Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the regular meeting of the North Augusta Planning Commission. If we could please have everyone introduce themselves, do our call to order, and then I will go over kind of the rules of engagement.

Aaron Slade. Bob Bigger.

Jesse Elliott.

Lisa Christie. And I am your chairperson, Christine Crawford. So let's do the approval of the minutes. Are there any changes or edits that anyone caught in the minutes? If not, can I please have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

All right.

Mr. Paradise, are there any changes or edits to the agenda?

No, ma'am.

Okay. All right. And for all of you all who are participating tonight, thank you all for joining us. The way that we do things is we'll go over the application. Mr. Paradise will share what he would like for us to know. We ask him questions. May or may not ask him questions. Then the applicant comes forward, presents what information they would like to share. As commissioners, we ask questions. And then I open it up for questions. The public, we ask that if you do make a comment, that you keep it to about two minutes. That if your neighbor, in the general and specific sense, has shared one perspective, that you share something different so that we have a chance to kind of have a greater understanding of viewpoints. But here, new information as well. And when you come to the podium, please make sure that you give your name and address for all those in Facebook land. We ask when we have, oh, do open it up for public comments or questions that all comments and questions are asked at that time. And then we will have the applicant return to the podium to answer those questions at one time. All right. So let's get started with PDM 26-002, plan development modification and a request by Savannah Construction Services. Mr. Paradise, what would you like for us to know about this?

Yes, ma'am. This is the River Club, also the North Augusta Golf Venture plan development. It affects about 0.3 acres in its own plan development area. The original, or it has been modified several times from the original planned development. At one time, before the townhomes was there, there was supposed to be a conference center on this parcel, and the townhomes were approved. And in that PD modification, the subject parcel here that you see was designated as mixed use. Y'all remember under Sinclair there are certain requirements in a PD. Let me read those to you so you have them fresh in your mind. A planned development is to be comprised of housing of different types and densities and compatible commercial uses to be characterized by a unified site design for mixed use development and making a recommendation to city council. So it's supposed to have retail and offices and things that complement the neighborhood. So that was what was approved on this parcel was mixed use and it had to be 75% commercial that's restaurant, retail, and office space, and 25% residential. The applicant has purchased, or the owner has purchased the parcel and has requested that the PD be modified to 25% commercial and 75% residential. The planning department staff is trying to walk that fine line. I think the public would rather this be residential, but at the same time, not get upside down with our state Supreme Court ruling in Sinclair. That requires the mixture there. And so he asked about doing the 75%, and my response was, well, we can fly it up the flagpole and see what council says. uh... the anything that is there will require uh... on-site parking uh... there is they have asked to be allowed to use underneath the bridge uh... if they get an encroachment permit from DOT uh... from the planning department's aspect that is wasted space under the bridge and would be some utilization to it if DOT would uh... allow that. The other thing is is that if they do that, it's going to be several years down the road because they're about to replace the bridge. There has been some discussion about this being a lay down yard for that construction when I talked to Georgia DOT about it. This gives you an idea of the parcel, and you can see parcel A is subdivided out. It's a different parcel. It's standalone, and it has these existing entitlements to it. I did get, you did get, or should have got a email from a gentleman. that I forwarded to y'all about not doing away with the green space. Well, it's an undeveloped lot. I don't call that green space. Green space is something that's dedicated to remain undeveloped. And this has always been a develop a lot. This is the mythology from the original plan in 2004. This gives you kind of an outline of what they are proposing to do. And you can see where they would propose the parking under the bridge there, if DOT would allow it. With a three-story building, it would be a total of 14,700 square feet total. The big thing is changing it from 75% commercial to 75% commercial. residential and 25% commercial. And also in there we took out the requirement for the Greenway because that's already in existence. And do you have any questions for me?

I know you said, you mentioned by law we have to have the distribution of different types of housing and commercial and residential. Is it listed anywhere what those percentages have to be?

No, it is not. That is not listed in state law.

If you could speak into the microphone, please.

The wording on, I'm trying to find a page.

I think it's page six of seven.

Yes. It's like exactly what we have as the parameters.

And what is the, do you know at least roughly the total area that this PD covers? I know it is the golf course, correct?

It's the golf course, it's this area, and I think it's Shore Drive. Okay. And the development down Shore Drive.

So nothing on the other side of the bridge.

Correct.

And we don't know if the golf course counts as...

I would say that it does not, because that is a private club now. It's not open to the general public. But I am not an attorney.

Is there going to be an alternate parking plan if DOT says no? Because I don't think seven spaces is going to be enough.

When they submit the site plan for the property, They will have to comply with the development code, with the parking requirements. And so if they can't fit the parking on there, they'll either have to come to the BZA for variance, or they'll have to change the footprint of the building to accommodate the additional parking.

When you look at the original intent, like when this was originally drafted, there was a significant mixed use of different things. And so clearly we have residential all around this. And to put 25% commercial, do we have a bigger option than just, I mean, I know it's a PD, but it.

Right now, as it stands today, it's 75% commercial.

But with the request, I'm just saying, with the club being private now, if we're excluding that commercial component.

So that is what we are here to decide. And so we will, so that is the very question that we will discuss. And so we'll offer the applicant an opportunity, if there are no other questions, Mr. Paradise at this time, then we'll ask the applicant to come forward. Please give your name and address, and then we have the opportunity to ask those questions. All right, thank you.

Good evening.

Lance Cheely, 1104 Campbellton Drive, North Augusta.

I'm here tonight with Cranston Engineering representing the owner, Savannah Construction Services.

I'd like to start with just a little bit of backstory on how the owner that I'm representing came to be involved with the parcel.

So roughly 2008, 2009, this parcel went on the market.

The client bought it with very little knowledge of what the parameters were.

He sat on the parcel, he's owned it for over 10, almost 20 years now. He's getting older and he's trying to start doing something with the pieces of property. He owns, from what he's told me, numerous properties around South Carolina and he just kind of was buying them when they were low and holding on to them. When I got into the project, knowing the site, knowing where it was, I was very surprised that it had a commercial.

And my owner, for what it's worth, does not really care to do commercial construction or real estate. That's not his .

We did sit down with Tommy once we found out that it was in PD, that there were some existing requirements on the site, and went through a few options, knowing that the site was already slated as part of a PD. We have to start there. 14,700 square feet and 75 percent of that being commercial at first glance not only do we not care very much about commercial i also acknowledge that that was probably not what most residential unit owners or occupants in this area probably want. So we were looking for a solution to allow two things, meet the letter of the law and essentially maximize out of that original 14,700 square foot authorization the most residential capacity in square footage that we can get. I would also like to say it's the intent of the owner to build something that is in general alignment with what's around. We don't have a set footprint or a set unit mix or any of those things because we have a lot of things up in the air, such as we even get an authorization tonight. What does our parking do with the acknowledgments that we need from DOT and others? And just a general, you know, we're really at the tip of the iceberg, the starting point here. The direction that we get tonight will really tell us that course. We'll obviously have to come back for further approval, site plan, building plan, et cetera. So you will most likely, I'm sure, Tommy, have another look at this before it's all said and done. This really is the first step for us in really acknowledging if the owner is going to move forward with him or if he would go to market with the site or what. We have had some discussions with GDOT and SCDOT regarding the bridge component.

There are some things that they would like from us, and so we are kind of trying to negotiate at the start what the parking scenario would look like. As you know, there are some long timetables for what their completion is.

That will have an effect on our ability to start, finish, But we do need the Planning Commission authorization to know how to proceed forward, but there are a lot of questions that we would not be able to answer at this point as far as unit mix or things that follow from that. The, if there was a commercial component, well, assuming there is a commercial component, it is not the owner's desire to make that a predominantly public-facing business, but it would be potentially some sort of asset that serves this area more so.

Like, I don't want to spitball things, but, you know, laundry,

something that he's not really into you know honestly if he gets the approvals that we want i think that's all i have any questions at this moment

So with the timeframe of the bridge, obviously being several, if not many years, are you looking to try to get these approvals and get plans done and wait till that's done to start the building? Or are you trying to build, I mean, because that just gets into, because parking's definitely not gonna be available under the bridge till it's done. Sure. Is that long game something y'all are trying to play?

It's definitely something that we're considering.

Depending on what the market says, we would entertain something. As I understand it, some of these units are standalone units with surface parking. Some are parked below residential units. Again, how this shakes out, we don't know whether we would do park below.

Parking is really up in the air depending on how many units and how much authorization we get here.

We have had those discussions. There are some pending. This is where the SCDOT DOT wants to access and lay down. depending on how they were to incentivize the owner he or not incentivize the owner he may push forward or he may pull back so there are some things there that are still up in the air any other questions from chile at this time i'm starting to have time thank you all right are there um any from the public who would like to come forward please if so please give your name and address

Good evening. My name's Eddie Butler, and I'm a property owner in the area and in the landing. I'm a partner or owner of approximately 11 units there. When we purchased those units, we've always known that this was a developable lot. There's no issue with that. But parking is an issue. And although we were here less than a year and a half ago in front of the Board of Appeals because we had a resident who wanted to run a law practice out of one of the units, and we lost, so the business was granted, which increases traffic in an area where, since this PUD was created 20 years ago, parking needs have changed drastically. We have an apartment complex that's just built in a traffic circle. We have a baseball stadium that wasn't there. I didn't design this. initial plan, the city of North Augusta laid this out in 2005, 2006, or the developer did, and parking was not adequate at that time. So fast forward 20 years, we have parking issues there. So the fact that this property will develop, I take no issue with. We've known all along that it was a developable property and would agree to that. But having the parking under the bridge, Right now, the bridge, our current discussions with the developer on the bridge, they could not encroach on the stadium side. That was too precious. So all the right of way is being taken up to the backs of our units. So I've got units that we don't know that we'll be able to back out of the driveway. We may lose parking because of the bridge, but I hear A zoning change and they're going to get parking under the bridge, that's a little concerning. And maybe we should have been smarter. Maybe we should have gone and got the parking before they did. But I would just beg you of this. Before there's a zoning change, I'd like to know that there's going to be adequate parking because in that area that tends to be an issue. But we don't take any – any issue with the fact that it's a developable property. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the community that have questions or comments for Mr. Shealy? Okay. There being none, we will open it up for discussion. I can share my thoughts to get the ball rolling. I certainly am not okay with the complete inverse of what is commercial because I think given the flexibility and what was awarded to them because it was a planned development and there was a component of it that is always supposed to be open to the general public, there's supposed to be public traffic and this was to provide that if you take that and have only 25% and the rest is completely private, then it should not have been planned development. And so I think to come back with the last bit and try to change the entire development is a bit problematic for me personally. So I certainly perhaps would consider Some deviation, but in no way I'm interested in the complete inverse of what was initially put in place. And I hate that the owner did not know that when he purchased it, but that in some ways you're buying a part of a planned development, don't know what else he thought was commercial. That's not our responsibility. So, to me.

Question for Mr. Paradise. How did we get here? Obviously, this planned development had a requirement for commercial all along. This seems to be the worst parcel of all, or was it within this whole planned development, or was this parcel just what's left? Because I would assume that if you were going to do something commercial, you would have done it up by the traffic circle where there was easier access than down here on the other side of residential areas.

Unless you were going to use the commercial to access the river. You have the river frontage there as well. But I really don't know. This was 2004, 2005 time frame, long before Tommy. And this is a remnant, the last parcel. It is the commercial portion that just never got built.

Just so I'm clear, there is no other commercial in there, right?

The only other commercial that I'm aware of is the golf course, which is private.

I feel like it's an awkward place to put commercial development, but I also agree with you that I don't think that it should be switched now. I don't think there's enough with all the laws and everything required for plan development. I don't think this would be right.

My question is, do we, do someone have the option to move it from PD to something else to eliminate? Because if I'm living in those townhomes and those homes, I don't know that I want that commercial element, even though that's what the PD requires right there in my neighborhood. So that's a bigger question.

Well, but it's kind of, I mean, as somebody who lives in one, you also knew that it was planned development when you purchased your home. So it was disclosed. It is, in my opinion, not unlike other instances where something stays vacant for a very long time and we forget what the original use of it was, what the lines were, where their property lines were, ours were. So again, Everybody has gotten used to it not having a commercial component, but that is not what they purchased into. It was a planned development. You knew there was a commercial component.

And as Mr. Mr. Butler kind of alluded to, the vote isn't development or not development. You know, this this parcel is zoned for some building. So we're not trying to protect green space where they are the only thing on our plate today is to flip the to consider flipping the commercial residential.

There's a lot going on here. One thing you said, he just wasn't aware when he bought it that this was a thing. That's kind of on him. I understand how things like that can happen if you're buying stuff all over the state, but that's on him. I do agree it's a weird place for commercial. I think my biggest holdup is the law, which is kind of where it stops. You know, this is a pretty decent-sized area, and if there's no commercial, and this is the only thing, 25% of that building being commercial, it's going to be just a little pinch. And as weird as it might would be to have something, I can't figure out what commercial would work well there anyway. And I'd hate for it to be built and to just sit empty forever. You mentioned you didn't like flipping 25 to 75. Are you thinking like a 50-50, or are you just thinking leave it like it is? Do you have a thought on that?

I certainly still am not even open to 50-50 because it is the only one in the entire development. And so if that was proposed in the initial proposal, I think, again, it doesn't have to keep the same use because things change and it doesn't have to be a conference center. As a conference center, that would have made sense, right? So I can't even say that I can't. I can't imagine that there are no commercial uses that would make sense. I just, I can't, I don't know, right? But I certainly would not, I don't even think I'd be okay with 50-50.

Now, if it were the will of the group and everybody else, we could discuss it.

I think if there's anyone who is interested in 50-50, then certainly making a motion towards 50-50 and then we can discuss it and vote if that's something that any of the commissioners

Excuse me. And just so y'all know this, a lot of times y'all are the final decision maker. On this one, you're making a recommendation to city council, and they'll make the final decision.

Thank you. And I do agree. I've been in there, and parking is an issue. So if we add that commercial component, and then under the bridge, it's not available. Because, I mean, that could be seven years from now. Who knows how long that's going to take?

Well, and whether it's commercial or residential, parking could be an issue, depending on what commercial comes in there and what time it could affect it. Parking is just, as you grow, parking could be a thing. I think either way, parking under the bridge should be something looked at, especially if they use it as a lay down yard, you might have some leverage to say, hey, well, let us use this.

Because otherwise, that's just kind of not used space. Right. Well, but to also be clear, parking becomes a design issue at that point, right? So it could be that a much smaller footprint for a building is required regardless of the use that would allow for parking, adequate parking. So that's not, you know, we can't, I don't think we should try to address something that the owner hasn't even tried to address first when it gets to that point.

But is there a,

Any other thoughts?

Everybody's thinking and shaking. And either way, I need a motion in the positive. So even if it is to be voted down, still need a motion of some sort on the table or an action.

Mr. Shealy was asking, does he get an opportunity to respond?

Technically, no, but I certainly don't mind. Come on, if you want to, if there's something else you want to. Yeah, you do. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm thinking about us because we skipped it.

I just had two things to just put before the group. Just to maybe flesh out a little bit more of the physical nature of the – so you've got 14,000 square feet. You've got about a 15,000 square foot site. So if you are talking two-thirds of that or three-quarters of that being commercial, you're looking at some sort of two-story commercial use essentially. or more whereas residential you could probably be and then there would be you know likely residential on top of that um just wanted to fill in the discussion a little bit you know is how does that mix into the situation and then the more commercial that you include you'll also drive current parking requirements so and we wouldn't be able to put a

You wouldn't see like a park under commercial residential over situation.

So you would really be – and it's, again, I would voice to say I never meant to come up here early and say my owner didn't know, so you should give us anything. No, it is 100% a buyer beware situation. But I did think I would just fill in that kind of spatial layout kind of thought. And then just the parking requirements, again, would be very flexible and driven by what's selected. Thank you.

Are there any other questions? Thank you for correcting me because I forgot.

So a motion has to be made, essentially, to recommend approving it, and then we vote yes or no against that. So you could make a motion in accordance with the request of the residential...

You could make a motion for the request, which is for residential to be 75% and commercial to be no more than 25%, and someone could second it, and then we could all vote no, and that would be the recommendation. It would be as is to the council. If someone also has a counter, so you think maybe it should be...

30 or 50 50 so motions can happen Tommy's in the whole PD because I don't think any of our info had this is there any other undeveloped Lots in that River Club I'm seeing a no okay not that I'm aware of if there is I would think it would be a lot and residential

If it makes it easier, it's a recommendation. But we do need to make one.

All right, so I'll do this to get it going. But I do want to make sure that I'm doing this correct. I will make a motion in the positive to recommend the approval for PDM 26-002.

What else do I need?

I'll make that motion, but I'll be honest, I'm going to vote against it. I just want to be clear where we're at.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. A motion is putting it up for vote. A motion is not supported. So the motion needs to be for the plan development modification to change the requirement to No, being no more than 25% commercial would be, I would recommend to be the motion that it could be seconded and then I will call for a vote and you will all have an opportunity to say yes, including those who both made and seconded.

I'm trying, y'all, I promise. No, I got you, I got you.

This is an interesting one. So I will make a motion for PDM 26-002, essentially to stay the same, which is

25%. Can't do it to say the same.

You have to do it to.

Would somebody else like to give it a go?

Yes. Okay, thank you.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the, let's see, format.

Ms. Waldell, can I give you a suggestion? Sure. Make a motion to approve as submitted.

I would like to make a motion to approve PDM 26-002 as written. As submitted.

As submitted, sorry. Do I have a second? Second.

Okay.

Now, any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

So as submitted is the word for the day. All right. So we are on next to annexation 26-001, Swallow Lakes Townhomes. All right, Mr. Paradise, what would you like for us to know about this application?

Yes, ma'am. You may remember a few months back, or more than a few months back, you approved a major site plan or a major subdivision plan for Swallow Lake Town Homes. It's .16 acres off of Lake Greenwood. Well, we're annexing .16 acres off of Lake Greenwood Drive. This was the preliminary plat that you approved. You'll notice over on the right, with the connection to Lake Greenwood Drive, from the lot that faces Lake Greenwood Drive is not in the city. On the site plan, that connection's required. And of course, the city wants that in the city so we can control the development, how the street is designed. They have been working with Aiken County to get the encroachment permits for the connection to Greenwood, Lake Greenwood. The developer has gotten that now. And so now, it's not, the preliminary plat for the big part over on the left has already been approved. This site plan's been approved. But we are coming back to you for a recommendation of lot B right here. This is the question before you is a recommendation for annexation of this portion of that parcel. And as you see, it's been divided into three different parcels, A, B, and C. And lot C and lot A has been deeded to the adjacent properties. And so all that is there is lot B, which would be the city right of way, coming out to make the connection to Lake Greenwood. And that is to give us, as I call it, the back door into this development. Otherwise, if you come in off of Swallow Lake, it would exceed our block length, and they did not get a waiver for the block length because we had the back door here. So this is really closing up that loop.

And then, so given that it's gonna, I'm sorry, are you finished?

I'm good.

So given that it's gonna be a right-of-way, could you help me understand why it needed to be zoned? I guess R7, is that just the easiest way to?

Because this parcel is zoned R7 and we have to give it a designation with annexation. Okay.

All right. Any other questions for Mr. Paradise? There being none, if the applicant could please come forward and give your name and address.

Good evening. Philip Green, 1233 Augusta West Parkway. Thank you for hearing us tonight. As Mr. Paradise mentioned, this was a secondary connection for Swallow Lake Townhomes, which was previously approved as a preliminary plat. here at this commission we had to get permission uh from aiken county to make that connection which we have done and it then becomes a matter of cleaning up rather than have city right away that stops at a point and that becoming a county road it cleans everything up to make it all city owned and maintained so the only portion that would be getting annexed would be The portion that you see up there labeled as Lot B, which would be the right-of-way of the road. Again, bringing it in as R7 is just to match the existing property that it's tying together with. I think ultimately that would probably be a non-conforming lot for any other use other than a road right-of-way. So there's absolutely no other intent there. But it was something that was requested by the city to do.

again just to kind of clean everything up and connect those properties together answer any questions that you might have there being none are there any from the public there being no public comments or questions if I could Any discussion and or a motion?

So a motion here would include the annexation and the zoning together in one?

Correct, yes.

I'll make a motion to approve ANX26-001 as submitted. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Thank you.

All right. We are on to... Carolina Lakes Phase 1 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Yes ma'am this is

Carolina Lakes is located off of Gregory Lake Road. It's Landmark Investments. It's a 92.03 acre track. It is typically what's referred to around is the Bagot property. where the pond is at um the baguette family owned it for years and has sold it it's zoned r14 it's a large lot single family residential zone it is going to have 110 single-family detached homes in it they are requesting a waiver to the block length to a length to allow 1,350 feet instead of the required 650 feet. This is the subject property here. Kind of makes an L shape. The entrance is in that curve. We've talked to DOT about the entrance. We have, DOT has gone out and looked at it and cleared it and It's up to them whether they're authorized a connection there or not. We have concerns, but DOT has to approve it meeting their sight lines to allow the encroachment permit there. This gives you an overall look at what this phase is. You notice some of the block links will run into additional phases. And overall, this development will have over 500 single-family detached homes proposed for it. And it will have an entrance off of Murrow Road and also, I think it's Country Club, one of the roads there. This just ties some of the pages there. And I have run out of slides for you. But it is for the preliminary plat approval. There is no 110 units. It really comes down to I think that is what they could put in before they have to start putting in traffic improvements. So the next phase, when that comes in, we'll be talking about traffic improvements from their traffic study. That is included in the packet there. And the sewer will be provided by us. The water is provided by Edgefield County Water and Sewer Authority. Do you have any questions for me?

It may be a better question for the applicant, but there is no alternative to an entrance on that curve?

We have had long discussions about that and there's, yeah. Me and DOT had a long discussion and there does not appear to be another alternative to that. DOT told me that they were gonna do a field study on it and have them mark it and check the site line on site before they signed off on the permit.

So if they don't sign off on the permit, then?

They don't get that curb cut, and they'll be back to you.

OK, they come back. That's what I was going, OK.

If they don't get the encroachment permit from DOT, the end of the highway there, then they won't be allowed to. And I would think their only option would be to redesign it and bring an entrance off another road. But where they're at there in this particular parcel where they want to start development from the Gregory, my understanding is, and they can talk to this better than me, but start at Gregory Lake Road and work back toward Murrow Road.

Yeah, I drive home this way every single day, and so I'm very familiar with that, and that was A1, top of the concern heap, because especially with no street lights or anything, it gets very dark there, and that's just not a, yeah, okay.

And I will also chime in that in the traffic study, it seemed to think that people were not going to go out that way. It only said like 15% of the traffic they thought was going to use Gregory Lake Road. I'm like, why would you go up to Murrah to come down to go to the interstate? People are going to dump out on that road. And again, that may be an applicant question, but I'm like, in my head, I'm like, why don't you start on the Murrah Road side where it's safer? egress there and then deal with the DOT or maybe trying to come up with an alternative. But I don't know.

The curve is concerning. So we'll have the applicant come forward to present their information and then we'll have an opportunity to address both our questions. I don't think there are any public left.

Good evening. Good evening. Robert Titus with EMC Engineering on behalf of Landmark Investments.

If you could lean into the microphone and repeat yourself because we didn't catch that. You have to probably, yeah, I'm sorry that it's not, it's all friendly.

I know why Phillip was leaning up against this thing now. Robert Titus with EMC Engineering representing Landmark Investments, 4424 Columbia Road, Martinez, Georgia. I kind of caught some of the stuff. So the reason that we started on Gregory Lake was because that was the piece of property that was purchased. There was some agreement with, however, so that was the piece that he purchased first. We had concerns also with the curve. We met DOT out there, ran the numbers based on 30 miles an hour. And I think that may be the problem is the road's fairly narrow. And if you drive it at 30 miles an hour, not too bad. So what we did was we designed it such that you had the sight distance that is required by South Carolina DMV. We did meet them in the field, stepped it off, they drove it, they looked at it, and they said, okay, this is fine where you have it. So we actually have DOT's approval for the curb cut there. And we'll be adding a right turn lane also. As Mr. Barrett and I said, future plans are to have connectivity through Muir Road and then potentially going out towards Country Club Road.

So that'll give us three points of access.

Unfortunately, I'm not a traffic engineer. We subbed that out. So I'm not sure the distributions they made. but I do know that the improvements that Mr. Parenice was talking about was once you hit a certain number of lots, the traffic generates improvements that would need to be made at Gregory Lake and Martintown Road. So during this first phase, we will be adding the right turn lane there going into the Gregory Lake, coming off Gregory Lake. i can restate what we felt our beliefs for justifies and justifying the increased block length that's presented in you if you'd like please kind of going with the staff recommendations i'm going to read it because i'm not a very good public speaker So the waiver request does not conflict with the goals of the comprehensive plan. The goal of the plan is to provide road connectivity through the developments. The property's limited frontage along public roads dictated the location of the subdivision entrances. The property's irregular shape, steep topography, environmentally sensitive areas, and drainage features did not allow for a block-type layout of the roadways. The roadways are designed to follow natural ridges Traverse between environmentally sensitive drainage features, adherence to the standard would require extensive regrading of the existing topography, reduction of previous green space, and have a negative impact on environmentally sensitive drainage features. It would not preserve the natural aesthetic of the landscape. With regards to the detriment to the adjacent property, It appears that the adjacent developments of Gregory Landing and Oak Creek utilize similar block links to what we've requested. Maintaining the natural green space around the environment in sensitive areas acts as a buffer between the developments and in accordance with the goals of the comprehensive plan. So essentially, it really has to do a lot with the topography. If you have short block, if you have, sorry, If you have shorter block lengths, you don't have as much room in the backyards or front yards, wherever, to get a good slope because you're stuck with a maximum grid on a road slope. So that's one of the main reasons for requesting the maximum block length be increased.

And you may or may not know this, but I'm assuming, given that it's R14 and the lot sizes, these are going to be pretty expensive. Yes, ma'am.

But upwards of half.

I don't really know, but I can tell you the developer is also a home builder. He takes pride in the house he builds. I don't know how many times you guys hear that. But, I mean, there are examples of what he's done, and he really does care about his developments.

Just two clarifying questions on something you said. So this is currently the only piece here that he owns? This is the only piece of property?

He's in negotiations to purchase another piece of it, and then there's just like three pieces. Okay.

And then you said you do have the approval from SCDOT already?

Yes, ma'am. And that'll be required before we get final approval. But we have talked to them. The last thing that we have, we're, going to do is they requested that we notify the property owner on Capers Lane that we're going to be regrading the ditch out along the right-of-way to improve the drainage. So that's the only thing outstanding from South Carolina.

If I may, Mr. Chairman. Staff did look at the block length to see if there was any way to finagle that smaller. And I did not see a reasonable way to make that happen. There are future connections there that will help as they expand it on out.

It's going to be a nice development, I believe. Like I said, or you all said earlier, The lot sizes are larger than what's next door, so that gives plenty of room for single-family residences with nice-sized yards.

And then, so you also, okay, given that you all are still in negotiations, have no idea for timeframes for the other remaining phases or?

So the second phase is gonna be soon. And I'm just not 100% sure when that is. It kind of changed a little bit. This bag had passed away, so now they're dealing with three or four people. But I'm pretty sure it's going to be very soon. Okay.

So then that starting of the second phase would also kick in the required traffic improvements after this 110. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm fine with the block length change. That's fine. I'm a hard no on the Gregory Lake entrance. I think it, and I know they said DOT says yes. I just think with the added traffic, I think there was a death there a few years back, a car, like right in that curve, so yeah.

So I don't know, so Mr. Paradise, I don't, I guess, if, okay. So, yeah, so can you, the subdivision, but there is no other entrance available for the subdivision, so you would be saying a no to that phase of the subdivision.

Hypothetically correct, because if they purchased the other land and they could come in from the other side and maybe not even have an entrance there at all, if you come in from Country Club or Murrah or whatever.

Well, I have a question. We're just talking about annexing that property. If we don't annex it, that doesn't necessarily...

This is not an annexation. This is preliminary plat approval.

Oh, my bad. My bad.

It's a preliminary plat approval.

So if we do... Just let some move dirt. I'm sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

No, just let some move dirt.

So if it is not approved, then they cannot move dirt there. So...

I mean, it's clear they have limited space to enter into their property, which is clearly the issue. I don't think you could put, I get the right turn lane. You can't really put a turning lane because there's a big hill that would just be complicated to cut that in.

Nor can we require it when they do it without permission, correct?

I asked this.

Excuse me? Yeah. They wouldn't be able to redesign this without the approval from SC DOT anyways, right? The way the entrance works.

Yeah, correct. If wherever they enter the DOT right away, they're going to need an encroachment permit. Now, I see some struggling here. And I'm not an attorney. And I just put this as an option to you in case y'all want to go down this road. I know the curve gives you pause and concern. I could, if one option for you to do is to continue it and let me get a legal opinion from the city attorney, whether you can turn it down, because that's kind of what I'm seeing in your eyes, is that a legitimate reason to turn it down? I just throw that out there as an option.

especially given that it is the phase a phase of the subdivision and so becomes less of an issue but also given the time restraint not sure when that's going to be what order if the land is not formally acquired yet all of that is reason to give So the concern about this being the entrance is, I think, maybe greater, given if we said, you know, if it was at phase two starts in six months, we'd like to submit for that. If we had some, I think, maybe firmer timelines on that, at least for me, that would be a little different. But if that's gonna be the only way kind of in and out for a while, I think...

And I think long-term, if we look, and I'll speak for myself, I live on that side of town, and when we eventually maybe someday do the traffic circle there, and it dumps traffic to go down Gregory Lake, when you go to Five Notch, there's land further down that road that will be, it may be Edgefield County, it won't be North Augusta, but I think you're going to see more development, and people coming off I-20 are going to take that route. So it's this neighborhood, but I think it's future neighborhoods that are So I just think we're going to have a lot more traffic there.

Yeah, but we can't hold them responsible for that. And so I think a continuance and then an opinion on as to whether or not that is the, if legally, if that is even a realistic option would be helpful. Okay. Mr. Paradise.

Certainly, we don't have a problem.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the lock link at all. In the entrance, though not great if DOT has signed off on it, I also personally don't. I don't know if that's enough reason to hold up the entire statement. But that's the question. That's the question, and so we will get an answer for that.

Okay. Just for, right.

want to come back come on nobody else is here come on and i understand i guess my understanding that access to the property is granted through south carolina dot if they approve it then i'm not sure

Yeah, no, no, that's the question we're going to have asked.

Okay.

Yeah, because that is the question, is that, yeah, so that is the question on the table.

Okay.

Yeah, does that make?

Yeah. Okay.

Again, I know we all have concerns about this corner. We've all driven it. It's dark.

There have been accidents there.

but also putting street lights and subdivision there is gonna raise awareness, it's gonna make this corner more visible, it's gonna do a lot of things to make that corner look more residential than the back country road that we used to all speed down back in the day on the way to the country club or whatever. Right, I don't like it there, it's an awkward place. But certainly, right, a development with lights out front and so forth are going to slow people down and raise some awareness of that corner.

And to what he's saying, like, it's not really our job to play DOT. They're saying it meets what they're asking. I don't know that that's really enough legally for us to say we know better than the DOT. I mean, I know sometimes we think we do. Yeah. But, I mean, at some point you've got to, again, legally, can we use our uneducated opinions to override the DOT's approval to turn it down? I would not feel comfortable trying to turn it down because of that.

And, again, similarly, if DOT has approved it, I'm against it. But we need a motion either way. So we need a motion either to approve it and then we can register it. We can also need a motion for a continuance to ask the question whether or not DOT, whether or not there are sufficient grounds to deny it. And can go from there. I think those are the two options.

I am comfortable making a motion to approve it unless somebody would like to make a motion first to ask the question I would like to continue it okay all right so we have a motion to continue do we have a second second all right so continuance

So we consult with the city attorney until the next meeting, correct? All right. So any further discussion? All right. Any other questions, comments, discussion? Everybody's still looking.

I'm good.

All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

I'm going to say nay just because I'm.

All right. All right, so it has been passed. We'll continue once we'll get back, and we will see you, I guess, Mr. Titus, next month. All right, thank you.

Was that a six-one vote?

Five.

Five to one.

Yeah, we're missing, right? Oh, five-one, okay.

Math is hard as well as words.

Yeah. I understand better than you realize.

All right.

All right. So up next is the tree discussion, no, the comprehensive 10 plan, year dear, 10 year update. Excuse me, Mr. Paradise, would you please explain what we are considering?

Yes, ma'am. I included, and I apologize for the amended agenda and the process there. It was, last week was rather hectic for me. and I wanted to get this out in front of y'all as quickly as I could. The time is approaching quickly. August 7th of next year, the comprehensive plan expires. And this is the 10 year State law calls it an update, 10-year update. We call it the rewrite. It's when you throw the plan out and write a new one. And there has been some discussion as to how we wanted to proceed with this, and it was determined that we would go out to the commercial market and get a... consultant to come do this for us instead of going with the COG that did the five-year update. So I included a draft RFP for y'all. I don't know if y'all have any comments. I would welcome any comments, suggestions. Administration is reviewing that draft now. But one of the things that we do need some guidance on is we're going to get this RFP out as quick as possible. Because this year is going to burn up quick. And how do you want to do that? And we are going to get those RFPs back. And how do you want them reviewed? And I laid out a couple of options for you. One is the Planning Commission as a whole can review them. You wouldn't have to do that in an open meeting session. and it would be recorded in any public comments. Any comments you made about a particular consultant would be on the public record. Another way would be to have a subcommittee of less than a quorum so that you could do it outside of the private meeting or a public meeting. You could do a less than a quorum and with staff, or you could delegate it to staff. Staff doesn't have a problem doing it, but I think that's a decision that direction we need to get from y'all. Do you want to read all of those and be involved in the process? Where is that point, how you want us to move forward on it?

um so there are four options before us and again this is just to review the request for proposals so the actual um comprehensive plan itself they'll be built in and one of the things that is required as a part of the proposal is how they introduce um public comments so this is again just for the rfp

These are the proposals from them or proposals we are sending out to them?

So the proposals for them, they're bidding on the ability to write the comprehensive plan. And then we will review those? That is the question. Okay. So it is for the proposals, right? Not the comprehensive plan itself, but just which consultant will be working on the comprehensive plan.

Personally, just off the cuff, I think the idea of having staff in a non-quorum group of us meet together to make sure that we're addressing things that they deal with on a daily basis, but also would be a good way to start. I agree.

Personally, I don't have a problem with staff just handling the proposals and picking who they want to work with.

Well, that's what I was going to ask. Are there three of us who would be willing to review all the proposals? I'm willing to do it, but we would need two more people, obviously, that would be willing to do it. Otherwise, I trust the staff to do it.

And let me also say this. Keep in mind that as we proceed on the comprehensive plan, there will be lots of places for folks to be involved in reading the comprehensive plan, so forth and so on. So I just want to make sure that, I don't want you to be burned out. I just want you to also understand that there will be other places. So that is a great way to start. Are there three who are interested?

Just to get some kind of idea, like what kind of...

time commitment is would this be like if we went with three like a few of us and staff would we come down here like i don't i've not done this part before and we say three it yeah it's whatever y'all decide it could be two it could be one yeah okay but um it is a um 30 page no more than 30 pages i believe is what it's in there um and it's all in how many responses we get if we get one it's Two, it's fairly simple. If we get 10, well, that's 10 of those that you need to review and grade. And so that takes time to read those and score them. And then, of course, we will need to meet probably for an hour or so to discuss them and discuss our scoring and make recommendations.

Have we, in the past, for the comprehensive plan, have we sent out RFPs before tied to the comprehensive plan?

Yes, I believe so. And the previous one was done by a private consultant. We have done RFPs for like the Georgia Avenue traffic calming. That was RFP from our office as well.

Have you had any planning commission members involved in those in the past?

The previous comprehensive plan, I don't know. It's before me. The Georgia Avenue traffic calming, we did not.

I don't think they're in my service.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Right. And any of the RFPs, because there have been several. There's been a traffic calming. I think there's at least one or two more.

Yes, there was the Martintown Road corridor that would have been a study that was an RFP. And I think Libby had several of them while she was here.

But if there's interest from anyone, they certainly can pick option three, which is a committee not to be more than three members of the planning commission and appropriate staff. to recommend, to provide the recommendation. So certainly if you're interested, then I don't see any objection. Unless there is objection.

Thank you, we appreciate you. Okay, yeah, that works for me.

Okay, is there anyone else who would like to, at this point, commit to volunteer? So reading the, reviewing the proposal, scoring them, then meeting with staff to make a recommendation? And as Mr. Farrell said, he can't give a firm estimate of the time commitment because if you got two, then it's 60 pages. If you have 10, then it's 300.

We will give the consultant a month after we put it out to respond, and then we would like to turn those around fairly quickly, probably about a week's time once we get those back so that we can move it forward and get the contract issued and get them to work.

Will we be meeting with the staff if we do the committee during business hours or after hours? Business hours. Trying to get an idea of the commitment.

I would prefer business.

I would also. So that's, that works for me. I'll help. Okay.

All right. So we've got it. I don't know what I'm doing, but I'm ready to learn. All right.

I'd be interested also.

All right. Well, so now if there are more than three that are interested, then we need to do a formal committee. So I'll let them have it. Okay. So we'll, all right. He said, boy.

So did Mrs. Slade?

Yes, as well. Okay. All right, do you need a vote for a committee to be formed?

If you would, that would solidify it for me.

So it would be... So the motion would need to be for a committee formed with no more than three members of the planning commission and appropriate staff to provide the recommendation based on reviews of the RFP for the comprehensive plan. That needs to be a motion. I can't make it because I'm the...

I will move to make a committee or form a committee of not more than three members of the Planning Commission and appropriate staff to provide a recommendation based off of the RFPs for the updating of the comprehensive plan.

Second.

All right, it has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, thank you.

I mean, before we move on, just a quick question related to this but unrelated to this. My copy of the comprehensive plan is dated 2021. Why are we doing a 10-year update when we're five years into the current comprehensive plan?

Because that one was the five-year update. The 20- Okay.

I can say it. Let me explain. So I can tell you what he may or may not be able to say. So- It is that they call it an update, but legally we have to redo it. So it's not, that was a five year update as most of us would think of it. What is being called an update for 10 years is actually a new document.

So that's why.

So they are referred to as the same thing, but the five-year was an update that we did.

It says 2021 to 2031 comprehensive plan.

No, I had the same question. I had the exact same question.

Well, I didn't realize it said to 2031, but it is... At five years, you do a review of the plan, and that's what that one was, was the review of the plan and the changes. And then at 10 years, it doesn't say rewrite. It says update, but basically it's the rewrite.

Clear as mud.

Thanks.

Yeah, no, I asked the same question.

All right.

Because I also remember doing it.

I was like, I thought we did.

all right and then we have next up is the tree discussion yes ma'am we after discussion month before last and I appreciate y'all giving me a month off on this the changes that I think y'all want it, are indicated in red on there. Permits required just so that there was Clear I added no clearing or grading there and any grand trees or trees So that we included both of those I changed the minimum 20 foot buffer on the recommendation to the 25 feet to 20 feet and the 15 to 10 and In talking with Mr. Keebler, the city arborist, he suggested oaks, magnolias, pines, cedars, sweet gums, black gums, and maple trees be on the protected list. Now that does, the pines puts us in a little bit of a conflict, and I will follow, y'all are the decision makers there. And a tree survey would be submitted with all landscape applications, the DBH location and variety of the grand trees on the entire site, and a clear indication of trees to be removed, as well as the protected area required around each tree. And that would be the changes that I understood that y'all wanted as I perceived it.

And I had a question because you go down to recommendation three. It includes magnolias, pines, cedars, sweetgums. I personally would want to remove probably at least pines and maybe magnolias and sweetgums. Magnolias I have split feelings on.

I certainly think they provide more character than a sweetgum.

Definitely could provide more character, but the leaves and the difference in property and your roof is a different issue. But I also would probably, maybe if we could consider it, and I would love for Commissioner Harbison to be here. I know. Because we're picking trees and

The concern I have with those two is I know, Rhett and I have talked about it before, that the depth of roots on a pine are not like other trees, which is why we had an issue in the hurricane. Their roots spread across the ground as opposed to depth, and so I have a hard time being like, you have to keep a tree in your yard that is most likely to fall.

Yeah, I know.

Well, I think pines tend to lose their tops, and then they, well, right, and then it rots down, so that creates an additional issue.

I, yeah, I agree.

So if we could, we will have some thoughts around this, and then maybe if we could discuss it with Commissioner Harbison and rely on his expertise. Is that fine? Yes, that's fair. All right.

I'm a fan of all other changes. I'm a fan of all the other.

Yeah, the other changes, I'm fine with. I just, in particular, recommendation three. But I would like to get his opinion on the other changes.

And one of the things, as I was going through this, if y'all will look at this, is make sure that we're not creating a conflict between one and three and two. And to be honest with you, my head starts spinning after a little bit. So any help you can do there, I'd appreciate it.

I did try to review it with that exact specification in mind, and I did not notice any personally.

and then next is the signage amendment yes ma'am

Added a sentence to 9.6.2 that I hope captures what you was looking for, where the tenant space square footage would allow more than 200 square 50 of signage. The main sign is limited to no more than 250 square feet. Maybe you want a different number there. I don't know, but y'all were talking about the scale.

I think that's what we agreed upon last time. If we are fine on that, then we need to make that recommendation. So we need to, is this at the point where we need to recommend the changes in red as written for the development code?

Correct, if you're ready for it, then we need to advertise the text amendment and put it on next month's agenda so y'all can make their recommendation.

Okay, are you all ready for that? Okay, so yes, please proceed accordingly. All right, and not that we certainly have covered enough in this meeting, but any additional staff reports?

I really don't have anything.

Okay.

All right, as again, as always, we thank you and your team for all that you all do and certainly appreciate you. And we will see you for the July meeting. Again, if anyone's travel plans will have them missing, please be sure to let us know well in advance so that we can, if need be, address any absences.

All that being said, a motion to dismiss.

So moved.

All right, thank you all.