're all small improvements at four different locations. And so it's really going to be incumbent upon them to get a good contractor for them to meet their schedule. But nothing's a significant, you know, big enough lift that it should cause any real delays.

All righty. Anybody else got any questions, concerns, comments?

Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve with the condition that the improvements as noted be discussed with SCDOT and additionally the do not block markings be explored as well.

Second.

All righty. If, Jessica, for clarification, I know we have a motion and a second, but we're discussing now. If the plan changes, the site plan changes with traffic patterns, do we need to re-see that as the planning commission?

That is up to you. If you would want staff to handle that at a staff level, or if you felt that it needs to come before you again, we would take your direction.

I would think it probably needs to come back to us so we can reevaluate it at that point. And be up to speed of any changes.

Okay. Are you amending your motion to include that condition?

Yes. You're good with that? Yes, sir. All right. All in favor, please raise your right hand. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. We've got to hurry. There's like a whole police force out back. Item number three, amendment to approve traffic mitigation plan at the preserves of Cherokee Trail. Jessica.

The Preserves at Cherokee Trail subdivision, consisting of 62 residential lots, received approval in August of 2024. As part of the approved plans, token right turn lanes were proposed at each of the development access points along Cherokee Trail as traffic mitigation measures associated with the project. Subsequent to approval, the SEDOT reviewed the proposed improvements and denied the installation of the token right turn lanes. SEDOT requested that alternative traffic mitigation measures be considered. Following discussions between the applicant and town staff, it was determined that the installation of a northbound right turn lane at the intersection of Old Cherokee Road and Cherokee Trail would satisfy the project's traffic mitigation requirements.

Alrighty. Anybody sign up to speak on this?

No, but the applicant is here. We do have representatives.

Do you have anything you want to add to this? Please state your name and your address.

My name is Jeff Edelman. I live at 959 East Main Street. I think Jessica summed it up pretty well. Unfortunately, SEDOT does not approve of the smaller turn lanes that we originally designed and proposed to you guys. And so a better and more robust improvement and benefit to the community can be found by adding a small right turn lane at this intersection, well off the site, but will help more people. So we hope that you find that favorable and approve our request. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Edwards, would you like to add anything to this?

Since it's your baby, traffic. Just a clarification. So when the applicant proposed these, I call them two neighborhoods, one on each side of the road, they proposed, hey, we'll put in these token right turn lanes, and we did not see any issues with that. Technically speaking, the traffic volume on Old Cherokee Trail doesn't really warrant. And so DOT is like, hey, we don't want all this additional asphalt out here. There's some validity there that what is it really doing? And so what myself and the applicant and Jessica went back to the drawing board to say, okay, well, what can you do to mitigate trips in that area? And we felt like this is something that You know, actually, if you have a left-turning vehicle out of Cherokee Trail, anybody trying to turn right has to sit there and wait. And so we've asked them to refocus their energies at the intersection of Old Cherokee Road and provide that just intersection improvement so that any of those new trips, you know, can move more freely in those areas.

All right. So DOT denied it. You're okay with it?

Yes, we were fine with it. I mean, that's why it made it all the way through the first time.

All right. Yeah, I'll just say I agree with the findings, and I appreciate the applicant working with the town and SCDOT. I think, as mentioned, this right turn lane will benefit not only the new development, but the existing neighborhoods and traffic. So we appreciate that.

Do I have a motion?

I make a motion to approve... Do I have a second?

Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. It is unanimous. Jessica, you have anything for...

I did send out an email to you all regarding training opportunities. I've heard from a lot of you, but if I have not, please let me know what your plans are for attending training. There are several different options. We will have a meeting next month. We are hoping to do a sign ordinance workshop with you all. That is the plan. And so our consultant is currently working on compiling all of the stakeholder information and some of the research that she has to present to you all next month.

Alrighty. Anybody else? Without... Without any objection, we are adjourned. Thank you for watching the Town Election and Planning Commission. Commission members are unable to engage in outside communications regarding these agenda items. If you have any additional questions following the meeting, please contact the Municipal Clerk. With no objection, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you for watching the Town Election and Planning Commission, and we wish you a good day.