Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this February 9th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Uh let's see. Looking over the agenda, any changes or adjustments? Nope. If not, is there a uh motion to accept the agenda? Make a motion to accept Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? And looking over minutes from the last meeting on January the 12th. Any concerns or changes required? Motion to approve.

I'll second that. All in favor? Our first uh piece of business tonight is a public hearing. Uh we're looking at waiver W25-11 for WTX Exploration LLC is the applicant. They're requesting a land development waiver, actually waivers from the minimum required driveway separation and required vehicle stacking. The subject property is located at 1785 Gold Hill Gold Hill Road in Fort Mill and it is currently zoned general commercial. It's identified as tax map number 6500000004 460 council district 1.

Good evening. My name is Jeff Kersner. I work in North County Zoning. Um, as you just stated, we have two waiver requests from the land development code. Here's the subject property. Here's the parcel. It's off of Gold Hill Road, uh, kind of in the TK area. It is currently a, um, Ace Hardware. It was formerly a YMCA building. the as you stated it's zone GC and pretty much general commercial and most of that uh area in that block is zone general commercial. Here is the site plan provided by the applicants. Uh you can see that they're proposing almost a 6,000 square foot new retail building uh behind the Ace Hardware that will increase the number of parking spaces, the number of trips to the site. Uh it's a new civil plan. So therefore staff has to apply the um some of the current site design standards including um driveway separation and impact of that and vehicle stacking which is the two waiverss they're requesting. Uh waiver one summary the applicant wishes to keep both driveways accessing Gold Hill Road. This will reduce the effective driveway separation distance down to about zero feet. A land development waiver of 325 ft driveway u for the driveway separation requirement is being requested. The the project will install a new driveway access to Lake Vista Boulevard which is a secondary road uh behind the property. The applicant proposes improvements to the existing Gold Hill Road intersections u such as increasing the driveway radius um of the intersection and increasing the vehicular stacking which is the second waiver. So, they proposed some improvements to both the driveways that are existing on Gold Hill Road. We're calling these driveways on Gold Hill Road uh driveway A and B. As

you can see in there. Oh, it does. There you go. Um, as you can see, they're proposing some improvements um to the intersection radius, which improving that that turn in and is stacking up to 40 feet, which is currently more like 30 feet now, part of the second waiver request. Um, from a code standpoint, we have the issue of none of the the either of the two Gold Hill driveways don't meet the separation requirement. Currently, this driveway A is basically right in line but joged from the uh actual roadway across the street. So, they don't meet the separation because they're not aligned. And B is maybe 60 ft uh from the nearest driveway to the west and about 120 ft from another driveway uh A and B. Um so neither one align. They really can't align because the existing Ace Hardware building. So, you know, we're we're looking at from a standpoint of um what is the code require and what's the best situation. What the code required is that both driveways be closed and just the access C, which is kind of down here, be used to access the site. Another thing to note on this um is the block um this the block they're on. There's no other driveways directly from a business onto Gold Hill Road and then this this property has two existing. Um obviously Gold Hill Road is a major road arterial road traffic is concerned. Uh waiver one findings um the applicants are proposing additional around 6,000 foot retail structure uh which will increase the traffic trips. Um, no other

parcel on subject property, as I just said, has an access drive um out to Gold Hill. This site has two already. removing driveways A and B in um and instead relying on the driveway uh C over to Lake Vista Boulevard uh will meet the York County comp comprehensive plans goal to improve access management particularly on a large strip volume road like Oill. So that's why we believe it doesn't meet binding one this request waiver two um staff believes the purpose of the separation standard or separation requirement is to um implement access management practice to ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic. staff has determined uh keeping non-conforming driveways A and B while increasing the number of trips to the site by adding the proposed retail building does not meet the intent of the code. By virtue of proposing driveway C, which provides access to Lake Fista Boulevard, the applicants have demonstrated that an alternative solution can meet the intent of the code, but we don't believe it this um waiver one um meets this finding as well. Uh as the staff finds that the proposed waiver does not meet both criteria for approval, staff recommends not uh not to approve the 325 ft waiver to the driveway separation standard um on for the Gold Hill Road existing driveways to remain at the same locations. The applicants provide some conditions of improvements as we spoke about and also the second waiver with the 50 40ft stacking improvements. staff does recommend a condition if the board feels that at least one or at least there's some validity to having access to Gold Hill Road that and this is something that staff has talked with the applicants before they did this submitt um that which I that just driveway B and I'll go

back to the map in a second just driveway B be um uh grant the waiver and and driveway A be the one that's closed. Um and obviously driveway C will also be installed and that will be um a reduction or a separation standard for that driveway. Driveway um B about 60 ft or reduction of 265 ft of the standard one uh 325 ft. Going to go back a little bit more easy to explain back to the map. Driveway A is jog from the intersection, so it doesn't make good intersection alignment. Um, and so, and neither of them are obviously going to meet the code standard. Um, but if it was to were to keep one open, driveway B is there's other practical reasons. It's closer to a fire hydrant, fire truck movement through the site from B to C. That's why it was u deemed to be the better option to keep one open and improve it. Again, from a code standpoint, we have to recommend if they're going to do the project to just not have access on Gold Hill Road because neither driveways meet the standard, but want to at least put an option of condition there. Um, so do you want to um before you move on to waiver two which is connected to waiver one have any questions? [snorts] So you said that if we left B open it would be better access for fire. Yeah, because the we looked at it from a staff standpoint and there was other considerations, not just the separation, but there's a closeness when we talked to fire to a fire hydrant, which is more towards I believe the gas stations across the street.

The fire truck has to be able to move through and move forward in a straight and pull out in a straightforward manner. Um um they'll have a dumpster, the dump truck has to move in, be able to move through the site. moving from B to C in a straight line through the site if that was the left o the only two left open we feel like that was easier internal like circulation um but obviously with some improvements to be as well as we're thinking about it but that would be an option like I said what the code states is they really should be both closed that just have access Lake Vista Boulevard um to meet that would meet the code standard have access to a secondary road like the rest of the block.

But the everyday consideration would also be for delivery trucks obviously. Yeah, pretty much any trying to get circulation through the anything bigger than a pickup. Um because it is an improvement to get the connection to Lake Vista Boulevard to that secondary road and and get it trips off of Gold Hill. Um, so we want to be able to encourage any use of that, you know, as opposed to pulling out if these are left, even one of them's left open. Um, and that's that's basically where we're coming from with this possible condition. Yeah.

Well, they wouldn't be able to make the radius around the back anyways. Fire trucks. I mean, they'd run all over that. They wouldn't be able to go from A to B at all. Yeah. So, we'd have to get into more of the deeper in the site plan approval if depending on what happens with the driveways because you do have where they have to show turning radius inside the site and where the how the fire trucks going to maneuver, how your largest delivery truck is going to maneuver. Uh, obviously a dump truck is going to maneuver in the site and leave in a forward motion. What we're looking for, you may not know, does it have a fire department connection outside the building for this? I mean,

I don't think it does. I think they were relying on that um fire hydrant. I don't have like a measurement of it, but I know when we talked about it in review, um our fire marshall reviewer was concerned about the distance from the nearest nearest fire hydrant, which might be off the the sheet, but it was he was less concerned if the vehic come in here and go out this way. So that that's one of the considerations along with our zoning stuff and other land development things we're looking at when trying to you know if if one of them were to stay open that's why be again [clears throat] from a code standpoint we had to request that both be closed down to because Gold Hill so busy and neither meet the standard. I'm sorry

one other question. What did you which side of the road do you think is the fire hydrant? It is over here. I don't have a direct like a so it's on across the street. Yeah, it's west because that was the the movement would be somewhere in here where it has to they they have like a 500 foot measurement something. That's what he was looking at. Problem is since it's across the street, they'd have to extend the hose across as long as Yeah, I don't know. They didn't have an FDIC.

Yeah, I don't know if Yeah, I don't know exactly. I can't remember exactly where it was at. I know that was part of the issue because obviously neither of them meets our separation standard but there's other considerations when when we were talking about as a group reviewers about you know uh how would this would work the site would work if this was closed or whatever. Thanks. Are there any additional questions for this first part? So you'd like to go ahead and talk about both? Yeah, go ahead. I guess I'll present both because we had to have a public hearing, right? So, we had to open it up. Okay.

Okay. Waiver two summary based on a total number of parking for the project 59 is currently on the plans that requires and code table sorry um requires a 60 foot uh vehicle stacking. Um the applicants are requesting reduction of 40T vehicle stacking. The increase of um the increase to 40T because it's around 30 feet now. um a vehicle stacking from Gold Hill Road would be a sight improvement. Um what they're proposing if Gold Hill if the Gold Hill Road driveways are not granted the first waiver, the vehicle stacking from Gold Hill is kind of moot. We have looked at it and the applicant we think that the applicants and they maybe could clarify this also want a 40 foot stacking probably from Lake Vista Boulevard. They didn't state it in their actual application, but I think it's probably best that we kind of think that we're looking at a reduced stacking length from Lake Vista as well. Um, just because I think that's I think that's what they're looking for is, you know, across the for all four. We didn't have a measurement for this one. Didn't put an application, but just kind of looking at it. I think maybe they were thinking it would be just reduce it. 40 be the standard and that would apply to any intersection left after the improvements. Again, we're going back to this. We have a B which again we don't suggest to approve but it if you did and granted the waiver for the stacking that would be 40 foot stacking length for basically two cars and we think with C maybe address that as well um if they want to do that. Um staff analysis uh applicants provided or proposed to provide 40 feet of stacking which is our smallest stacking length. It starts at 40 ft um from Gold Hill Road and I think also Lake Vista what they're looking for. Um it is an improvement. So at least we look when we're looking at situations and look at site development,

we're looking for improvements, not making it worse. So it is an improvement. So we feel like it does meet this criteria of waiver finding one. Uh waiver finding two. The intent of the requirement is provide space for vehicles maneuver in and out of the site without being blocked or or parking or vehicles by being blocked by parking or vehicle circulation. Increasing the vertical stacking the vehicle stacking to 40t from Gold Hill Road is an improvement. Again, we feel like it this this waiver uh meets this criteria, this finding criteria. So staff does recommend this waiver with the caveat next to Gold Hill, the first waiver. And we did kind of want to ask the board maybe include Lake Vista because I think that's what they meant just looking at their plans. And that would kind of clear it up. If it's going to be 40 feet, just be 40 feet for every entrance. Um just to clarify it. Okay,

back to So, are there any I'm sorry, are you are questions? Are there any questions on this second part before we open up the public hearing? Just one other one. Are they removing the the building there and and building one on the back? Is that okay? No. Yeah, that that's currently the Ace Hardware you see highlighted. They're just adding this. Okay. Right here. So that remain and this is the proposed improvement.

The existing two driveways on Gold Hill Road are existing nonconformities. They're legal nonconformities. They can remain as is. They had an upfit to to the building a couple years ago to beat Ace Hardware, but that is just was an internal upfit. It didn't really change a little couple things on the site, but not to this extent. They are changing the site with this plan enough that we have to look at the site in total and look at the code standards and we found at least these two standards the se driveway separation say the two existing driveways on gold hill and the stacking distance were not going to meet our standards and that's where we come here uh after we our preliminary site plan reviews. Are there any additional questions?

At one time these were three lots and were combined. Is that correct? I know there were at least two lots. Okay. Yeah, there was a this rear was a a second lot. Um combine the two lots helps in some ways. You don't have setbacks. You don't have buffers between them. Okay. Um and they and they also have to if you look at the plan, they're really sharing parking. This is the plan. Um so it is one site. It's going to be used as one site. So it's not just the the back building is going to have Lake Vista Boulevard and the front one's going to it's all going to have to interconnect together. They're sharing parking. and they're sharing their driveway access, um, sharing utilities, I mean, everything. So, it is going to be one site.

I just wanted to clarify, make sure that I understand. So, driveway C with access to Lake Vista will be added. And then, um, driveway B and A, it's recommended that those be eliminated because they don't conform. They don't meet standard. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes. And driveway C is definitely an improvement because it gets out to Lake Vista. Um they don't but [snorts] um it can meet code because it's new if it designed correctly except for I think they do want the 40 ft stacking. Just clarify that because I think that would help them.

They didn't actually state it in the the application, but I think it implies that they're looking for 40t across the board. Um, but it will increase the trips on Gold Hill because that's going to be the main artery access. That's what we're concerned about from a code standpoint because obviously as you know um what we as staff hear is you know what's you hear about like a property being cleared what's going on there what's getting built [clears throat] and then how's it going to affect the traffic you know is there going to be turning lanes is there you know so that's the thing you kind of get back from the public we have to look out for which is there's already a lot of traffic on this section of gold hill increasing trips both both driveways not being code that that's So that's a co- concern I guess.

Okay. Any additional questions? So this is actually a public hearing. So we will open the um floor for people to speak either for or against it. Um if you would come up to the podium and state your name and your address and we'll try to keep uh comments to less than three minutes. Uh and then if we have questions we we will ask. So uh if the first person would like to step up that'd be great. Hi my name is Ha. I'm on the property. And where do you live sir?

I live in the 776 Harvest Point Drive for me South Carolina. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Brian Tan. I'm actually um Mr. Yang's friend and broker. I'm here to facilitate and I also are involved in the process. So I would be able to um trying to communicate the process um our u our um uh to to communicate our um us um our request. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And your address? My address is one21 Park Cedar Drive um Charlotte North Carolina.

Thank you. And uh thank you for um you know hearing the um the case and the waiver that we requested. And I think um the the very first thing that we wanted to um um to share with you is the fact that um this you know the the um the motion to close um the driveway A and drive dry drive driveway A and driveway B is going to create um um it's going to create some um issue with um Ace Hardware um let alone the new building that we're proposing. opposing just simply because I do not, you know, we do believe that, you know, the big trucks and the fire fire trucks and a lot of traffic that going in may not have enough turns to uh uh to exit the um um the the premise if you were they were closed. Um, in the effort to trying to make um to make it work and not to block traffic, we have also eliminated uh about four parkings um towards the front of driveway A and driveway B so that we can increase the radius and allow the car to turn in without slowing down too much and block the traffic. And and also what I think this building is a grandfather building. When I got this uh property, I have no idea what's going on because I I know before it's a YMCA is a lot of people work exercise there and they have two exit. Never have any uh exit problem, car traffic problem. And right now uh I already got this building with a hardware already there. We already signed a contract. is for the my tenant is very hard when we already agree and

if they brought A or B their truck they send their loading truck is very very hard and also I I think if we build the we want to improve the be building when we improve it and the order traffic will be more smooth if we have A and B and we also create a C exit whatever customer in and out. I think it will be less than before I YMCA when they do the uh build uh business there. So I totally totally request because we already do our best to improve to block full parking speed already improve all the exit and I hope uh you guys can consider our business uh things also can ask give us a waiver and honestly before we I have no idea about this situation I'm do the restaurant business I don't know anything about this got

okay thank Thank you very much. And I think obviously what um what staff said was that you know this is really coming about because the new building is proposed. So these changes wouldn't need to be wouldn't be considered without the addition of the new building. So okay um is there anyone else here to speak either for or against this? Are there any questions before we What? Just curious what is the new building? What will it be? Well, we want to do uh just night uh medical office building.

Okay. It just be want to be office. We don't put a restaurant anything there. So the traffic it won't be that much. And we also have C exit over there. So if really some people want to parking exit from the sea. So I want A and B there just want to do the give the Ace Har store a a standout guarantee because we already told them we have to exit right now if we cannot get A and B then we cannot do the improvement we cannot build a building so we have stop everything I already spend a lot of time and money in on this building we have all drawing here already finished right now I start already four month just waiting for So, can I cl So, a question to clarify what you just said. You're saying that per your agreement with Ace Hardware, if A and B were closed, you would not be able to move forward.

I even though you're opening C, so you would still have two working access points. No, it did I did I understand that correctly? No. What what I means when we do the business uh sign a contract with uh with a we are we have A and B then if we close A or B so this is for me is lose the the the the agreement with with a so it's for us they may not be in compliance with the with the contract and therefore they may have the right to exit

so without the addition of C. But with C, you would still have two entrance points to the property and to the the business. Um, correct. A uh how just A and B. They don't need C because I think um [clears throat] we have not um we have not dipper into um into this as far as um as far as this. We're just um you know I think we promised them the uh the exit for A and B but um we have not actually uh considered the u u whether that will be in compliance with um with what we agree upon on the lease agreement.

Okay. Are there any additional questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. folks. Yeah. Is there is there anyone else to speak on this topic? If not, is there a motion to close? Motion to close public hearing. I'll second.

Uh any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, then moving on to discussion of uh on the table. It looks like we have two waiverss that we're looking at. Uh the first one [clears throat] would be the distance. So the question becomes uh a b a or b or or none all none some. Uh sounds like the addition of C is um moving forward no matter what. And then the second is the stacking distance for cars. So, from 60 to 40 at all four entrances or all three entrances, excuse me.

So, I'm I'm not sure how out of order this would be, but could we ask a couple more questions of staff at this point real quick?

Okay. So, so looking in this and having haven't heard from the gentleman and now understanding what the purpose of the extra building is, it looks like there will still remain a way to go from one side or other to the ACE hardware. There will be a cross path for traffic between what is the A and the B section here at the bottom of this. Is that correct? Yeah. A and B those that that existing that's existing parking lot pretty much everything you're seeing that's not around the new building in the gray is existing and they are connected. They are connected. They're not going to be cut off u from access would it wouldn't be you wouldn't be able to pull [clears throat] if just B was left open and A was closed

and and you pull in A you would pull in B but you wouldn't be able to pull out of A pull in. Yeah, that's right. Right. And so the there [clears throat] was another slide that showed the aerial and and man Yeah. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. So if if I'm going to access this property by Lake Vista, I would come down Rock Mount, right? Is that right? And also it connects over to 160, right? But that that would let you come down Rock Mount and get into the property. Okay. I'm sorry. and Silverbridgeidge.

Oh, from both sides. That's right. Because we're kind of cut off. We're off the screen, aren't we? Okay. So, was there any discussion about the potential for B to become an entrance only and A to become an exit only onto Gold Hill? I believe we did talk about one way um an option for a possible oneway. We did have a meeting about it. Uh we proposed a couple different options. Um but then the applicants submitted their waiverss to keep both driveways and so that's obviously what we have to present to you. Okay. And so we as two-way, right? Yeah. I believe it's right now they're two ways to say.

Well, that's what I'm saying. What what I'm asking though is if you do that then wouldn't you narrow the driveway to be a oneway and then how would that affect some of the waiver request or are we not narrowing enough? They haven't submitted that design. Understood. And if you have one way they've obviously speak to they've also spoken to the SE dot. So if you have one way in one way out that's a change to the driveway. So we probably have to vet that. I couldn't. Right now, what we're proposing is keeping as 90 degree parking and two-way operation for both is what they're requesting.

So, so if we um if we were to decide to defer this, would that give more time for those kinds of discussions or is it better for us to do a yay nay here and have to they would have to start all over again? Is that right? I want to make sure I'm understanding. Maybe that's a legal question or a [cough and clears throat] procedural question.

Certainly, the commission has the authority to um defer a matter. Uh you've had the public hearing in this case, and so if the deferral was for a specific purpose um like your request to staff to look at something specifically and have that presented to the board, you can certainly make a motion to that effect. Okay? So long as you defer it for a specific time. Okay. So then, but all right, I have some more to go with that. I'd like to go that way unless someone else has got other [clears throat] stuff, but I don't want to steal anybody else's thunder.

And unless there are specific questions for staff to help clarify this at this point, we probably need a motion to have discussion. Okay. So motion for discussion. You have any other No, I'm I'm good with the questions. Good with the questions. So then do you have I guess we're at a motion for discussion, right? Or do we need to make a motion to then get to discussion? Yes, you you need to make a motion for action. So to approve, not approve or defer.

Very good. So, I would like to make a motion to defer this until the next planning commission meeting to give the parties a little bit more time to discuss because what I've heard is there's some confusion about what might have been able to happen and not happen. Maybe one ways [clears throat] could be a way to solve some of this. And I want to give them the time to resolve that. I'll second. Uh, is there any? So, we have a first and a second. We finally made it to discussion. Is there

So, so C is still going to be there. So, you're you're still you're

at at Yes. At at this point, I think C needs to happen. Yes. But what I heard from the applicant [clears throat] was A and B are really important. So is how how do we kind of find that really true middle ground and if they pursued one way in one way out would that meet everyone's expectation or give them the time to say with with ACE that okay one option would be that we have B and C in our waiver and A goes away are you okay with that if that's not what if they were one way but just to give the parties a little time now that they see everything that's before them to kind make sure everybody's on the same page and can get the best outcome. That's all.

Well, well, also I'll make a comment to that. We could go through DOT, right? I mean, can staff talk with DOT about alternatives here, one way or you know, some options since that wasn't brought up the fir at first. I think just ask I think that's all part of what the discussion could be as as we defer it to give all the parties involved entities whatever in the meantime right

did that answer your question

if I might it might also be helpful to determine if there's a dock an unloading where where that actually happens because if it happens on the B driveway side having it go from B to C and closing A is not a problem. If it's on that side, if it's on A, then you've got a little more of a challenge getting a truck in and out of there. So, it it's not clear. It doesn't seem to be any loading dock area, but I mean, even if it's just a loading door, I think it would be important to point that out as long as we're asking questions. Although realistically once you're back there, you're not too far from

the building on either side. So, no, you're not. And the other concern I have is what I asked the question about the fire access. Yes, I I think that needs to be discussed because, you know, across Gold Hill Road, you don't want to put a hose across Gold Hill Road, but um in order to save the building, you do whatever. So, and I don't know if that was in the original discussions either. That's glad you made a motion to defer it to to discuss everything. Is there any more discussion? [clears throat]

So, we have a motion and a second to defer. Uh, if there's no more discussion, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And you said specifically till next month. Next planning commission. Next planning commission. Yes.

Okay. Now moving on to new business. We have resoning 25-48. Trey Eeken, applicant uh for Springland Incorporated. New Horizon Electric Cooperative Incorporated are the owners requesting to reszone a 61 acre portion of two parcels from RUD to GC. The subject parcels are located on Highway 160 in West in Fort Mill and the properties are referenced as tax map numbers 652006 and 022 Council District 1.

Good evening. Thomas Nulan, Long Range Planner. See you everybody. Uh so this case uh the applicant is requesting to go from RUD to GC. Um this is prop these properties are off the intersection of 160 and Dam Road just outside the jurisdiction of DK. Um so in blue are the properties in their you know wholly deed and red is the uh area that's requested to be reszoned. But the applicant is requesting to reszone a little bit less than half an acre to improve the layout and function of a proposed fueling station convenience store and car wash. So this property was actually part of a resoning that went forward um uh January 2025, a little bit over a year ago, case 2454. And so this area um the square here right in the center of the page was already reszoned to GC. And the request is to take that hatch space and add it to the GC area. And you can see that in the zoning map again that area already reszoned as of last year. Um taking uh this intersection has a lot of commercial development around it. Lots of non-residential uses. We have office institution um and some larger scale retail and DK and future land use. We have single family residential and neighborhood residential. So we recommend approval of the request with the condition that the property is appropriately subdivided so that we don't uh make any split zoned properties and we find that this is consistent with the comp plan future land use map given that uh non-residential uses are expected at these major intersections. The intended development will provide services nearby residences and there are other commercial uh properties along Highway 160 that of similar scale. Any questions for staff? [clears throat] Just a little one. Can you go back to

the picture? Why? Okay, one one more, Thomas. There. So, why does the slice not all go all the way back to 160? We've got this little little piece and then it stops. So, is there something about the topographical or what? Just was a little strange looking at that. Yeah, so this this site does have some topographical challenges. Um certainly the applicant only wants to reszone and uh you know replat for as much space as they need. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Okay, any additional questions?

I had a question. And there was a reference um in the letter from accelerated development services to the planning department that um I'll just quote it. To fully satisfy the required tree mitigation obligations stemming from the overall project development, the applicant now requests to reszone the additional point4 acres from RUD to GC. As illustrated, it's necessary for the final permit approval and project implementation. Do you have any information on the tree mitigation that's required or uh maybe D could speak more to that, but

yeah, I'm not certain. Um I'm going to uh assume that they're probably there may be a grand tree in there somewhere they're having to take down and therefore they're probably going to mitigate with some extra tree safe and so they're buying some additional land to be able to provide that extra tree safe is probably what the issue is. Okay. [clears throat] Are there any additional questions? [clears throat] If not, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you. Moving on now to uh our second resoning 26-01. CDP Rockill LLC is the applicant and Edward Calvin Craig is the owner requesting to reszone a 2.2 acre portion of one parcel from AGC to NC. The subject parcel is located on Saluda Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 52800000047 council district 5. Yeah, this property uh is right at the intersection of 324 and Saluda, right where Highway 324 ends. Uh this is another case where uh the request is to only reszone a portion of the property. So there in blue again is the the whole deed property. Red is the area to be reszoned. Uh the purple is where they intersect. So the applicant proposes to build a commercial retail store here. Um you can see a lot of this is pasture lands, haylands, or otherwise homesteads. Here's a small sample of the site plan that they provided. Again, you know, retail store in the center, parking at the front and side, space for whale and septic. Uh, this area is largely AGC. You do see that they bought RUD property and neighborhood commercial is centered at that intersection. And the whole map is everything here is real residential. The staff recommends denial of this request as it's not consistent with the comp plan feature land use map. Uh commercial development is not expected here among these single family homes. Uh while there are provisions for low inensity a support of commercial properties uh they usually have to be at the intersection um or directly act supporting and in this case it's not contiguous

with the other commercial property that is centered on that intersection. Um, if approval is recommended, staff recommends the condition that prevents split zing. Any questions from staff? What is that property that's on the intersection, the commercial one? I don't remember off the top of my unfortunate store. Gas station. Gas station, right? Little convenience gasoline place, right? Yes. We'll drive by right by there on the way home tonight. [snorts] Any questions? Is there a motion? Um, please go right ahead. I would like to make a motion to deny as staff recommends. I'll second.

Is there any discussion? All those in favor of denial? Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you. Moving on to resoning 26-02. Charles Bernett, applicant owner, is requesting to reszone three parcels that total seven acres from UD to GC. The subject parcels are located on Hansmill Highway in Rock Hill and the properties are referenced as tax map number 543000000004 005 and 018 council district 6.

Yeah, these properties are kind of off the intersection of Hansill and York Road just outside the city of Rock Hill. Um between these three parcels, it's about seven acres in space. Uh so the applicant proposes to build a commercial development here uh with a large grocery retail store and two commercial out parcels. Uh so the large uh retail grocery store would be towards the back um kind of that parcel that was off the road and then you would have the two other businesses right on the road. Uh the area is largely undeveloped. Um you'd see that there is a residence that I believe is vacated but not demolished. It's quite a a substandard home according to code and Uh there's plenty of commercial development here, especially at this intersection. In fact, uh we recently reszoneed those two parcels that are directly abuing the intersection to GC. Um that was case 2528 reszoneed in September of last year. Uh as this area certainly turns over to more uh commercial properties. And you can see that there are uh subdivisions that branch off of these major roads, but on the major roads and at the intersection are commercial uses. And our feature land use map reflects that with the community center node um highlighting the space and with an underlying neighborhood residential road uh zone on this side of the road. So we recommend approval as it's consistent with the comp plan future land use map. Uh the intention to transition and connect these properties aligns with the objectives within the community center node. um contiguous with the other commercial property that directly butts the intersection. It's going to remove that residential access point from Hans Mill and remove instances of Legacy UT district. Any questions for staff?

All right, I'll bite. Um can can we go to the Oh my gosh, it's page 79. It's a little drawing of what is in anticipated. Okay. So, we were just talking about driveways and trucking and all this sort of stuff. Am I correct in that there's only one way in and one way out to this according to this site plan? Um, they're not beholden to what's in the site plan here at Planning Commission, but yes, on this plan, they only have one way in, one way out.

All right. And if we back up to the satellite type view somewhere, where else would they have another spot to put one based on how that's put together? It doesn't look like they're coming near another road. Is that right? Unless there was some I can't tell if No, that's the backyard of the people in Yes. Street. Yeah, the properties only have access off Hansville Highway. They do have a truck lane marked on that.

They do, but what I'm If you could go back to the other one we we just started with, Thomas. So, what I'm thinking about here is you've got a little something kind of business up in the front there, one and two. And then the truck dock is all the way at the back. So, that tractor trailer is going to have to go through all the way through everything there to get back there

and come back out and um I don't know that truck lane maybe, but maybe that and I'm probably getting way too far into detail here, but some of my concerns when I just looked at this 50,000 ft foot was only one drive in and out and coming on the hands Mill Highway with all the other stuff that's getting ready to come on the other side of um 161. Mhm. That's planned development there that we've been talking about sign deviations and all. So I'm just starting to get a little concerned with traffic. Do you have something?

Yeah. So certainly um you guys can recommend a council request the applicant submit a TIA prior to um third reading. Okay. If I could just add to as part of the application, they are required to submit a site plan. This is not reviewed by staff. This is not anything that might actually go exactly as shown. This is [clears throat] to give planning commission, council, and the public an idea of what could happen on this property if it was developed. And so, um, the applicant has submitted something here. He doesn't even have anybody to sell it to yet. he is just getting the property reszoned from UD to GC to allow something to happen in the future. Chances are we'll work with the applicant and as Thomas had mentioned the properties below that were already reszoned to GC. There should probably be an access agreement to go through there and maybe even go even further north on the ones that might eventually re get redeveloped going further up Pansville Highway. So yeah, you're right. It's just one access that probably wouldn't work like this the site arrangement, but it's just to kind of give you an idea of scale. So, you're telling me I'm panicking way too far ahead of time. [laughter]

No, you're thinking great. That's okay. That's good to see. So, happy to see that. Okay. All right. Well, I I think it's good that he brought it up because of the driveway separation limit. Right. Right. It's out here, too. This location may require waiverss. This might have to move. So, there's a lot of things that could happen as this process actually plays itself out over time. You've got a creek running through the top part of that process. There's a lot of things going on. Yeah. Yeah. And the truck would have would would have to go on the loading dock and then have to back in there and then come out. That's the only way to get in there,

right? And so therefore, it might change. The uses might change. May not be a grocery store. Maybe the site's not big enough for that. So, we're not really sure what could actually go there. Okay. Any additional questions? If not, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Although, any discussion? Just real quick, I would encourage the applicant to stay very close to the planning department and make sure that they don't invest too much time in this that or the other while they discuss options and making sure that what they're heading towards is going to not require a waiver somewhere down the road. Correct. That's all.

So, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, let's see. We now are moving on to um the planning commission is to review and provide a recommendation regarding the third modification of the development agreement between York County and Crescent Allison Creek LLC to amend the use table to allow an electrical substation on tax map number 48800126 which is located within pod one. All right, evening everybody. So, this development agreement was originally signed on. Let me show you what it looks like in case you're not too sure where this is located. Um, this is the Allison Creek PD. Along here is 274. Along on this side is Highway 49. Coming across here is Cannonball Run.

So, pod four is the high school.

So, we're pod four is the high school. Correct. So we're looking at pod one right through here. That was the original Daimler site. And so within the past maybe 18 months or so, Duke Energy has has subdivided that 10acre space there for a future substation. And in order to do actually build it, they ought to come by and actually modify the DA to allow that use. That's what we're doing here right now is to be able to allow for a substation to be built on that 10acre site within pod number one. And just to kind of give you some background here, this DA was adopted originally in 2007, modified in 2008 and again in 2010. That was for the Daimler to move their headquarters here and then a variety of uses to go along with that. Um, so this here is the third modification of the DA and that is to add a major utility facility as a permitted use in that tax map number. That's a 10acre 10acre parcel within pod number one referred to as a substation parcel. So we've actually labeled that parcel as the substation parcel. And this will allow the construction of a substation to serve the surrounding community. And so what I'm showing here at the bottom is a snip of the use table that we have right now for this DA and PD. And so we'll add a line in here. We'll call it um major facil utility facilities. We'll add a dot in pod number one. And then we'll have a a note to say this is only allowed for a substation within that tax map number. What we doing? Any questions for staff?

What what is the substation? You say it's for the development, but what's going to be on pod one? What's planned? Um Oh, here we go.

So pod one, like I said, that was the original Daimler site, right? Very limited uses can go there. It's pretty much meant to be a large corporate facility, technology research facility. Um, like looking at that that space right there that does have a snippet of pod one and you can see where those are allowed uses that are on there. Conference center research, you know, um, development there for conference center um, can happen on pod number one if it ever gets developed. And those are the only uses that

there are some other ones, but they're pretty much they're very limited. They're pretty much it's a very long use table. I just wanted to get you a snip to get an idea to what could actually go on how this table is set up, what we're changing here. Um, but it's it's pretty much located or limited to that type of research and development and then some some uses that might support it. Um, very very limited. No retail, no residential, you know, no commercial, just pretty much an office space. How how about data centers? No, not there. Not there. Not an approved. Thank you. It's not allowed use within that PD. Within the PD, it's not. Okay.

And so, just to let you know, this this substation was brought to us probably about three years ago, well before what you might be thinking. And so, uh, this was not part of that. They've identified the need for this. This has taken some time for people to figure out where they want to buy which land where it's going to go. This is actually to ser to serve the surrounding communities already there. Well, and and just for reference, the data center that's going on, where is that? Um, it's down below. It's below that. So, this is if I can make this thing work. Campbell Road is right at the bottom. It's on the south side.

Yes, it's below Campbell Road. So, um, way below pod number 13, uh, that bottom section where you see that little flat piece of pod number 13, you see 13 and 14, that's our rail line going through there. Um, so that bottom flat, that's actually Campbell Road. And so, south of that is where the data center is. See if I can make this thing work. Okay. Not getting a P. There we go. Down here. So, it's way down there. So it's in the neighborhood. It is, but they do have their own planned substations and things to service the whole QTS data center. This was here for the separate from this one. Yes. That they're looking at.

Absolutely. Okay. Is it usually Oh, go ahead, John. Usually, you know, you size for a certain substation where they're requesting 10 acres. So, do they have a size in mind of what the substation's going to be or I would imagine [clears throat and cough] I would imagine base it on 10 acres and say, "Yeah, this is what we can fit in the 10 acres." So, I would imagine they do have a size they planning on building here. Um, so they they bought the amount of acres they would need to be able to achieve that in addition to any kind of buffers required. Um, so yeah, they bought what they need.

Yeah, there will be buffers are required for that. What are the buffers like on something like this? I couldn't speak to that. It's probably more of industrial use. So you could be 100 foot, 75 foot with the fence most likely. But there also there are also some standards within the PD itself. So we'd have to kind of go back and look at that and see that might actually overrule what other what the base code might have. Okay. And we would also be going back to 2008 code, not current code. There's a variety of things to look at, but they've looked at all that, identified how many acres they need to have after they're purchased.

Um, is there anything that creates a problem because that entire area is a PD about what else they may have to run through there? So, you put a substation in place, you're going to need some other lines. You're going to need some stuff that's relatively bigger. You're going to have things that are towers and probably not all underground. And so, yeah, I wish I'd brought an aerial for that. There are already existing utility lines through here. So, they'll be I was going to say I think it's that line right there. I'm pretty sure I wasn't certain. Is that overhead or what? I think that's probably something through here. I can confirm those are high power lines, right?

Yeah. So I I think they've located in an area where they'll be able to easily connect to that is probably why they chose because they weren't one time looking over in this section over here as well, but for [clears throat] whatever reason this was a working. So So this is really to get better drops into the whole pod one area for development is what Exactly. Yeah. And just the community in general. Well, it's the Yeah, there's But you say there's another one of these they're proposing somewhere else.

So, what I'm saying is um the question was is this going to be servicing QTS for the data center? It's not. They already have their three I think it's three um substations that they're constructing which is furthest down Hansen Highway. Um they're building three down there to service that. Okay. the one of those three Diane I believe if I'm not incorrect was quoted as being 90% available for QTS and 10% available for any other I'm hoping it's not this one because as you said this one's three years old already the the request for or the idea they've been talking about it for numbers of years

yeah and I I to to piggyback on on what Tom said I know that there were some conditions that were agreed to at the time by Duke for increased buffers and placement. The only other comment I had was I looked up the definition of a substation and it's an unmanned utility facility. Is that still accurate? Y okay. And then we say they want to develop a substation including accessory administration or maintenance buildings and related accessory usage structures. Are those unmanned as well or does that sound like they're those are most likely places where they store equipment where they might be able to have somebody to come in and and have you know

I wouldn't think they would put an administrative building. No no no that isn't the intention. No. All right. Just clarifying that. And those those additional buildings would not require approval because it sounds like they could be well that's why they included that in the definition. Okay. So therefore, they don't to come back and say add little things to it. Just go ahead and put in there what you need to be able to operate that substation. So we're going to add the substation and the administration and maintenance buildings. Yes. Okay. Any additional questions? Have any height restrictions? Um there's probably some within the PD. Yes.

Okay. I'm all set. Thank you. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? For what it's worth? Okay. Moving on to other business.

That's right. Um, last month we asked the uh the planning commission requested to discuss potential revisions to the use table that would allow manufactured homes as a permitted use within the RSF40 zoning district. So for this one here, similar to we had for the um the the tree protection uh that we brought forward you a couple months ago is that you asked to put it on the agenda. And so this is here for you to be able to discuss it and kind of get out your thoughts, get out your comments, and then vote to see whether or not you want to take this actual forward for for staff to do the work. And so what we're going to want to know for you is what information would you like from us if you want to move forward? What information can we provide to you to help you make your decision? And so we will get all that if you vote to take this forward. Um we will make our do our research and come back to you at a future meeting to give you our information of what we would see and what the next step would be. This is for you all to be able to discuss that and ask any questions you'd like.

Cooling. So since I brought this up, I'll ask the first one. [laughter] Um it was every isn't everything from RS30 down able to have manufactured homes? The manufactured homes are allowed right now in AGC and I'm in AGC1 RUD RUD1 and RSF 30 30 but not 40 but not 40 and then no other district going to the smaller going to the higher density ones. So it's just within so there's a gap between 30 and an RUD and that's the 40. Okay. All right.

And the 30s and the 40s are about the square footage for the property. So 40,000 foot lot and 30,000 foot lot. That's all that's really different apart from manufactured home. There's some small other ones, but very few. I don't know if we found out any information why a manufactured home would be not be able to go on a denser area as opposed to a stick build, right? Not sure why that I mean, especially if it has the same square footage. I'm not really understanding why

and that what we would be doing. So, we're going to if if that was some of the questions you would like to know on if you approve that you want to go forward with this and if you want to know why then we can go back and research as to the why the best we can. We may not know what was decided back in the day. That would be the one question because I know it's a manufactured home but it's taking the same square footage as a stick built. What's the difference? The reason why we can't go in a, you know, in RS40 and above, I'm just from a square footage standpoint. Square footage of the actual residence. I mean, if you have a stick built built at 1500 feet, I'm just And then you have manufactured home at 1500 square feet,

right? Um, could it could it fit in a denser? You know, I guess what I'm not understanding is the square footage. Why? If it's going to be the same square footage manufactured home, why are they why can't they go into the same RSF40 and denser if they have square footage that fits in RS40? So, I'm thinking I'm hanging up on the denser part that you're adding to your question there because RSF40 is a larger lot size than RSF30. and RU is even larger. So I think you're going the wrong direction.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

So RUD is a one acre. RSF 40s. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So they're they're allowed they're allowed in a a more dense by going into 30 than they are in 40. So they're allowed on a smaller lot size in the 30 than they are. In the past though, as I recall, haven't some hasn't some have haven't some of the regulations been more and this is outdated but looks as opposed to function because initially when I came on to the planning commission I mean in is it was it AGC that you you could have it but it had to be so far back. So, so it's it's very interesting about that because you have the AGC and AGC1 and those are different. The AGC1 manufactured homes are prohibited, but you can do it in AGC. Same thing goes for the RUDS and the RUD1 prohibited in RUD1, but an RUD1 was established after zoning and so was AGC1, but RSF30 was not. So, I haven't quite figured out the why yet.

Okay. So, that's I don't know. I'm not too sure what the Y is. So would would we like staff to give us a a quick rundown at their convenience? I mean it doesn't have to be next month but within a few months [clears throat] to as to why they think that is and you know then we can look at it. Is it? Yes. I and kind of the you know what would be a con of trying to allow it in 40 when we don't today. Right. Correct. What those are kind of the questions of what what's been kind of the history? What have we done? Um maybe cuz this came up for me because we had a reasonzoning just or an exception or something last meeting to deal with this.

So what what negative outcome could be if it started to be allowed and what what kind of things have you all had to do with deal with it beyond just the one we dealt with last month? How many other possible cases? And I don't know how easy that is for you to find. Um yeah, so it'll be a mapping exercise that we can work on. we'll be able to identify um our our thought is to figure out how many parcels are zoned RSF40, how many of them are vacant, and then how many of them are not actually within a subdivision because many subdivisions are going to actually have covenants that will prohibit them anyway, right?

So, we want to be able to get down to that bucket of what it's actually going to impact. And so, we can kind of dwell just in through that and figure out what's what's the impact of that. You you could have something that says they are allowed in RSF40, but the restrictive covenants of that property might prevent them. Exactly. It's already that is what it is. If it's a stickuilt community, I could understand that. I guess what I'm trying to get at. Yeah. Is what do they what do they have against the manufactured home? Is it architecturally or I don't I don't think it's that. I think we're finding maybe just a hiccup. Um, and there would be space constraints when moving them. I mean, if you think about when they're moved, they're very big.

Yeah. So, bigger lot would make more sense to a smaller lot is going to be harder. Right. Right. It's the only thing I can think of. So, yes, all the above and then some. What whatever you can do to help us get our brain wrapped around this more. And one one last thing maybe somewhat tangentially related, but if you're talking about a mobile home development, does that usually wind up being in some sort of PD that defines? So, in other words, you can't have you can't have AG you have a limit on how many manufactured homes you can put on AGC, right? So, um so for AGC, if you had one parcel that was owned AGC, if you had 10 acres, you could put the two, right? right? As you could do two homes,

right? Now, a manufactured home park is a whole different thing. It's a whole different use. And I think you can actually go into the um RMX20s. We had a reasonzoning recently request over off of Highway 5 that was RUD and had to go to RMX 20, I believe, or 10. It's one of the two for manufactured home park. So, there it's a whole but those lots are much smaller. That's why you can see why it would be the more dense zoning district because it has a smaller lot. But RMX 10 or 20 in general, you can't put them on. Is that right or wrong? You cannot put them just a single manufactured home cannot go in those two districts. But if you had a large property, a mobile home park, then you could do it.

And so what defines That's where I was getting to is what defines it as a park. Does it become a PD? No, it's just a not PD. It's just zoned RMX either 10 or the 20. it's just reszoned to that district or it is zoned that district then there are standards and so there is a density standard there's a lot size requirement for the lot itself for the manufactured home um but it should stay in that zoning district okay a little probably then a little more clarification we'll bring about mobile home parks so you know what that is that yes we can do that

Diane for the uninitiated as part of that can you define what a manufactured home is because I envision a range from what we call a mobile home to you could be it could be a modular home, right? That's what it is. It's a mod stick built. We don't It's not stick built, but it's the same category. So, we're just talking about HUD regulated manufactured homes. Got it. On trailers. This is not a manu. This is not a modular. Oh, I thought you were talking about manufactured home. We are talking manufactured home. We are not talking modulars. Yes. And they're two different things. We're talking about we're talking about houses that are complete and show up on wheels and no more than two trailers that are put together as in a double wide and then

but we're not talking about modular homes that may have stories or are built are are stick factory and assembled on that's what I was thinking then so a modular home has the same regulations classification as a stick build home. Yes. Gotcha. Manufactured homes. Okay. Yeah. No. And we do have we do have conditions. Um I don't I can't I can't quote them, but in the RSF30 there are some you know there's some screening requirements. I think they maybe even have to have a double wide. I think a certain size requirements for that. And so we could look at those as well and show you what's what's required in RSF30. What we permit right now and you can kind of look at that maybe adding it to RSF40. That'd be great.

I think I think the progression is you know recreational vehicle, mobile home. Yeah. modular home, stick built home, right? That's how they I just think it's worth clear, you know. Absolutely. Absolutely. I was as confused as you are. Take out any confusion. So, there's no need to vote on that. We're just requesting. Correct. Yeah, that's fine. Is that right? Yes.

60 days. Just is 60 days. You tell us. We don't want to make it hard on you. But I say, yeah, I prefer not to be next month. If we can do it at least to April and we can bring you back information. Sure. Sure. Sounds good. Um, you want want to just say 90 days or sooner? That's perfect. There we go. Okay. 90 days or sooner. Thank you very much. Uh, any questions or concerns about the zoning tracking sheets sheet? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All those in favor? Have a good night.