Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this April 13th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Are there any um changes or additions to the agenda that we should know about? Nope. If not, is there a motion? I make a motion agenda. I'll second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to the minutes from last month. Any corrections or additions? If not, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

All those in favor? Okay. Moving on to our first uh item of business this evening, a public hearing. We have a waiver uh W26-1. Sean Shitler, applicant, is requesting a land development waiver from the minimum required driveway separation. The subject property is located at 5377 Old York Road in Rock Hill. It is zoned planning development and is identified as tax map number 4980000000086 council district 3.

Hello. And the waiver request is uh from the requirement for the 400 foot minimum driveway separation. Um, here is a overview of the zoning map and we did kind of insert where the proposed driveway was going into development and I have some better pictures here. Um, this is what the driveway leads to. This is the residential part of the development. This is a um off of some of the civils that they had for this entrance way there lead here. There are some outlots next to it. I tried to capture this. It didn't resolution wasn't great. But you'll see there's a couple commercial outlots on top and this will be eventually a a store larger store large large. Uh the waiver request the reduced side the reduced driveway separation um for the entrance to the approved mixed use. Um a new driveway course will be access in the two

Can you speak up a little bit?

Yeah, the driveway will be uh access in two out parcels and a whole lot of uh single family homes and and town homes. The waiver will allow a reduced driveway separation down to 32 feet from the 400 ft separation requirement. Um that's the closest one. There are two other driveways that are near it at approximately 90 ft and 119 ft away from the proposed drive. And the applicant needs we'll install a traffic signal at the proposed intersection of of this uh drive in future phase. Here's something. We put the numbers down of what it looks like. And you'll see the one right across is driveway A, that's 32. Uh driveway B is a 90. Um, and driveway C is further than that. Um, this is kind of on the ground what it looks like. Um, you'll see the A and the B. A is really like not used hardly at all. They all go in B. It's kind of an AR archaic driveway that just doesn't have much use. And if they do something, they probably want them to close it at that time. Um the findings you have to make um the provisions would not cause would cause an unnecessary hardship. Um applicant has a approved PD and has performed a TIA traffic impact analysis and access to the parcel hindered due to several existing off-site driveways and any alignment of a driveway necessary to provide access back into this development will run into the same issue. um meeting 400 foot requirement um and without allowing some access up there um you know we wouldn't be able to develop that mixeduse area that's already been approved. So we find a

waiver meets the requirement and then we need to find that it uh can be made without defeating the intent of the provisions of the chapter. Um again we're trying to implement our best access management practices. has been looked over by a TIAA and gotten a nod from DOT and our people and uh using the approach the approved access location installing a traffic signal of best facilitate traffic to and from the development we would find it beats that criterion. Um so we'd recommend approval of uh a 368 foot waiver for driveway separation uh standard to allow um existing driveways to exist and such. Quick question. So, I do see that they've worked with the SC DOT to kind of get that position where they think it's going to be and and that's okay with them. Has there been any discussion of when that light goes in lining up across the street?

That's good. Applicant might have a better answer to that. It's phase two and I was we're just debating what constitutes phase one and phase two whether it was construction, but I'll I'll let the applicant do that. So, not right away, but soon and probably when the traffic counts assessed there. Hey, Rick. Um, I noticed there was a del lane coming into Did Did they take that into effect when they did the TIA that they were going to Are they required to do that delane? Yeah, they're they we have a list. I don't know. It could uh maybe Marian could just tell you the list since she has it in her hand of what they had to do besides the light.

Okay. For this main entrance uh phase one, they are to construct an eastbound right turn lane onto Old York um with 100 ft of storage and appropriate taper.

So that's um coming off of Old York turning into the development. And then uh they also are going to restripe for a westbound left turn lane from Old York Road with 150 ft of storage and appropriate tab. So they'll have um the entrance and then part of the center lane will be uh painted out for a turn lane. Phase two, oh that phase one, they have a 2028 deadline. Um obviously multiple moving factors on that. Phase two, they say 2030, it'll be a new light and the county will evaluate the need to enter a mitigation agreement before the start of phase two.

So that was phase one was based on pretty much construction trips, phase trips, right? Yes, sir. There's going to be a trigger somewhere in trips and um volume for the next phase to start, but they will have to have phase one at least started moving along before they can get the road final platted. And phase one does not include commercial or does include commercial. Phase one does or does not include any commercial. It's just the it's uh phase one is the turn lanes. two is the light.

Okay. But in terms of the timing of development, there's commercial and there's residential. Are they both going in at the same time or one ahead of the other? Um they're basically concurrent. Okay. The um the sewer system, the pump station is at the bottom in the residential area. Okay. So, they have to complete that part in order to get the commercial part started. Um they're ready to break ground this evening basically. But um it's kind of a two-parter. The reason I ask is that the commercial could create more traffic quicker. So yes, that that could trigger the light

and they are ready to move on commercial as soon as possible. Um but obviously they have some other things to take care of in the residential part too. Sure. So any additional questions?

Okay. So, as this is a public hearing, we'll open uh the hearing now. Uh for anyone who would like to speak either for or against the project, um we would just ask that you come to the podium and state your name and also your address for the record. Um and we'll keep it to um hopefully on track. Uh if we have questions, we'll let you know. And if not, we'll thank you for your time. So if there's anyone uh here to speak in for or against the project, feel free to come to the capodium. And if there's not, that's okay, too. Um if there's not, do we have a motion to close the public hearing?

I make a motion to close. A second. All those in favor? Uh, do we have a mo uh is there a motion? I make a motion to accept staff's waiver um for this development and the separation of the driveways.

I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Uh, moving on to old business. We have two items of old business this evening. Our first item of old business is waiver W25-11, which is WTX Exploration LLC. The applicant is requesting land development waiverss from the minimum required driveway separation and required vehicle stacking. The subject property is located at 1785 Gold Hill Road in Fort Mill. It is zoned general commercial and is identified as tax map number 65000000000460 council district 1.

Good evening Jeff Kersner zoning. Um we've already had the public hearing on this and waver request. Can't hear you. Say can you speak up a little too? We're having trouble with that microphone tonight. Yeah. Well, we always have trouble with this microphone. Lean in. You need to raise basically. Let me just need to raise it.

Yeah. Well, it's not for tall people. Okay. So, I'll do a brief recap. The applicant's proposing a We have an existing Ace Hardware site. It's zone GC. Um, it has existing parking existing two driveways on Gold Hill Road. The applicant's proposing a new commercial building, a new retail building, which will utilize the parking in a driveways that exist on Gold Hill Road. This constitutes such an um increase in the property both in the square footage and the number of parking spaces. It requires the site to meet compliance. The two driveways existing goldhill road do not meet our curb cut separation or our driveway separation standard in land development manual. And also with the proposing and what's there um the code requires 60 ft of stacking and the applicant is requesting a reduction of down to 40 feet of stacking which is the minimum of stacking required for new project. Those those are two requests. Um if you remember, we had the public hearing. We we discussed this um we discussed that um from a code standpoint and the impact um to Gold Hill Road and the fact that neither of the existing driveways could meet code or do meet code that the code requires both the driveways if they do this project. Of course, this is all dependent on the project for the new almost 6,000 foot building. um if they do that project to close both driveways because neither one can meet the separation standard. We've also discussed the possibility of a conditional approval if it if the board does feel that um at least one driveway to Gold Hill Road um was uh you know a valid waiver request to keep that driveway in do the project that in discussions with not just zoning staff but our transportation staff and fire and building that um what we're calling driveway B to the west is the pre preferable of the do. Um, and I and I do

have a new slide that I put in here. We asked about hydrants. These are the the two closest hydrants. You can see they're on the west side of the property. That's part of the thinking because the distance between the fire trucks and the hydrants and driveway B. That was part of the thinking of that and the and I think the um um the board wanted to um get where basically where those hydrants were and where that comes from. Um, in the couple months since we've had the original public hearing, we have had discussions with the applicant and their engineer about the concept of one-way operation, but we have we've not had any civil plan reviews or details enough to um is it going to be right in right out? How would that how the cur how the I guess the uh the driveway entrance would be designed was such a way that it couldn't be if it was right in right out. Is it just signage? Are we talking about actual design standards here? You know, obviously with approval of SDOT, uh the applicant maybe has some other thoughts about um the project. Um but we haven't had any more reviews that have been looked at up by all our staff. So we're we're kind of with the same the middle that we had last time, the same concept

and some of the same issues. Um, even with limited access or or one-way operation, we'd still have misaligned from a code standpoint, uh, driveways and Gold Hill and, you know, movements of turning, you know, crossing each other that won't align. So, we still have those issues that we had last time. Um, and the applicant is here this time, so they could answer questions if the board wants. Obviously, the public hearing has been closed, so it's completely up to you. Of course, I'm here if you have any follow-up questions since our last discussion about this project. Do we have any questions at the moment?

Um, you were saying that we haven't quite if we did a write in only at B and a write out only at A. that hasn't been fully re

I think they we talked and it was I think it was actually previous to the previous meeting um you know they they couldn't attend so we the board continued it the previous meeting they couldn't attend but I think believe we discussed um maybe I think it was uh coming in on B and leaving on A uh but we haven't had a review where it's you know actually shows a detail of that intersection the DOT approved like I said I don't know if that means only right in and right out or full movement, but just with signage not to do that or what that would look like from a real practical standpoint. It still wouldn't meet the curb cut separation. Um, it still would meet code even if it's a restricted movement. Um, it's just another option to maybe have circulation through the site, but it's not been vetted in a way that I could say this is going to work better because our staff hasn't reviewed another civil plan for it. Um, not just myself. Go back. Do it to Peter.

There we go. Did Did do you have that slide with the one way in that we have? You back up a couple. Um I don't have a slide of that. I guess because it's not been really reviewed. I do have it like printed out. So, right. And that that was in our packet, but you don't have that to present. No, I didn't have that up there. So, couple of questions around that if you if you were done. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. um the 30 foot driveway radius that's in the middle between the two entrances. In my mind, I'm envisioning that radius would go away and it would be more rectangular if you're going to be able to come in at B and go out at A. Is that reasonable? Oh, you mean I'm trying to see if that's Tell about smaller rad that that there wouldn't be any radius at all. I my understanding of having the radius there is to help with the transition into the turn. But if you can only approach Oh yeah.

in through B and out through A, then the radius curbs would only be on the exterior and the interior ones would be more squared off. Is that reasonable? It would be. you're talking about. Yeah, that's what I was saying. We don't have a design for a new driveway entrance beyond what we already seen with the 30 ft. Um the land development manual says 40 ft. Um and would it be somehow restricted to just, you know, one way? All right. From a design standpoint, it would be different design. That's true.

Okay. And the second question around that is if it did become oneway restricted where B is in and A is out on from Gold Hill and to Gold Hill, would the width of the driveways then become narrower?

They could promote that, hey, it's only one direction. You can't fit two vehicles through here. In the land development manual, the standard width that we have now, which could be flexible if we if we reviewed it, but the standard width is 26 ft. That's the same as the throat width for two-way operation. If you go one way operation, then you could possibly do an angle parking, which you can have a smaller that the land development manual has different standards for depending on 90 degree parking, 60°ree parking, 45 degree parking, but again, that's not been vetted. So, there's certainly possibilities there because we have different standards for different um basic parking uh layouts, basic drive aisles for parking. Um but I don't I don't know that for sure.

Okay. And where where I'm kind of going is if things like that were incorporated into the recommendation. What what I'm seeing right now is you guys are saying, "No, we don't agree with this. We don't think it should proceed." Is that right for this waiver? from the code standpoint, neither driveway meets the separation standard and we have to enforce that. And as far as like the impact, obviously any new trips generated on Gold Hill, anything that's non-conforming, it's increasing that non-conformity, which we can't recommend. Um, right.

And we don't really have another answer to like move the driveway. Sometimes we talk about that moving the driveway to conformance, but on this site, it's not very practical because it's already existing layout. So what what I was curious about is can you envision a modification here that would still be a deviation but would be a palatable deviation for you all. And and where I'm also kind of looking at this is we just got finished looking at one where we didn't have driveway separation. Everybody said that's no big deal.

Here we don't have driveway separation and it's becoming more of a big deal. And I'm really confused why the one was, yep, no problem. This one is h we can't do that. So try trying to understand a little bit better.

I think I think what I think what um with this one, the applicant is proposing to keep both driveways in the same location. And there So there's two of them. And then maybe what you were looking at or what maybe In a similar way, if there was just one driveway at Goh Hill, we did say that we we believe that even though it still doesn't meet code, like you're saying, it doesn't exactly meet code. At least it would be some change to what's existing traffic on Gold Hill that reduces that non-conforming sum, even if if both of them can't meet the, you know, the code. Um, what the applicant submitted in the application is

to just keep it as is, but increase the traffic on it. So that's why we can't support that. Okay. I think I'm gonna Can we Could we go back to the other picture you had that was more satellite looking? Okay. So if something was done in the median of that road so that the only way you would make it into those two driveways is if you were going is that going to be east? I'm assuming north is up in this photo, right? Yes.

So if something was done in the median to prevent anyone who was going west to try and make it into those driveways that it could only be from the east that you'd have to be in the east travel lanes and that it was one way in one way out another I mean do do you what I'm asking is do we get to a point of having a level of control that the driveway separation becomes less of an issue or I understand what you mean. I guess from my stand from a review standpoint, I'm not comfortable doing a site plan review on in the board meeting and not have it submitted. Okay. Right. Getting to

another difference from the previous one that is a road and it's it has a TIA and that's a larger project. This is a smaller project. It is a smaller project. It doesn't require TIA. It's kind of it will make an impact but it's not to that level. It doesn't have turn lanes. It doesn't have mitigation. I mean so far. So we don't have those same mechanisms like we're talking about the turn lane or possible light in phase two to go with this. This is just accept the driveways as is with conditions or not approve it. And this is as far we've gotten a review. So we have I guess less to base

um you know our comments on because we have less review and we don't have a TIA and these kind of things. Jeff is one recourse they come back with just B as just in and then you go out C. Did did you I know you had talked mention that

it's it's a possible condition that we thought about because obviously we understand that access out to the major road and losing that even though that's what the code would ask for that that is a lot to ask if both the applicant and of the board and that's why we had that discussion even previous to the waiver request if one driveway were to stay open. We're first of all we want improvements to it. We're talking about the stacking. We're talking about the radius, you know, improve that driveway, but which one is the better one? And we got the feedback from our our rest of our staff, transportation, uh, obviously fire is big because we wanted to be served by a fire truck and also larger vehicles have to be able to move through the site. So, that's the concern about the one-way operation, how that's going to work.

So, we did have that discussion. Um, obviously from a strict code standpoint, we have to request not to wave anything on Gold Hill, but we did put that condition. at the very end as an option to the board because what what we're looking at is there is an improvement with this project to connect to Lake Vista because it's a secondary road and both the code and everything we look at is trying to to get traffic, you know, some traffic off those main roads um and try to mitigate that. Um but if it was to have access out to a major road, that is a possible condition that we did put into the staff report as an option. just trying to think like it is if is they're going to do this project they they won't want to lose all their access to Gold Hill Roads. It's understandable. It's just from a code standpoint we can't say

keeping both access full access you know that that's and then adding the new trips to it. Right. We can't we can't support that non-conformity increasing.

Right. Right. Right. Yeah. So, I live somewhat close to there and I've driven through a few times different times a day just to kind of get a feel and obviously Gold Hill Road is um getting more and more congested. Uh I don't personally necessarily think that it is fair for an existing business that came in with access to Gold Hill Road to have it completely stripped. I do understand that this is triggered by them wanting to make changes. I mean, definitely understand how that goes. Um, I also don't think the the right in right out makes a whole lot of sense. Um, even as we see on 160 at the

I'm trying to, you know, at the um recycling center,

you know, the county the county put up stansions and everything and people are just driving over them. Um, it's frustrating to say the least. Uh, and they even have, you know, actual curb cuts and yeah, it it's it's a problem. I personally think uh or and I don't know how the rest of the commission feels, but I think the possibility of leaving B open, closing A, and then uh requesting that, you know, really the focus should be on the C entrance in particular for the new building. Uh, I'm assuming their address is going to be on that back side. Do we know that? Like, you know, I'm thinking when

when there's advertisement and things. Yeah. For that for that particular business office or offices, would it will it be on that on that back side? So, it doesn't even say Gold Hill Roads that

I'm just a concern and and honestly, it's been such a long time since we had that first review. I can't remember if addressing had assigned an address yet. We're still trying to work out this sort of real fundamental access after the first civil plan review. Um though we may have to work on that but it does make sense because um they will have I mean the plan was to have access and like Vista and that is the one part of the access that we do agree on. They talked about they mentioned to me and they could maybe speak to you if you asked them about not having that access but of course that that makes the pressure or added trips to Gold Hill worse to not have that access. So, I I wouldn't support that. Um,

well, is the building going to face the front going to face Gold Hill? Because I would tend to believe if the front door faces Gold Hill, that's where they're going to put the address for that. Yeah, they could address. They could speak. So, we haven't had I don't think we've had a quite a detailed building design, but that the it does share parking, so it may have sort of two fronts. I'm not I'm not really sure what the building design. There's a picture you have here that has an address I think on that parcel. Yeah, that was 56. Go back one. Go back. That's just the the other That's just a square foot square. Yeah, you're right. The 56

Oh, 5064. The uh 50 5064. Okay. Is that is that the address of the lot or is that what size?

I can't remember what that address. Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't say what the rest of address is. Yeah, because I don't know what that is. Yeah, cuz Yeah, because I look at 419, then it jumps to 1785, but then you go over here, 1767. Yeah, I guess I would be more inclined to um as I said before, leave B open, close A, and then stipulate that that building at the back needs to be addressed on Lake Vista Boulevard so that you know when it's entered into GPS, all of those things. It's it doesn't know to go through the parking lot. You know what I'm saying? It knows to go to Lake Vista. Um that's just my two cents. So that's kind of what I was mentioning.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. Is the intended use still a medical office building? Do we know that? I thought it was I don't think it was set for one use unless they have something in mind since we talked. I thought it was going to be general retail, but it could be retail or office. I do recall medical office building. Is the applicant here to answer that question? Just what is the what is the intended purpose of the building? Yes, for the new building. Retail. Just retail, not medical. Okay. Okay.

And second question, and it's not pursuant to this waiver, but uh parking. So, you're adding an additional 6,000 square ft. Um is there any concern there with the parking? I don't see too many additional spaces added unless I just didn't notice. I think on the last plan there was maybe eight additional spaces that supportage in total for the that was the um obviously it was the the YMCA parking lot

when they did the conversion to the ACE they had some additional parking um just based on the minimum standards and they're proposing to use up some of that existing parking for more retail so retail spaces that that plan and obviously once we go through the plan. Um, it would have to have the minimum amount of parking for retail if that's the use they're proposing for both the ACE and the new building. So, if we have now two retail spaces within that same spot with eight additional spaces, are they going to meet the minimum? They're very close. I guess we have to go through the process because ones for the second because which are coming out you're losing

you're going to lose more spots. you're losing four spots with the additional stacking. Correct. They do show some of that and and it really will it probably will depend on if they get that the stacking distance from 60 to 40 because obviously that could take up a couple spaces and what driveways are open because if I recall correctly, they're right at with the original plan, they were right at that minimum number. Yeah. Which is one space for every 250 square feet gross floor area. So that's like the minimum retail parking ratio. didn't need a parking deck.

So, if just hypothetically, if a were closed, how far could they bring parking towards the road and still be within buffer space? Do you know they would pick up a couple parking spaces that if they wanted because now they're proposing with a to go to that 40 feet and lose a couple spaces, right? Right. So, they would gain back those couple spaces and the minimum buffer width is 20 ft. So, you couldn't go closer than that 20 ft because that's the buffer width.

Any additional questions? And so, just real quick, one more question for me. So then if we approve any sort of waiver, you're still going through the more formal site plan of when that building comes in, we would look at parking spaces.

Yes, we would still have to look at uh pretty much everything else on the site. So if the board does u wave both waiver applicant applications. So one's for the stacking and one's for the separation either for one or both of the gold hill driveways. Then we would still have the site design standards, everything from the throat of the drive, depend on what the board approves, the new drive like Vista, the parking spaces, um obviously buffer, landscaping standard, building code standard, building design standards, um you know, addressing all that still has to be done. Uh we had a first kind of civil plan review. producer was sketch and kind of went to this and basically this was the issue of the driveway location on Gold Hill is kind of going to drive everything else with the site design.

Sure, that makes sense. Okay. Any additional questions? I I just have one observation that I'd like clarified. We've got two hydrant locations and the one is right across from Silver Ridge Drive. If you look at the if you look at the commercial property just north of that that's basically got three curb cuts and it's almost the entire width of the property. How is that different than two driveways within that that don't meet the requirement referring to the gas station? Correct. Is that what that is? Yes.

Um it is there because the same way the ACE is like that because it's non-conforming. Okay,

that and again this is not um if they keep the ACE the way it is or even you know added some to the ACE within the code parameters that they would have to close one or both of these gold hill driveways. It's the code standard then once you do so much improvements the the add in the building to add in the parking then we have to start applying the new code. If it's non-conforming and you're changing very little under those thresholds, then we can accept it as grandfathered, you know, legally non-conforming. It's the new project is kind of the trigger. And that goes for pretty much all these projects that we talk about. We've even had some other waiverss for projects that existed, were non-conforming, and then they they changed something like the big industrial park, they rechanged, and had to get a waiver for that driveway. Things like that. This is just another trigger

for comp compliance with current code standards just because it's such a big project. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Understand. A lot of square feet for a relatively small amount of space. Okay. Any additional questions? No.

Anyone like to make a motion? We've got two. Yeah, there are two uh waivers. We should probably do them individually, I think. Yes. Yes. What was that? We need to do those individually, the waivers.

So, I'll make a motion for the uh the first issue that we've been discussing, which is the actual driveway separation. Um, I would make a motion that we um go with sort of second, not recommended, but suggested by the county uh suggestion of closing A, keeping B, opening C. So, closing the east entrance on Gold Hill, keeping the west closest to the hydrants, and then opening a new one a C at the back. Yeah, a new at the back. Um, is there a second?

I'll second. Second here. Is there discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, then moving on to the second question of the waiver of the stacking distance. Right now, neither of them it doesn't conform. Correct. It's already too short. The ones on Go Hill, yeah, they are are maybe 20 feet, right? And the on the applicants are proposing to go up to 40 feet, which is the minimum. And then with the parking that they're proposing for this development, it goes over 50 spaces. It goes up to 60. And they're requesting to keep it at that 40, which is the minimum. We ask for pretty much any new project now. Um, so that would be an improvement,

right, to the existing Gold Hill driveways. And then they also apply it to Lake Vista so it's consistent because that gives them more room to add a little bit more parking off of Lake um you know for that new part. Do you think it would be beneficial to wait on this waiver to see what the parking requirements are

are once we know um you know actual site plan and building size. I mean that is true. If the applicants reduce the parking or maybe the other site design requirements or changes reduce it under 50 then that would drop the requirement down to 40 again just on based on base code. Um I guess it's just up to the board. You know the applicant just wanted to know they could because it has to be since they approved the one on Gold Hill that has to be designed um to meet current code standards. got, you know, so they need to know it's 6040. So, so probably better to move forward now than

Yeah. I guess it would help the applicants just to be able to start designing because again, really couldn't design more of the civil plan until we know the access and what room we're working with. So, I mean, from a staff standpoint, I think we're okay with the 40 because this is very close to that threshold anyways in the code. And obviously it's a it's a compromise to say they're making improvements and you know 40 feet uh you know 40 feet's better than 20 feet may mean as good as 60 feet but at least it's something. I would also make a motion to accept that uh the new 40 ft as opposed to pushing it up to the 60.

Can I ask for one clarification before we vote on that? Would the 40 also apply to C? Yes. I wouldn't the applicants didn't specify it in their application. That's why I put in the the the staff report. I think it was better just apply it to the property and see as well. That way it's consistent and also gives them a little bit more room. We're talking about that building is going to be close to Lake Vista. I would agree with that. Thank you. I'm good. Is there a second on that motion? I'll second. Okay.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Uh let's see. Moving on to our second uh point of old business, which is reasonzoning 26-3. Daniel Baker is the applicant. Joyce and Dan Baker are the owners. Um there is a revised request to reszone a 12.8 acre portion of a 27.7 acre parcel from GC to RMX20. The subject parcel is located on Blessed Hope Road in York and the property is referenced as tax map number 2920000000010 council district 3.

Good evening everyone. Thomas Newman, long-range planner. Uh so this request probably looks familiar. We had this one last month, but the applicant revised their request uh to conform closer to the expectations of staff in the comprehensive plan. Uh so instead the original request was to go from AGC uh to RMX20. This is going from GC to RMX20 exclusively. Uh taking about these 13 acres here highlighted in blue. That which is in red is the total partial area. Um and again this is off Blessed Hope Road kind of at the conflux of Alexander Love Highway 321 and Blessed Hope Road. So the applicant proposes to subdivide and allow the construction of three large lot homes. Um, a key detail about this property is the there are power lines that kind of create this undevelopable space that kind of catches on this lip here of the property line. Um, and again, you can see that kind of large commercial um, element here in the city of York's jurisdiction and the residential on the blessed hope side of the property. So again, we're just focusing on reszoning this area highlighted in blue. Um again we kind of get that mix of uses represented here in the zoning districts between residential and commercial. And the idea behind this resoning would again take this which is GC currently make it RMX20 that matches the rest of the property here and that along blessed hope um and leave this side of 321 in GC. The black lines that have been added are the proposed subdivisions. Again these are the three lots, three residential lots that would be created. So this is actually within jurisdiction donut hole uh the city of York. So we defer to them using municipal infill in our comprehensive plan. And this is actually city of York's new comprehensive plan. It's very very good if you haven't given it a read. Uh it's excellent. And our subject parcel is right up here in what they consider a

community center designation. Uh the community center is very similar to our community center node. uh you kind of get a mix of retail and higher density housing types, attached housing types particularly. And because of that, we see this as a consistent request. It aligns with the expectations of City of York's uh living York comprehensive plan because it allows for those housing types and residential density that's expected for uh that designation. Again, it absuts other properties zone RMX20, but if approval is recommended, staff recommends that uh it is with the condition that it be subdivided properly so that there is not a split zone created. Any questions for staff?

Real real quick one, Thomas. Um Sure. when you all do come up up against reviewing um comprehensive plans for the localities as you're doing these like you did here. Do you actually get something from their planning department that says, "Hey, we don't have any problem with this. This looks good to us." Or is it an interpretation of their plan and a decision based on that? It sometimes depends on the project. We do like to reach out and ask and get their opinion. Um again in this case I was pointed to this is their new uh uh comprehensive plan that they just uh ratified in March. So

okay that's all I have. Thank you. Are there any additional questions? If not, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. So, we have a first and a second. Is there any discussion? Do we need Yeah. Do we need to add the condition? Yes, I will add the condition. Thank you.

So, we have a first and a second to approve with the condition that uh there be no split zoning. Any additional discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And moving on to new business. We have a preliminary plat this evening. Prestige Land and Site Works LLC is the applicant in uh they're requesting a preliminary plat approval for the Newport Commons development. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Old York Road and Admin Church Road in Rock Hill and is zoned plan development and is identified as tax map number 498 000081 083 and 086 council district 3. Thank you.

All right. Good evening. Mary and Ray, zoning planner for York County. Um, this one might look a little bit familiar. I think you've seen it a few times. Uh this property is the PD zone uh Newport Common PD. They're at Adna Church and Old York Highway. Um we are looking at preliminary plat for both mostly the residential section and a little bit of the commercial. Um we're looking at out lots in the commercial. Um we have the vicinity map here. Um, again, y'all are pretty familiar with the site. And this is a kind of a quick little demonstration of what the residential section looks like. You can see some out parcels marked in the commercial site to the north. There's about eight commercial parcels, 138 single family detached homes, and 57 town homes. Um, that's about 63 and a half acres of the residential and about 34ish acres of commercial. So we'll go through the findings here. Um willingness and capability letter has been provided and accepted by staff uh from York County. So the second part of the finding does not apply. The second finding uh for land use and density uh both detached single family residential uses and town homes are allowed in the plan development. Uh the maximum allowed density is four dwelling units per acre. They're coming in at 3.07 07 dwelling units per acre. And then for number three, we have already discussed the TIA a little bit tonight. Um it was completed and approved by staff and there is mitigation required. Number four, uh provides adequate street connectivity and pedestrian facilities. Um that's one of the ground rules of this PD is to have connectivity between the commercial and the residential. Uh they've worked very hard to make sure there's connectivity between the two. Uh sidewalks are required provided and all

the roads are accessed off of SCOT roads, Old York Highway and Adna Church. Um part of the PD also is for open space and buffers. Uh open space is required provided at 26.39 acres or 42% of the development. 50 foot buffers are also required and provided on the preliminary plat. And then all other applicable requirements of this chapter um it's always the tree survey and grain tree mitigation which has been reviewed and approved by staff. So staff recommends approval for Newport Commons preliminary plat. You have any questions for staff?

I have one Marian. Um the tree survey on the next plot that we're reviewing there's a comprehensive tree survey and the recommendations for the mitigation. Yes. There is no is there an equivalent document for this one? For this one uh it's a PD. So they already had the rules um laid out for them for the tree survey. Okay. They have some relaxed rules on that and the grand tree mitigation as part of their uh resoning to this plan development. Okay. But we we don't have any details on what the inventory is or they're abiding by the PD. Okay.

Just another quick question. Yes, ma'am. Which not even necessarily related to this one, but in the past we have gotten some school information for preliminary plats, have we not? What information? Like school impact enrollment. Enrollment. Um did we drop that? This one is submitted to the school the schools. We are that is that information is still going to them. Correct. Okay. This is preliminary. So do you do you have the vicinity map color one that you could put up that one?

Yes. Now ours is a little different in how it's shaded. Yes. But um I'm getting lost in the lines here a little bit. Okay. So what isn't a good portion of that going to be the one that we talked about with the sign deviations and all the other stuff or am I the wrong part? So the uh the sign plan was part of the whole thing too, right? It's all one big PD. But with this one um this main parcel back here has single family and town homes on it. Okay. This one over here is going to be single family. Okay. And then you have the weird little one up front with this little extension. That's the main road that's coming in that we just did this uh driveway waiver for. Okay.

And there's some commercial up at the top, some commercial across the front, and then the um big box lot, and then some out parcels around the sides for more commercial areas. And And so the interconnectedness you're talking about is all sidewalk type stuff. There's not any trails or things like that. There's some trail. Let me go to that. Um, in the green areas, you can kind of see some dashed lines in this one. That's um not quite. It's a very minor part of what is actually all over. There's trails all over this. Okay. I was mean about it. I love trails.

Yeah, that that's what I would Yeah. I I was just having in my mind a little tough figuring out from this I can see okay here's commercial stuff up there that makes sense but how are you getting in there and it's just that one main road right uh the main road is for um the residential and then also stubs out onto Adma Church there to the right but uh the main road is for the commercial access there's going to be another up top there up top right uh commercial and residential there's going to be a um well get the button to work. A right in right out right here. Yes.

And then there's going to be another one for a commercial area over here and then the other residential one. Right. I I I guess kind of where I was asking is I don't know if I'm going to be able to read these numbers. You guys, you guys are challenging an old guy with some of this small print. But is that a pond? The pond. Is that what that is in the middle there? Yes. Detention pond. So, you know, some trails from these residential areas up into kind of the backside of the commercial or No. Yes. Okay. Yes. Just no judgment. Just curious. Oh, yeah.

Question. So, it's what what's colorcoded in green. Is that going to be the open space? That's 42% of the Yes, sir. land area.

Um, this one doesn't have it uh shaded out. This was the easiest one to read for a a slide like this. Um, there's parts of it are going to be open space and buffer and other parts are minitized open space. They will have like mini parks, um the trail system, uh the tot lots, that kind of thing. So, there's going to be several different little areas in there. And um they tried to center the open space around the bigger trees to have parks with those trees in them. Okay. Thank you.

Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. I'll second. We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion?

All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to our second order of new business, which is the preliminary plat for MA Madame Carolina Corporation is the applicant and is requesting preliminary plat approval for a new private road accessing a proposed single family development, Williams Reserve. The subject property is located at 1443 Williams Road in Fort Mill, and is zoned residential single family 40, which is RSF40, and is identified as tax map number 73900005, road name, Long Farm Lane, and it's 572 feet in council district 7.

All right, this is a little bit of an unusual one. is basically an access road to a development that is proposed within Fort Mill. Um, so this property here is owned by Madame RSF40. It's currently unimproved. Uh, there's residential lots around it and some kind of rural commercial. You can kind of see this, uh, my body shop is just to the left a little bit. Um, go through the vicinity map here. Um, again, it's uh, Williams Road. is just kind of a it was a more rural section of Fort Mill that is seeing everything come toward it. So the property behind is going to be a preliminary plat for Fort Mill. They is part of an older project that has kind of changed over time. Um so they're trying to kind of piece in what they can where they have the utilities and everything that they need. So our part is pretty simple. is a private road that's crossing county land into a pl uh a development within Fort Mill. Um it will never be county maintained. It will always be private unless it is annexed and then it will be Fort Mill or private. So the county is not taking any ownership or maintenance of this road. Um they're going to have 50 foot buffers along both sides. It's required for um that type of density in the development. Even though it's not our development, we're requiring the buffers. There's gonna be plenty of landscaping and street trees. It's going to look very nice. They're going to do their best not to uh disturb the neighbors um natural buffer unless it replanting and go through the findings here. Pretty quick and simple. There's no real development here for preliminary plat purposes. It's a road. So finding one A and B does not apply. The second part um road land use and density residential road isn't allowed

use in RSF40. There's no density on this project. And then the adequately agrees to adequately mitigate impacts for TIA. The TIA was performed uh for the town of Fort Mill and it was completed and approved. There is mitigation required. will all be in Fort Millville city limits except for one little section at Hair Road which may be in Fort Millville city limits at some point. So uh adequate street connectivity it is accessed from Williams which is SED dot maintained. That's another reason why we won't take maintenance of it is we do not want 500 ft of county road between SED dot and Fort Mill. Um sidewalks are required and provided and then this for open space and buffers. This thing is all open space and buffers. It's the 50- foot buffers and the rest of it open space. It's going to be amenitized with landscaping. And then applicable requirements of this chapter, tree survey and grand tree surveys or mitigation has been completed and accepted by staff. So we do recommend approval, but we do recommend the following condition since we are working with another jurisdiction that we have no authority over. Um we recommend that civil construction plans for Long Farm Lane. This project shall not be approved until the development it is proposed to serve known as the enclave at Williams Reserve is approved for civil construction by the town of Fort Mill. So they have to get that egg before they get this egg. Go back to my picture here. And we do have the I'm sorry I'm using the wrong button. We do have the applicant here tonight if you have questions about any of the history or what is going on with this project. You have any questions for staff?

I take it those two arrows, one one goes one direction, one goes the other. Yes. Right. I think that's also uh part of the grading plan. So I think the layer got left on it. I picked it because it was pretty. It had all the plants on it. You're saying the TIA was approved by the town, correct? Um, do you know if they're going to have a light here?

Yes. Not at this intersection. There's going to be a light up at Fort Mill Parkway in Williams. Um, there's some other things that need to come through first. This, I believe, was something like less than 50 lots, so it's not quite triggering the TIA requirements, but it's it's pushing it. Um, there is another portion of Fort Milltown limits directly to the west of this on the same side of Williams and Fort Mill Parkway which will also be developed out at some point. All utilities coming through there. So, that's really going to trigger the light. I'll make a motion to approve.

Couple more quick. Sorry. Couple quick ones. So why why was this not annexed by the town already so they could do this? The applicant is here to answer those questions for you. Okay, that's all right. I'll I'll save that one. And then for you, do we need to stipulate anything in a approval that makes it clear that the road maintenance would not fall under the county? It's uh indicated as a private road all the way through. Um so no bonding will be prepared for it. So we won't have any mechanism to adopt it. It'll stay private.

Just I I didn't know if you all like you have this statement here of hey this can't proceed until this the city's approved or the town's approved this but we don't need to stipulate anything about the road. You you may you may certainly do that. Okay. Well, to my understanding, a private road, if it ever if they ever wanted to make it a public road, it would have to go through us anyways, right? Well, if it's annexed, it would be the town of Fort Mills issue, but if they want to um have it adopted, not sure if it comes through the planning commission since it was already approved. It would have to go through county council though to be adopted.

Okay. I did you say the applicant was here. I'm just curious why the property wouldn't annex make it a little bit easier. Uh oh. Good evening. I'm John Hulcom. I'm with Kimley Horn and Associates. Um I'm sorry. Could you state your address, too? Yep. Five 580 Kingsley Park Drive, Fort Mill.

Um so we did approach the town of Fort Mill for annexation. Um planning commission went smoothly. unanimous approval for the annexation. We got to council and we had good discussion. We talked about how limiting the annexation would not reduce the development. It would just change the road from a public road to a private road. It wouldn't it wouldn't stifle the actual development. Um staff recommended approval. Um the and then when they went to vote, they voted no and um is now requiring us to have a a private road through a county parcel. Um our our expectation is that when the time frame comes up from that denial to then be able to go back in front of the town, um which will be sometime this fall. Um, we got the denial in September, so I expect we'll be back in September or October to re-request that annexation as the project moves forward. Um, the development, this is 50 lots on this piece of it. And then there are some more lots that front um and get their access off of Fort Mill Parkway and another portion of um Williams Reserve. All three of those, I'll call them phases for this meeting, but we call them villages. Um, those three projects are all in for full CD review with the town of Form Mill right now, as well as the the roadway improvements are in with SCD as well. Um, so to answer your question, I don't know why it got denied other than um, we tried to do the right thing and and get it annexed. Um, and we got denied.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Something we don't It's kind of odd. Any additional questions for staff? I'm good. Nope. I'll make a motion to approve with the condition. Second. Any Did you want to conf Did you want to also stipulate that it will be a private road? Well, I think it is in the but we can with the stipulation with the stipulation that it's also recorded as a private road. Yeah. Second. Any discussion? Nope. All those in favor?

I. Anyone opposed? Okay.

Uh let's see. Moving on to resoning 26-10, which is council initiated. Uh they propose resoning of the Glen Ridge, Steel Meadows, and Sheffield Point existing town home communities from RMX 20 to RMX 6. The proposal includes 184 individual parcels in the Fort Mill area and um as listed in the staff report, excuse me, it's in council district 7. I'm back. So, uh this is all part of our effort to um push forward this council initiated resoning to uh get our town homes properly described on the zoning map. Um, this particular batch, the first of three you will probably see going forward in the next couple months, uh, includes Glen Ridge, Steel Meadows, and Sheffield Point, uh, encompassing about 184 parcels. So again, these are existing town homes, multif family communities. Uh, we're looking to remove the existing legal non-conforming status from them. Uh, given that RMX 6 that was created in 2022 is the only district that allows town homes. Um so this will you know apply as the appropriate use dimension development standards. Um and if the property owners want to make any future additions or changes to the property uh this will remove uh one of those barricades that prevents it from doing so. Um but otherwise it will have no effect on the manner in which the properties are currently being used and operated. So a lot of RMX20 space here, a lot of residential development. Um, as shown with the designation neighborhood residential uh staff, we recommend approval.

Any questions? Hey, Thomas. Sure. Um, I think this came up like about a year or two in other areas in part of the old what I call ptl area, region park. Um, and I want to make sure that it stays single family and not could be redeveloped multifamily. Um, I just want to make sure that that's for RM when it once it goes to RMX6, it could be.

Well, it is currently. Um, the these are all, you know, town homes. These are all attached dwellings. Um and these are all 6,000 square foot lots. So in terms of space to actually develop or change them, it's very very limited, you know. Okay. Yeah. But yeah, and these are newer than the other ones. I was more worried about that with mo turning it into multif family just totally gutting it. But with these these are newer newer homes and stuff. But I just wanted to ask the question.

Yeah. I mean, you'll see a lot of you'll see us go through a lot of communities. A lot of them all of them are older than 2022, right? But, you know, a lot of these developments, especially outside Fort Mill, are relatively new. Yes. Any additional questions? I just have one quick one. Is the exhibit or the table the official listing of tax map numbers? Uh which table? There's a table part of the summary. Probably the table, John. Yeah, they should be the same. And then there's an exhibit

which lists. The only reason I bring it up is one has 189 and one has 185. It should be the one. It should be the exhibit. The exhibit should be the correct one. The exhibit matches the 189. The table does not. So I I couldn't tell you which ones were Okay, that's good. Good. I couldn't tell you which ones were missing, but there's a discrepancy. So Oh, it might be So it might be an inclusion just from the space around. So you can see in the map I've highlighted the whole community. Okay. But that space that's owned by the HOA is not being reszoneed. It is exclusively the 6,000 foot lots that actually encompass the property. So that might just be a discrepancy in the table.

That's fine. I just wanted to bring that up in case that caused any problems or issues. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve.

A second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to resoning 26-11. We have Prattik and Canal, excuse me, Canala. I do not know how to pronounce that first name. I apologize. Patel are the applicants and owners requesting to reszone a 1.6 2 acre parcel from NC to RC. The subject parcel is located on Chapel View Court and the property is referenced as tax map number 50100000029. It's in council district 5. Yeah. So, this is a property that was kind of created after a pennies for progress uh project came through and redefined uh this intersection here with York Highway. And of course, the intention is to take the space and put build a gas station and convenience retail strip. Um, you can see this area has a mix of these, you know, fairly intense commercial developments, but also a lot of residences that are on the south side of Chapel View Court. Um, to give some context to that kind of reconfiguration, uh, this is from, um, 2009. And so, Adna Church used to cut all the way across, uh, York Highway

and connect up with what was East View. This is Chapel View Court and it used to kind of wishbone into Highway 5 and continue on. Um certainly after the improvements it's much more safe, but it did culde-sac Chapel View Court here at the end um and remove this connection here. So here's the proposed site plan. Uh it has two access points onto East View and one onto Chap View Corridor on the back side. And as it's currently zoned, it is currently zoned for neighborhood commercial, which is one of our uh less intense uh commercial districts. And it would allow the retail strip element of this to still be developed. Um you know, bar any other commercial development review elements. Um but you can see again these commercial uh properties that were formed from before when the roadways were all interconnected um and have since been separated. So this is within a rule center node. We do expect uh commercial development here that is commensurate with uh facilitating rural development. Uh we do recommend denial of the request as it's not consistent with the comp plan future land use map since this would actually allow a more intense commercial development in a space directly across from residences. And Chapel View Court is accessed by several residential driveways and would therefore be inappropriate for a higher traffic business access point. Um which again you can very much see in these are aerials. Any questions for staff? Thomas, could we go back to the proposed site view there? Okay. So, if they eliminated the driveway on Chapel View completely,

would that make it more palatable for it to be there if there was a development that could do that? Certainly. Um, part of the problem as well, uh, you know, and certainly this has not gone through formal commercial review or anything, but the, um, retailer that's here actually had to have their driveway here because they had to have so much separation from this intersection. Um, so I, you know, from the comments that we've received from our commercial development staff, given that we can't get an access way, we don't have enough frontage onto Highway 5, um, we might not have enough space here on East View, Chapel View Court might be the only space that could actually allow an access point. Um,

did did you say you wouldn't be able to get it from Highway 5? No, there's there's simply not enough frontage. Um, especially with the turn lane right here. Never. Sometimes I just get Okay. Plus, it's close to the intersection.

Well, I I I get that. I guess where I'm where I'm stumbling with what you said, and I may just be missing that, but I know of places where you access the business through a turning lane. So I to to me it would seem if you made the if the entrance was up on five and maybe one of the entrances on East View and no access to Chapel View Court that it might be able to work there and not interfere with the homeowners. But I don't know. I mean certainly ideally it would come off the highway. Um and but when it comes to uh specifics like access points like that and the traffic science um it I believe it's due to the speed that Highway 5 allows. Um there's certain separation requirements that come with uh certain speed limits.

Okay. Thomas on East View if do do you know can you tell us what the uh from the intersection what would be the minimum distance you could have a driveway away from that intersection. So East View is a believe it's an SOT road and when this retailer came in that occupies this adjacent lot this was as close as they could get. Um, okay. So, but they did they met the minimum. They But the minimum was right set right there is what you're saying. I believe so, but I I you know I I don't know for sure. Okay.

It is possible that one access point could be on East View, but this one that is extremely close to the intersection, I don't think is viable. Right. So question the the access points on East View. If you're leaving, if if you look down at the bottom of the page, you would be coming from say York Prep Academy approaching Maine or Adna Church or Highway 5. If you pass Chapel View Court, are you going to be restricted turning left at both of those? Um, that will probably have to be sorted at construction review. Um

because that if you're coming from the other direction, which would say Atma Church, and most people when you're coming through there, they're coming at a good clip because you wait quite a bit. Someone's trying to turn left on East View and someone's coming through that light from Adding the Church to East View. You're pitting them right towards each other and right near Highway Five. So I could the one closer up to the intersection definitely is a problem and passing here regularly that's Dollar General

over here who had to get the approval at that distance. I would even see that second interest being a problem because both of those are going to put you very close to that light. Yeah. And certainly there there's potential that other roadway improvements would have to be made. um like a median turn lane or or something like that to make a site like this work here. As per your comments and again so neighborhood commercials not the gas station is not an allowable use and neighborhood commercial. No, but the other element that the applicant requested for the retail strip is allowed is allowed as is. Yes. Right.

Including the convenience store portion of it. Is it just the gas station that's not? Yeah. So, if it was like a convenience retail strip, that would be fine. But it's the gas station and gas gasoline sales that are not allowed in code. So, by right, they could build this out without fuel and build it just like this even though it went on to Chapel View Court. And as long as it met all the design standards and code, they could do it that way. Is it Yeah. assuming that design standards were met. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Any additional questions? Can you restrict their ability to turn left off of East View into that development? Um to me, if you drive out there right now, this is one of those things I don't know if people here travel through there. I'm familiar with If you approve this, this is going to be one of those no-brainer things where someone's going to say, "Who the heck approved this?" No, seriously. Yeah. Whoever approved this obviously does not come through here.

I'm going to be honest. I was not familiar with this area. And if I can, when I'm not familiar with things that come up, I drive by. So, I was just there this evening before we came here. Um, and I I see what you are talking about. I was concerned. I am concerned because I feel like um if we restrict this, it seems a little there are a lot of larger developments around there, you know, like the Dollar General and the storage place, there's an appliance place and there a few other things. Um but driving down that now culde-sac

road and looking at what the setback for the back of that business could be, which is 10 feet. You know, we have a I feel like we have to juggle protecting our existing homeowners versus allowing people to do what what they can with their land and not knowing the traffic situation like you do. I would be very five at a very good rate because you often have tractor trailers and I was going to say there's a lot of heavy truck. A lot of traffic. Yep. and they turn that curve and you're going to put them right on a collision course, right?

Yeah, I I could definitely see that. And I was, you know, I was there about rush hourish, right? About f, you know, fiveish. Busy. Yeah, it was definitely busy. So, and that's just a comment, but I I understand what you're what you're saying, which makes it difficult. Um, are there any additional questions? Is there a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to deny as staff recommended. I'll second.

Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to our last resoning of the evening, 26-13. Michael and Susan Deckert are the applicants and owners are requesting to resone a 43.18 acre parcel from RSF. Excuse me. Did we skip one? Did we? We have Yeah, we skipped the.99 acres. 206 2612 2612 2612. Oh, look at me. I got ahead of myself. Excuse me. Wishful. Thank you. Hey, I was just going to say

we'll take that check mark away. Excuse me. My fault. Reszoning 2612. Thank you. We have Sierra Brittany Fenton and Kelly Fail applicants. Zayn Allan Fenton is the owner requesting to reszone a.99 acre parcel from UD2LI. The subject parcel is located on Grayson Rock Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 5440000210, Council District 6.

Yeah. So, this property is off Old York Road in the railway just outside Rock Hill. um kind of sandwiched between Big Oak Lane and Grayson Road. It's currently undeveloped. Uh but the applicant proposes to build and operate a machine shop which will include office space, warehousing, and a truck loading bay. Uh here's the submitted sketch plan. Uh again, you have Big Oak Lane on the left, Grayson Road on the right. Uh the kind of utilizing the the dual access nature of the property for a truckloading bay on that east side. uh ample parking um all permitted uses within LI. So this section, Big Oak Lane and Grayson Road, um is all UD. We actually recently reszoned uh you might remember this property up here to light industrial for similar reasons. Um but otherwise, this is a a largely uh residential space. um which actually the future land use does represent despite this being very clearly an industrial quarter between Big Oak Lane and Grayson Road. So we recommend approval of the quest. Uh while it's not consistent with the comp plan future land use map, uh the residential development that the future land use map kind of expects here would not be appropriate at all. Um this is clearly part of industrial quarter. Uh and so LI would align more closely with the distribution, manufacturing uses and character that we see of the other properties in the area and remove an instance of the legacy UD district. Any questions for staff?

If not, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? And now moving on to our last resoning of the evening, 26-13. Michael and Susan Deckert are the applicants owners. Applicants and owners requesting to reszone a 43.18 acre parcel from RSF40 to AGC. The subject parcel is located on True Road in McConnell's. And the property is referenced as tax map number 313000000002 council district 3.

Yeah. So this is good 40 acres um just south side of the the county off of Chester Highway. So the applicant proposes to allow the construction of a barn to facilitate the use of the property for timberland. Uh you can see in our zoning uh originally there was going to be a subdivision here but that fell apart decades ago. So that's why you have this kind of um sprit of RF40 here. Um everywhere else you can see it's very clearly AGC and our feature land use map reflects that showing it all designated for agriculture. We recommend approval of this request given it's consistent with comp plan feature land use map. It'll allow the expected land use scale and character of the designation and it abuts other properties already zoned to AGC. Any questions for staff? If not, is there a motion? Make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And as we are through all of our agenda items, is there a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. I was going to ask the gentleman at the end of a question. staff. Can you direct them to staff? We can talk about that first. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. So, there was a a motion and a second to adjurnn. Yes. All those in favor? Okay.