Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I call this August 10th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Any changes to the agenda? Okay. With no changes, is there a motion to approve?

Make a motion to approve.

All those in favor? Looking over the minutes from the last meeting, any concerns, questions, changes? If not, I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? All those in favor? Looks like the first order of business this evening is a public hearing for waiver W26-5. Zach Wooten with Innate Automation LLC is the applicant and is requesting a land development waiver from the minimum required driveway separation. OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2272 EBENEZER ROAD IN ROCK HILL. IT'S ZONED URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND IS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP NUMBER 5910000034, COUNCIL DISTRICT 6. THANK YOU. THIS IS A WAIVER REQUEST FROM

TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THE 220-FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR DRIVEWAY SEPARATION FOR HIS PROPERTY. THE WAIVER REQUESTS TO REDUCE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS POINT LOCATED ACROSS EBENEZER. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ABOUT A QUARTER MILE NORTH OF TWIN LAKES ROAD. The approval of the waiver will allow them to use the current access. It'll improve it a bit and kind of leave it in place. The waiver will allow reduced driveway separation of 154 feet from the 220. This is the greater area around here at the lot. You can see that's the only access they have from any road is off Ebenezer. HERE'S KIND OF A CLOSE-UP OF THE 154 FEET FROM THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S ACROSS THE ROAD. AND THERE'S THE DRAWINGS FROM THE PLANS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US, KIND OF SHOWING YOU THE SAME THING AND SHOWING YOU THE IMPROVED DRIVEWAY. WE GOT TO LOOK AT THE TWO FINDINGS AND FIND THAT THIS WOULDN'T CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. And the applicant talks about there being no other access to Ebenezer Road, which there isn't. And there's no other location on his property that would allow a compliant driveway. There's no opportunity for a shared driveway here with his neighbors. And we think it would be unreasonable to allow not to have access to Ebenezer for this lot. We would find a proposal meets the criteria. And then the second one, we make sure that we don't defeat the intent of the chapter. And intent is kind of the best practices for movement of traffic. Using the previously developed access location will best facilitate traffic to and from the development in an acceptable manner. And we would find a proposed waiver meets the criterion, and we would recommend approval of the 66-foot waiver to the driveway separation requirements.

Any questions before we open the public hearing?

I'll have some questions at some point, but probably the public hearing is better first.

Okay. Anybody else before we? So this is a public hearing. We would invite people that wanted to speak either for or against to come to the podium and please tell us your name and your address and then a reasonable amount of time, maybe two minutes, why you are either for or against the project. Is there anyone here that is here to speak for or towards this project?

I'm Richard Mangum.

I own the property adjacent to it. I'm just, the only reason I've come is, you know, just to make sure, concerned how it would affect my property that's adjacent to it. And that's my concern. I want good things to happen for Zach. And for us, too. So that was my concern, really, as far as the access in and out of there.

OK. And I'm sorry, real quick, can you just back up and give us your address?

It's 2260 Ebenezer Road. OK. And I'm just concerned, just make sure that traffic in there can be backed up in the morning with Carolina kids across the way, Roto-Rooter, post office up the road. But I want him to have benefit from it and me benefit as well. That's my concern.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Is there anyone else either for or against the project? Anyone up here have questions?

So one of the questions I had is the type of business that's going to be going into this location. Do we have an answer to that?

Yeah, we received a preliminary review for a warehouse, an office, 4,500 square feet.

Okay. So a little bit of the concerns I have is also I've been, I work not too far from that area. I'm very familiar with it. And post office, not as much, but being right of care from that, across from that daycare, right, in the morning and then in the evenings when we're dropping the kids off and picking the kids up. I don't know how if you, if you've got a little further view that's bigger? Do you have a zoomed out view a little bit here? Yeah, so if you look where it says Rock Hill, where the letter H is there right above that, that's where that daycare is in the parking lot right across the street. So I know that cars get queued up going towards Celanese, which is right where that driveway would be. And I don't know what we can do to mitigate it. I certainly understand that this is, if you want to call it lack of a better term, a landlocked piece of property, right? There's no real other way to get them to a working street. And I just, I'm not sure what we could do to ensure adding another driveway and more traffic in there isn't going to compound somewhat of a difficult situation we have currently.

Yeah. Well, the use and the size, you know, he filled out the application of the survey for the TIA and it really low count here. It didn't require anything else. If he did something else there, there definitely could be the possibility of a TIA if it started

generate some traffic. Do you have any idea if there's any plans down the road to maybe widen Ebenezer to point to having a turning lane in the middle? Not necessarily. Not that I know of. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have.

Before we close out the public hearing one more time, is there anyone else? If not, is there a motion to close out?

I'll make a motion to close public hearing. Second.

All those in favor? Is there a motion on the waiver?

I make a motion to take staff's approval on the waiver.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to new business, we have a preliminary plat. Corey Goldstein is the applicant and is requesting preliminary plat approval for the Amore Estates development. The subject property is located on the eastern side of Rawls Road in Catawba in its zone rural development, RUD, identified as tax map number 7580000007, Council District 5.

Hello, Marian Ray, planner for York County. Tonight is Amore Estates. This was actually a preliminary plat that was approved several years ago and had expired. So they came back in to, it's mostly the same plan with some updates for science, like detention, retention, that kind of thing. So here's the parcel off of Rowell's Road. It's in the southeast section of the county. It backs up to New Indy. All the purple there is New Indy property. uh... it's a little bit of an odd shape properties that's why the design of it is pretty much enforced by the shape of the property uh... i recently put this uh... flat up here without the little color code the little chart and that was mentioned in our meeting that we need that we need to know why all the pretty colors are on there so there you go have your pretty colors uh... it's fifteen lots off of imperian way It's got some issues with topography and streams going through there. That's why there's two detention ponds. There's a little bit of a crossing that they're working with. So it's been not going to be the easiest of constructions, but they're working with it. Let's go through the findings here. The site will be serviced by private water and septic systems. So each lot will meet the minimum one acre RUD requirement and approved septic permits are required before final plat. Single family residential isn't allowed use in RUD. The maximum allowed density is one dwelling unit per acre. I did the math wrong. I assumed 16 lots was the previous one. It's 15 lots. The density is actually 0.71 dwelling units per acre. And due to the lot count, a TIA was not required for this project, and no mitigation is required. And to go through the rest of the findings, the development is accessed from Rowells Road, which is SEDOT maintained, and sidewalks are neither required nor provided. Also, with it being an RUD single-family neighborhood, no open space or buffers are required or provided. And the final thing, a tree survey was required and has been approved by staff. The staff recommends approval of the project.

This is a pretty rural road out there. I know this is in Mike's district, but pretty rural, not too much traffic. Right. So there's not going to be any queues of getting out at the same time.

With 15 units, the counts are really low.

This this is more a technical question than necessarily with this, but I'll try it items five and six you had on that slide. So so there is no open space or buffer requirements.

It's RUD, which is a minimum lot size of one acre. RUD and AGC do not require open space or buffers, but they do require tree surveys and 20% tree safe.

Okay. So when you say no buffer, can you distinguish a little bit between what buffer would have been required if it was a condition that it was required versus what would actually be here?

The density is really low. I don't think there would be a buffer even with the low density. It's when you start getting into the higher densities, usually around 50 feet.

Right.

But the density is so low that it's.

So then property line buffer between, we'll go back to your pretty picture with your colors you did, right? So at the edge of, we'll call this development, right? At the edge of the boundary line of the development with the dotted line, is that a 10 foot buffer, 20 foot? What is that?

Well, they have a 25-foot setback for all the buildings. And that's also, I didn't include this slide in here because it came in a little bit late. Their tree save is basically all around the project.

OK. Let me try a different way to ask my question because it's hard to point and you see where I'm pointing. So if we go to the top of the first triangle on the left, and you see there's dotted lines for that property line coming up towards that triangle, what's the distance from the dotted line to the solid line?

Twenty-five feet.

Twenty-five feet is that buffer. So it's 25 feet here, and if it was a larger thing, it might be a 50-foot buffer.

And when we say buffers, they're separately platted. So it would be a strip all the way around the property. So with buffers, you would have the 50-foot strip plus the 25-foot setback.

Okay. Okay, which would that take it into like a PD to do?

PDs are weird.

Okay, yes, we might know.

PDs get to kind of make their own rules.

How I met Diane in the very first place years and years and years ago.

So PDs get to make their own rules. Right. And it's kind of the give and take on what's allowed. So usually if you have a PD, you want to get stuff that is not allowed typically, but you have to give too. So... PDs are not something you should really use as a benchmark, just because every single one of them is going to be completely different.

OK. The last little thing about this, then, is I really like somebody was being very clever to do this, and I like the way it looks. With it being rural in nature, I'm not sure how clear it will be to residents that you haven't hit five acres, things like horses aren't something you're gonna be able to do here, right? So it'll probably have that look and feel, but I, I'm not sure how we can help effectively communicate to folks so that they don't have any confusion later about animal limitations and whatever might be there because they're kind of in a rural area, but they don't quite have the acreage to do all the stuff that you'd like to do. well they can have chickens they can have six chickens but there's a limit right because and you know if you have five or six acres it's not the same thing right and so i'm i'm just i'm imparting that i don't know if the applicant's here tonight but just being clear with folks about, yes, you can do some of that, but because of the acreage limitation, don't get yourself in trouble and go buy a horse because you can't keep it there.

And I warn everybody, you might think that this is OK, but your neighbors are watching.

That's right. That's right.

That's right. To kind of go along with him, you'd have to have a different, for an equestrian type, if you had horses, that would be a different zoning.

You'd have to have five acres.

No, if you have five acres in RUD, you can have a horse. Or horses.

I didn't think that was the case. Okay, thank you.

Come on out in the country. We'll show you some of that stuff.

That's right. Any additional questions? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Okay. Let's see, moving on to new business number two, which is rezoning 26-23. Alan Moss is the applicant. Dan and Joyce Baker are the owners. They're requesting to rezone an 8.4 acre portion of a 28 acre parcel from RMX 20 to GC. The subject parcel is located on Alexander Love Highway in York, and the property is referenced as tax map number 2920000010, Council District 3.

Good evening, everybody. Happy to see you tonight. This property here probably looks familiar to some of you. Actually, probably all of you. This was some rezoning that was taking on this property here over the past few months, a different portion of this property. But like I mentioned, this is going from RMX 20 to GC. It's to rezone the 8.4 acres on the Alexander Love portion of this property to be able to... subdivide and to be able to create new parcels and develop one of the parcels as a golf-related retail sales and the other parcel at this point is unknown for that future use. But it's pretty much, it's the golf part of it that's really driving this at this point right now. The properties are located, I showed here, on Alexander Love and Bethel, not Bethel, Blessed Hope. This is a potential site plan for the Gulf-related business. It's retail sales, building in the front, parking in the back. They intend to be able to use a well and septic, so they will not be annexed into the City of York. Zoning for the area here, this parcel is RMX 20, RMX 20 throughout the area here, but there is some GC along 321, and then also within the City of York, that property there is highway commercial. The future land use map for the area here is municipal infill. And so because of that, we also turned to the city of York's plan to see what they'd like to see here. And based upon their plan, they want a community center which also aligns with our GC zoning district. And so the request would also continue the commercial corridor adjacent grocery anchor retail site. So we're recommending approval for this request. Any questions from staff?

I've got a couple, Diane. Sure. As far as that business, I know, you know, are there any restrictions to choice of business, type of business, on that adjacent parcel?

They would be allowed to do any of the GC-allowed uses. So there's no restrictions to that. So whatever's allowed in GC, they could do that in that property. Are you speaking about the other part of the one thing result? Yeah. Any GC property.

Now, one follow-up to that. If York decides to annex with water and sewer service, is there any possibility that they would have a situation of future non-compatible compatibility with their zoning.

It's unlikely because retail sales is a very general land use category. I don't know all of the categories within the city of York, but it's a general retail sales. I would imagine they would do the exact same thing, or they would choose a district when they would annex it to align with whatever that use is.

Okay. Yeah, because that was one of the concerns I had was if they do, in fact, annex it.

Yeah, it's only if they want, you know, utilities there.

Thanks.

Mm-hmm.

Any additional? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? okay moving on to new business our third order of new business which is rezoning 26-24. uh kong chao is the applicant made free realty llc is the owner requesting to rezone three parcels that total 0.95 acres from ud to rmx10 the subject parcels are located on porter road and margaret street in rock hill and the properties are referenced as tax map number six seven zero zero zero zero zero zero nine two 030 and 008, Council District 4. I'll also just make a quick point that because our fourth order of business is with the same applicant and most of the information is the same, Diane is going to cover both. Both. I think that's good. And then we'll vote. Right.

You'll vote for the first one and then come back, read the title for the second, and come back and vote for that one. But I'm going to go ahead and present them all. at the one time, it just makes more sense. Thank you. So according to the map here, I've highlighted the ones that are part of 2624, and those three properties are going from UD to RMX 10, and the other one, 2625, is going from UD to RMX 6. John Porter Road on the south side of Rock Hill. We're looking right now here at the 26-24 cases. There's three parcels here, and the applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on each one of these vacant lots. So they're currently vacant. They'd like to build a home. It's too deep. They can't do that. And these ones, because of their lot sizes, that's why these ones are RMX6. I'm sorry, 10. The other one is RMX 6, and this is the property behind it. And because this one is lower than 10,000 square feet, we're choosing to go to RMX 6. But once again, it's a vacant piece of property. They're wanting to be able to construct one single family home. Learning for here, as you can see, over the past probably five or six years, this completely what was once UD property has been turning over to the appropriate zoning districts. Most of the ones where you see that are RSF 30, that was part of the original rezoning for the UD project. And a lot of them chose the 30 because they had manufactured homes. That was their choice for that one. Even if the lot size didn't work, the use was with a manufactured home, they went with 30. But now they're coming through, most of them that are vacant, we're basing that district on their lot size. So you'll see some RMX-10, you'll see some RMX-6 throughout this area here. Comprehensive plan for the area here is municipal infill. So we contacted the city of Rock Hill and see what their land use plan says. And according to their plan, they're calling it interstate employment. Based upon an email from the city, city staff state this request aligns with their comprehensive plan. This property here located with an established neighborhood with those districts is appropriate. So it should that as opposed to being UD and then rezoning these properties from UD will protect the neighborhood from any kind of incompatible UD uses. Recommending approval. We'll talk about the first one first. So any questions of the first rezoning case?

Well, yeah, I do have a question. And I don't know if this really, really applies. But I noticed that if you go back to the map, so it looks like the one parcel that kind of encroaches in the back part. You see what I'm saying? The home or whatever is kind of tilted there.

Oh, it expands two properties on this. It's not part of the rezoning, right? Correct. Yeah, it's probably owned by the same property owner that owns the two of them, and they built across the line.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that, yeah, okay, because it is an adjacent parcel, and I just, yeah. That was my only question.

Okay. Any other questions? So on that first rezoning, is there a motion? Make a motion to approve. And a second?

Sure.

We've got a first and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And then moving on to the second with the same applicant. Any questions?

Could you go ahead and just actually read that item in? Yes. And then you can take your vote.

That's okay. Rezoning 26-25. Also, Kong Chow is the applicant and Made Free Realty LLC is the owner, requesting to rezone a .21 acre from UD to RMX 6. The subject parcel is located at Ridley Road in Rock Hill, and the property is referenced as tax map number 670000048, Council District 4.

All right, so before we go, just a couple quick technical questions. Sure. The reason we had two is because they were two different zonings. Correct. If they'd all be going into 10, it would have been one for all four.

Exactly. And we could have done it either way. We just felt it was easier and cleaner, just in case one was held up from the other, since they're two different districts. That also makes the ordinance very clean, is that this ordinance goes with that one, it goes with this one. So it was just easier that way. OK. Fortunately, the fact that the UDs are free, there was no problem with the applicant having to pay anything extra, because they paid nothing.

Okay. Haven't we been visiting this area regularly to do this kind of thing?

We have been.

Okay. And at what point would it make sense to ask council to do like a massive swap over here like you guys have done in some other spots?

You must be reading our mind. We're looking at it right now. So because of this, Thomas is looking at the existing properties here, and we're going to recommend the Council of the State of Rezoning to go ahead and just do all this at one time. And we're trying to figure out which properties to do, and then also which district to go into. So yeah, we are being proactive because we've seen a lot of these recently. And there are some vacant lots here. I actually drove through Ridley Street the other day where we had previous rezonings. The house has been built. People are living there. So this is going to keep happening. Let's go ahead and get proactive and get this done ourselves.

And so the last piece was, can you go over the part about what Rock Hill's plan said versus the county plan?

So Rock Hill's plan has it as being interstate.

Development or work woman or something?

Employment, I think it is.

Okay.

And so... that we asked them and date and i think it probably was very similar to what we feel there's established neighborhood and so maybe it doesn't that totally line with it but because it's already such neighborhood to go ahead and it would have been with the with their plan but they have it's been interstate employment on there comprehensive plan

And the York County plan shows it as?

Municipal infill.

Municipal infill.

And so that's the one where we go back and say, what does the cities or towns, what does their plan call for? And then we try to get, then we reach out to them and say, hey, what would you like to see here? What does your plan recommend for here? Are you on the same place? Are there any issues?

So this could be something that the next comprehensive plan process review we do that those might get changed for the county.

Probably not, because that's land use versus zoning, and so we will come back, and unless they're annexed by the city of Rock Hill, they'll still be in our plan. And given the fact that they're donut holes, we'll continue to call it as being municipal infill. That's typically how we do it. Anything with an actual donut hole or surrounded by a city, we just call it municipal infill, regardless of how it's currently developed.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Mm-hmm.

You know, kind of go along with Mike's thinking in the question. Is it because these are infills that it would be hard to do like we've been doing in District 7 with, because those are developments and we're making them RMX 10 or RMX 6. These are infills. They're individually owned, right? So it's a little bit harder maybe to group them. Is that kind of your thinking or?

No, I mean like for the future project going forward. No, I don't think it's going to be hard to group them. We'll determine what is the appropriate district based upon their lot size. We're doing that analysis right now.

Even within Phil's?

Yeah, and so we'll try to limit where it needs to be RMX 6 because you can get a lot of different kind of uses with that one. And so unless it's really because of that lot size, we're going to go with hopefully RMX 10 and go that route. But we're doing that right now to look at it, what's the best district for it.

Any additional questions? I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed?

OK.

Moving on now to new business number five, which is rezoning 26-26, Irola 550, Kinder Kamek, LLC, care of Moore and Van Allen, PLLC, excuse me, is requesting to rezone 9.63 acres from ID to GC, and the subject parcel is located on Highway 557 in Clover. The property is referenced as tax map number 477-0000008 in Council District 2.

All right, this property is located at the intersection of Highway 557, Kingsbury, and Ridge Road. And this is on just west of the Lake Wylie area as we're traveling towards Clover. The request here is to develop the site for a multi-structural retail center. It's nine acres, like I said, at the intersection of 557 Ridge Road. And we'll talk about this new road configuration here in a second. But the property currently covers in trees, and we believe that little pond there is probably a pond used for the road construction. So because of the current pennies project, this area here is getting ready to change or has been changing. The widening project is going through here. At the end of the day, they're going to realign. Let's see if I can make this thing work here. So here's P57. They're going to realign Ridge Road to come here and intersect with Kingsbury. Put a traffic signal right there. Ridge Road will then be cul-de-sac and closed off right around here somewhere, so that will go away. And they're also putting a traffic signal here at Bethel School and Park 57. So a lot of things are changing based upon the Pennies project, which makes this appropriate now to come back and do this rezoning and move forward with this project. This is a concept plan of what could potentially happen here. This is concept in nature and has not been reviewed by staff or has been approved by staff. Just to give you an idea of what it could look like. But I wouldn't fixate too much on access points, where it's going to come onto the road. That, to me, will happen when it actually comes through site design. But this would be a couple of different buildings, probably a gas station to service the community around here. The zoning for the area, there's a large chunk of ID zoning in this area here. I've been this way the entire time since we've had zoning. It probably was a reflection of the Farr Yarns Industrial Building just to the south. But there's still a lot of RUD, RUD1, there's some BNC as well. The future land use map for the area here is rural residential. And so we are recommending approval. It is not consistent with the comprehensive future land use map. However, these current road improvements, including a new signalized intersection, is expected to change the character of the immediate vicinity. Locating retail uses in this location could replace some of the folks who are traveling down to the Lake Wylie area, reducing the travel distance and also possibly reducing congestion, or leaving some congestion. And this parcel that has three road frontages is more conducive to a commercial use than it would for a residential use. And also this action would take away, remove an ID zone parcel that is not appropriate for this commuter corridor. That is the reason why we're recommending approval for this request. Any questions from staff?

Yeah. Diane, you said 557 is going to be improved through the pennies?

Yes.

And there's going to be two new lights? Yes.

It's five lanes through here. I think five lanes end at Kingsbury, and then from Kingsbury around to 55 will be three lanes. This is five lanes through here.

All right. So Ridge coming down to 557. Okay. That's going to be a site. Are there going to be any improvements to that site distance on that since it's not lighted?

Do you mean New Ridge or Old Ridge? Huh? The new configuration of Ridge Road?

No, well...

So, like I was saying... Ridge Road.

Oh, Ridge Road's going there to the light, and that's going to be taken out. Yeah.

That's coming this way, and so that's going to go away. There'll be cul-de-sac.

That little black hole there. That's cul-de-sac. Can't get around anymore. The black hole.

Can't get past the black dot. You'll be going into the black hole. Okay. Okay, thank you. Sure. One other question. Do you know offhand why this was, this is kind of a weird place to have I.D. ? Do you, are there any, is there any history behind that?

No, and like I said, you know, maybe it was drawing on the fact that Far Yarn's building is already there, and so that was identified as being ID. These are, the same property owner owns a lot of this, so maybe that was why it was ID, but I'm just purely speculative based upon, you know, I don't know why else they would do that. There's a lot of floodplain through here, so I really don't know. You know, and because of that, we have a a concrete plant right there. So because it's ID, we could not have any more of those sorts of things if we can start moving this area here out of ID.

One other question. Does Ridge Road, all right, so that's going to be the right-of-way. Is that going to be abandoned?

It's all done. So as you can see, these parcel lines, as they kind of like zigzag throughout, all the right-of-way has already been done. Because this is mostly under construction, or it is under construction. Mostly, a lot of it's completed. For instance, you can see down here, here's new right-of-way. So this has all been done already. This is all right-of-way that's been done. That's why it's all zigzaggy through there. Because it's under construction, so they've already got the right-of-way.

Does, so therefore does the Ridge, what used to be Ridge Road right away, does that go back to this property owner? Are they going to purchase it?

I don't know how that happens in terms of who gets what. There's a process, but I don't get involved in that. Okay, thanks.

Any additional questions?

All right, so a little bit technical, more about code than this. So ID's here, general commercial ID. Down the level, would you say, or no?

I mean, yes. It would be considered a down zoning, because you can do more intensive uses in ID than you can in GC. Right.

But you can't put a fuel station in ID.

You cannot. That's correct. Because IDs must be more industrial kind of thing. GC is going to be where you have your retail uses, your fuel stations, your fast food. You're probably some sort of a strip center is going to probably go in there, I would imagine. You look at those buildings, you know what that's gonna look like.

And so one of the things, again, I think, please help me remember, we did some things recently where we made some changes so that there could be a staff decision without having to come to Planning Commission for this topic or that topic, didn't we? Can we do something like that? I'm not sure I'm having real bad brain fog tonight. Yeah, I have something that it became more of a technical decision. And based on some things that staff would do, not necessarily not this in general, but some other topic. Didn't we have that?

There is something we call the oh, so close. That's more about sight.

planning and site design and that's for like for setbacks or lot sizes so it's nothing to do whatsoever with this any kind of uses when it comes to uses it's all on you i could have sworn we had something within the last 12 to 18 months that we talked about where a process was hey we're going to take this and it's going to be something that staff can handle and it doesn't have to come to the planning commission forget this particular topic i can't remember am i totally out in left field or does anybody else can't remember i remember but i don't remember what it was i know yeah that's what i'm struggling with too we we had some some process that we said okay we're going to define some terms for staff and then if you can operate within these terms you don't have to bring it to planning commission staff can make the decision i don't remember the topic

So the only thing I can think of, like I was saying, is if there was some kind of a site design that we are able to do what we call is the oh-so-close. We have a little bit of opportunity. If the lot size was not quite to one acre, it was .95, then staff could approve that. If there was a setback that needed to be slightly just a small amount.

Maybe it was something about different. different how uh... second structures or it was can't remember the topic we all right you and i are the only two crazy ones i don't know what happened with everybody else what i'm driving at here is Would it make sense to invest, to kind of do some research and see, should we put a process in place that when down zoning like this happens, it's not really something that would have to come to us?

Because... Any... Just go ahead. I'll just stop you now. Okay.

Okay.

Any change in a zoning district is required to come to you, whether it's up or down, no matter what. It's a legislative process required by state statute. So there's no way we can get around that, even though it's less intense or anything like that. Any change to a zoning district, it must come with you and then go to county council for three readings and a public hearing. Can't change that.

Okay, fair enough.

And to be fair, it's less intense, but some people would consider it more intense because you could have more traffic or you could have, you know, different types of...

Depending on what goes there. Exactly. Okay, fair enough.

It's a very good point because sometimes you might have, you know, a little warehouse that's ID that's, you know, that many trucks coming through and out of there, but if you put a gas station, you're bringing trips through there. So, yeah, it's that intensive kind of thing. It's more about how the land is used than maybe how its trip generations are.

Okie doke. Thank you very much.

So let's see, moving on to our last rezoning of the evening.

I think we got a vote. We haven't voted yet. We distracted you with all our crazy over here. I apologize, yes. It's all right.

So do we have any more questions? Does anybody have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. So we have a first and a second. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, now moving on to rezoning 26-27, SDP Charlotte LLC is the applicant. Walmart Real Estate Business is the owner. Requesting to rezone 24.06 acres from GC to LI. The subject parcels are located on Flint Hill Road in Port Mill, and the properties are referenced as tax map numbers 721, 00, 00, 023, and 073. Council District 7.

All right, so this property here going from GC to LI, it's 24.06 acres at the intersection of Highway 21 and Flynn Hill Road in the Fort Mill area. It is just south of the interstate I-77 exit of Carowinds. I've added this map here to kind of demonstrate the fact that the one parcel, 721-023, a portion of that is not being rezoned. It's currently GC and will remain GC, and that's the portion that's fronting on Highway 21. So that is the entire outline of 721-023. The applicant proposes to develop a 24-acre area for a warehouse distribution use. The Highway 21 frontage will remain GC, so go ahead and keep that as GC to be able to have any kind of general commercial going through that corridor there. We'll pick up there for those uses. This applicant also includes covenants to restrict certain uses, and I believe that's in your packet as to what those uses are. The property has been owned by Walmart. It is heavily treed. This is the idea of what their intentions could be. As you can see, there are the three or four out parcels going along Highway 21. In the center part there, those are two large warehouse-type buildings to be able to have different kind of distribution, different uses within LI. Just pulling out here, as you can see, you're adjacent to some single-family homes, adjacent to a church and their cemetery. But that's the scale of the buildings that could fit on this piece of property. Zoning for the area here, as you can see, there's GC at the intersection, and then also GC further down Highway 21. There's still a lot of UD remaining in this area here of the county, although over time, as you can see, there's two areas here that were light industrial that were rezoned over the past couple of years. UD to the south, that is a manufactured home park, and then to the east, the neighborhood there, as well as to the north. For the future land use map, the comprehensive plan has this area here as being neighborhood residential, and that's the transition area from more of the light industrial uses just to the north of Flint Hill to residential areas just to the south. And so because of that future land use map designation here, we're recommending denial. This request here is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. The comp plan considers the existing development pattern of the area and establishes Flint Hill Road as the transition between, like I was saying, to the north, that's the artisan employment or the LI districts, to the south neighborhood residential. That was the boundary or is the boundary where that transition happens. This use is incompatible, as it would place the LI uses, the district, right adjacent to those homes, as well as the church and their cemetery. Staff feels as though this large parcel would better serve the area as a mixed-use space, that that could provide that transition between the light industrial and the residential. And for those reasons, staff is recommending denial.

A few questions. Since this is my district and I travel this a lot. I'm curious, what is the owner of the property, why do they want to rezone at LI?

Well, the owner is not. I mean, the owner is Walmart. So they're selling the property to somebody else. Right. The buyer. The applicant, the buyer, their intention is to be able to develop these two light industrial warehouse distribution type of buildings. That is what they want to do. They must rezone from GC to LI. That is their intention.

Yeah. I'd like to hear if one of these folks back here are LI, because I'd just like a little bit more detailed information of what's planned there.

So I would caution that you can ask them questions, but they cannot present anything to you. So if you have a specific question, if the chair agrees to that, they can come forward and answer that question. Well, Diane, do you have more in-depth? I think it's pretty straightforward. The intention here is to do two large industrial-sized buildings for distribution or warehousing. That is the intention.

Well, I'd like to see, you know, one, exactly what they want to do here, because that makes a difference to me.

Yeah, but at this point, that can change.

All right. Looking at this, there's 105 dock spaces, so that's going to be a cross-docking operation is what that's going to be.

maturity crossed out but i don't know if i don't know that yeah i'm telling you i'm trying to get to get through the cross-section if you have question if you would help get those questions but and it's nothing across that that that was a concern i have is this this road is already heavily travel even when They make improvements, which were supposed to be done 15 years ago. There's so much traffic on this road, and it's a log jam. And adding GC, you know, LI, I look at LI as a better choice because it's not as much trips, so to speak. on this already taxed road. And what I wanted to ask the owner is that with LI, as we had a particular parcel in our district that was zoned LI, that we've had issues with, I wanted to see if there was any manufacturing that could be considered for this. I see a shaking of a head no, but... uh... that's the reason why i wanted it

that get a little more detail on what it is and if they could share it i mean i asked the chair they mean they have provided uh... the conditions for the repeat restrictions it's that list out what they would not allow so everything else allowed in l i would be allowed on this piece of property but they have highlighted some it's in your packet as to what they they've listed out which ones that they would not allow in in l i Okay. So you can see those as listed.

So it doesn't look like there's any manufactured usage.

It's been prohibited.

Okay. Good to know. Good to know. Again, I'd still like to know. I mean, that's just me. I'd just like to know more detail. Because this is such a critical area of our district. And as you know, Diane. So that's the reason why I wanted to hear from you.

Well, you have a specific question, but I don't feel like we need to, as you were saying, there doesn't need to be a presentation. So if you have a specific question.

Well, I think the manufacturing one was my main question. Okay. Yeah.

Excuse me. I do think with these pennies improvements that are happening right now, I think we'll see a lot of changes in this area here, you know, when you go into five lanes. So the suffering of the two-lane road is hopefully will come to an end soon.

Flint Hill, though, is not.

Flint Hill will not be widened, but they're going to reconfigure just to the north of that where it comes across from North Carolina. So maybe that will take up some of the traffic that way and be more efficient to go that direction. But Flint Hill is not being changed at this point here.

It's just, it concerns me with a mixed use is what you were mentioning, Diane. It really does. And that the future zoning is residential. We just can't have that right here. I mean, it is really a difficult area to go through. And it's been a difficult area for years and years and years. So that's the concern I have. You put... residential in future years on this, and it's going to be worse. It's just not a good location.

So I do have hopes as a long-range planner that at some point Highway 21 might be an opportunity for a bus route into Charlotte and would be a great location for residential as a pickup space for a bus stop. So that's my long-range hope as I think way out in the future that sometime this could be an opportunity and it would travel up 21 and travel into Charlotte on a bus route. Let's stop right here.

You said current owner is Walmart?

Yes, sir.

So did they anticipate putting a full-size store there at one point?

They bought this property years and years ago, and I think it was going to be one of the neighborhood marketplace kind of thing. They changed their business model, and they aren't really building this anymore, and they've held on to it for all these times. And I guess an applicant has come forward to purchase the property to do this use.

So, Tom, did that answer your question? I mean, I don't want to shoot you down, but as we go on. No, I understand. I understand. No one has said that.

Manufacturing was one of the big ones I had as a follow-up. And I shared my concerns. And I'll do that when we have comments.

Are there any additional questions? No? Is there a motion?

I make a motion to approve the district going from GC to LI.

Is there a second?

I'll second. Any discussion?

Again, I bring up, as far as discussion, I bring up the concern that I have for this area and at this point in the future, any residential here. It's just not a good fit.

So just to clarify a little bit, so you are saying not to accept staff's recommendation?

That's correct.

Okay.

And so... To approve the rezoning.

With a distribution center that has... like nine six fifteen hundred and five docking base for trucks right what is the traffic going to be with those trucks coming in and out of there compared to well see that's the reason i wanted to see exactly what their intentions were that's the reason but this tells us what their intention is this conceptual site i understand that but You know what I mean? I understand the concern you're saying. You're saying traffic is a concern. It is. I don't know that approving this warehouse is going to assuage your traffic concern, right?

I think it is. And it's still, remember, the residential component has to get rezoning anyway. So that's just something the staff would like to see. It's if by right is GC.

Right. But if you've got 105 truck spaces, how many tractor trailers are you going to have on that two-lane road coming in and out of there? Because that's what that's for. A lot.

You think that, but what I'm saying is that's the reason why I wanted to know more about the dock spaces.

Okay.

I need a little more information.

But if it's manufacturing or not, if what they're showing us is 100% No, manufacturing was a big thing for me.

No, that definitely was. It's still there. Yeah.

Right, so it could still be manufactured.

And I appreciate you telling me about that. Yes.

So because that is not a, I mean, it could still be manufactured.

No, it can't. It can't.

Is that?

No, manufacturing is on page 93.

If it becomes LI, it could be.

No, it can't.

Within certain limits.

No, that's not what Diane said.

So there's a list in your packet of what's not allowed.

Excuse me, except, okay. Okay.

Right.

So it could only be. No, these are not allowed. So it could be everything else in LI. Yeah, exactly.

Right. Right. Those are the not permitted uses. Correct. So it could be manufacturing. Any type of manufacturing. They have a small amount of manufacturing allowed in LI. As LI. That could be light industrial assembly.

I understand that. I stand by what I believe.

Okay. Any additional discussion? So we currently have a first and a second to, um, approve the rezoning, approve the rezoning from GC to LA.

Correct.

So all of those in favor, all of those opposed.

Board, we need a new motion.

Motion to accept staff's recommendation.

So we have a first. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Is there any additional discussion?

Yeah, just the concerns that if we're worried about traffic in this area, I don't think it matters the particular zoning if we're being shown that it's going to be a lot of tractor-trailer traffic, or if you've got a retail area that people are going in and out of here a lot that's going to draw a lot of traffic. I think the result's going to be the same.

And didn't she mention that that's being widened to five lanes or that's somewhere in the plan?

Highway 21 is being widened to five lanes.

21 is going through there.

Yeah, yeah. It's being widened right now. Flint Hill is not. 21 is right now.

Flint Hill won't. So I guess the question for me is those trucks going through there, once it's five lanes versus the commercial is probably going to, in this area, at a certain time of day, it's gonna, traffic's gonna dwindle. But if you've got those trucks, they're probably running 24-hour shifts. And the noise that comes with those.

And they're probably gonna access off of Flint Hill, just looking at, they can come off of 21, but if they're coming from the north, they're probably gonna come down to Flint Hill and come off of that, as opposed to 21. They could go either way, but I'm just saying, two access points on Flint Hill.

Okay.

Motion to second discussion.

You have the you made the motion. You seconded.

Yes.

Okay. All the all discussion and then voting. All this in favor.

Anyone opposed?

Anyone have any questions on the rezoning tracking sheet? If not is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn.