Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

changes. If not, um I will make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Is there a second? Second. Sorry. First and seconded. All those in favor? I. And uh moving on to minutes from last meeting. Everyone had a chance to look over those? Someone like to make a motion to accept? I'll make a motion to accept meeting minutes. I second.

Awesome. We have a first and a second. Uh all those uh in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to new business. Looks like we have a preliminary plat. Miss Ray, we have uh Mabry Meadows on Saluda Highway uh I'm sorry, Saluda Highway Estates LLC is requesting a revision to a previously approved preliminary plat. The subject property is zoned rural residential one and is identified as tax map number 51800 017 and one two three and one two five and 14 to council district 5. though. Mary and Ray, associate planner for zoning. Um, Mabry Meadows is a previously approved subdivision. You approved it um been a couple years I believe now, but they are coming back. It's RUD1, which does not require open space or buffers. So, this subdivision had open space between the lots and the railroad tracks to the west. They have they're coming back. They want to reabsorb that area into the individual lots um to allow the property owners to control the area behind their homes. They are also removing um 017 from the scope of the preliminary plat. The previous plat had it called a future development which meant it was under the control of planning commission for future um divisions. They'd like to remove that area from the scope of the plat give more flexibility. Um Gennel Lane still stubs out to this property. So future developers could connect to that lane if they would like. Um here is the vicinity map is on Saluda Road, south uh part of the county here near Chester County. Uh zoning there is RUD1, but it's surrounded by RUD and AGC. It's a rural

area and this is the preliminary plat that they are revising too. Uh you can see the blue area is where the lots have expanded all the way back to the rear property line that goes along the railroad tracks there. And then I outlined the area in red that is being removed from the scope of the preliminary plat. So it's still 35 lots. The acreage did decrease to just under 60 acres. Um and it did not make a big difference on their density. Their density is still well within requirements. Um, so the findings are basically the same. The site will be serviced by private well and septic systems and all lots meet or greatly exceed the 1acre minimum lot size. Um, for the use and density, single families and allowed use, the maximum density for RUD1 is one unit per acre. This one has a density of 0.59 units. And then uh, TIA was not required for this particular project. and it's accessed from Saluda road which is sedot maintained still has ga lane has been uh completed sidewalks are not required uh 20% open space is not required and is being removed with this plant and then buffers are also not required due to the RUD1 standards so uh previously a tree survey was completed and approved by staff they still have it uh outlined in green on the plat I'll get back to it in just a moment. And staff recommends approval for this. Go back to the picture. You have any questions for staff?

I do, Mary. Yes, sir. Um, so that little area in red, right? Well, kind of encompass in red that's on the Yes. 35. Okay. Is that going to be um where that could be a future connection into whatever development this is.

Um that little part is staying with the subdivision as part of their storm water. There's also a little pond in between uh 17 and 18 that is also part of the storm water that's staying within as open space. They still will have some open space that requires an HOA to maintain it. They just didn't want the individual property owners to have to maintain a communal. I guess what I'm asking is that could that be a could that culde-sac be extended into this area to provide connectivity? Yes. Yes. Because right now it's just uh storm water control. There's a um Okay.

It's topography basically, but when if they come back in and want to uh develop this property further, they will be required to connect. Okay. And you said the green area is the tree safe area. That was what is the easement for the tree safe area for the entire subdivision. And it was um most of it was open space, but there was some area that was open space that wasn't tree safe.

Any additional questions? Is this going to be a lighted intersection or probably not? It's not. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. If there are no additional questions, is there a motion? Make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you. Moving on to uh our second order of new business which is uh the planning m commission is to review and provide a recommendation to amend chapter 155 of the zoning code uh table specifically table 155.935.8 Eight, the wall sign standards to allow more than one wall sign on a building, to increase the maximum wall sign area, and to add a new maximum allowed area for buildings greater than 100,000 square feet.

Oh, good evening. Uh, Rick Boo, your zoning administrator, and I'm here to talk about your wall sign standards. Um, this is something we've proactively identified that we have applicants and and uh we we may have uh issues with some of the uh current sign code and there's a couple challenges. Our sign code only allows one sign per wall face. And we find out large relatively large retailers may have difficulty uh living within that one sign allowance because you have a big retailer may have two entrances at either far side of the building. It's quite a ways apart and you'd like to be able to advertise kind of the goods and services that are available on either side of the building. Reasonable. And the other thing we want to talk about is the maximum sign allowance of the 200 square feet. Again, on a very large building, 200 uh square feet may not be adequate um depending on the placement of the building and and maybe in a multi-tenant situation. Uh we brought this to the planning and zoning committee on uh September 10th and uh they forwarded the recommendation on this and I I'll review it for you. Um our current allowance you see the maximum number uh per wall is one. Um and also our maximum sign area per wall is 200 square feet. Um a summary of our proposed changes. We're going to be able to remove the maximum number of signs allowed per wall and then allow uh an option of the signs be 5% of the total wall area or use an existing uh allowance for one square foot of sign per one linear foot. Um we would also like to consider increasing the maximum sign area um from 200 square feet to 400 square foot. And then uh the planning and zoning committee uh recommended that

we talk about this. They didn't have a specifics. We didn't about how large you might want to increase the sign uh for a building over 100,000 square feet. Um this just gives you an example of a multi-tenant long wall. Um there's lots of signs here. We do have some provisions for uh individual signs for tenant, but if you read the code strictly, you know, you're probably running over your 200 square foot running down that length. Um, this is the current sign of the FedEx facility. It's approximately 400 square foot long building. And you can see where our maximum sign footage is. Get you with that little guy right there in the corner. If we went up to 400, you get something that looks like this. Still not not too crazy, but good proportion of the building. Again, another example of something maybe a little closer to the street where a sign nearly 400 square foot uh long building would get a 200 foot sign right now. You bump it up to 400. Um also, we looked at 5% that can be capped. That's why we're still considering caps, but 5% of that building is 670 square foot. just give you an idea of proportion. Um here is where the 5% comes in handy because that uh linear square linear number for that building is pretty small. Um and they have a current sign there. I'm not sure if that even quite meets our current code standards, but if you went to 5%, we actually had a submittal. They wanted something that was 5%. That's pretty close. And uh that's what you'd end up with 5% of a tall structure. Um if we went over the change, this is what we'd amend the table to be with no

max. Add the 5% add 400 and talk about or add the the 600 for buildings over 100,000 square feet. Um I did want to talk about the um 600. I can go over that in a moment. Um in in making the recommendations you need to find that you know the proposed text amendment relationship to the comprehensive plan and future land use you know it's not a land use um it does provide greater flexibility for commercial businesses and then we have the relationships of the text other relevant plans um you want to go into our strategic plan we talk about managing codes uh evolving elements adaptive to growth and change that doesn't conflict with any plans. Um we also want to look at whether it's in best practices in community planning and design. Uh honestly sand sign codes are all over the board but this is consistent with provisions found in other communities. You'll have a table of what other communities did in the staff report um which is quite varied but just somewhere in the middle of all that. Um and then about the safety welfare necessity and uh this allows the public to be better informed of uh the breath of services that may be found in a commercial structures and enhance general welfare and the multiple sign things can help out people that have limited uh mobility issues and get to the part of the building that they need to be. So we would recommend approval of the minute of of the amendment with an asterct. Um, we want to be able to allow the reasonable signs up to 400 square foot and allow them to be divided up um to give us different messages along the wall. Um, the question is about the

100,000 square foot structures. Um, we think that 400 personally I think at 400 feet is probably enough for them. And maybe considered maybe there's situations where you'd want to consider more. Um, 600 feet gets pretty big. Um, I use an example. I don't think we need another shutterfly sign. Um, I don't know if that would even fit even with 600, but you know, sometimes a little it gets to be a little much. Um, so we recommend maybe dropping down to 400 or somewhere in between six and four if you think that that

I have a couple of questions. Sorry, I have a couple of questions. So for the 400 square ft uh recommendation, you're saying that for example, you could have one main sign at 200 and then a second at 100 and another at 100. Or you could break that down even further. You could have a main sign at 200 and then 5050. Exactly.

Okay. So then um and you've kind of just answered this question, but for those larger buildings with the 600, do you have any particular parameters that you feel like might be um exceptions if we were to go that route? Like what do you think is the is the trigger for allowing such a large site? I I think 400 that equip myself. Um, and generally you're talking about warehouse buildings.

You know, how big does a FedEx need to be or or a shipping company or something like that or or data centers probably wouldn't have a sign big sign on them, but you know, those structures it's you may get some commercial structures over that, but um they're probably going to have monument signs and things adequate to advertise the building. Did you ever consider like 000 square feet. The wall length, the total wall length. Yeah. And kind of what you were alluding to where if it was a pretty long wall and you had one 300 square foot and 300 at both ends, you know, that would be a good distance. So that's

I'm kind of I'm kind of asking the same question with Kate that Kate asked. There could be. I brought my sign expert with me. I don't know if he has a he has more examples since he does the permitting for this and looks at it much closer than I do and I don't know if we have a sign might have a better answer for that question. There he is right there.

Okay. Would you agree with um Rick's kind of trigger point? are obviously larger ones. We haven't kind of based it between standard 300.

Is there a process for the property owner getting a variance to go larger? Yes, there would there would still be a process for a variance. This would just This is just looking at capturing um some of the in between sites or existing that may be non-conforming technically to the code. Now

um including multi-tenants and even with the 5% it doesn't come up a lot. We do have some narrow shopping centers that have or suites and shopping centers that the 5% might help them out a little bit because their width is not very wide but it's kind of tall. So it might difference a 20 square foot sign which is kind of small on their face than than like a 30 square foot sign. It's not a huge difference but it might help them a little bit on the taller buildings comes up sometimes. So Rick, you had the picture of multiple tenants. That's got to be well over. I mean, if you had 10 tenants, say in that picture, I don't know how,

you know, you have close to what, 10, eight, 10. I mean, that's going over the 400.

Going over 200. That's actually that wall length is a little over 300. So technically, I don't know which each individual sign is actually because they've been there a long time, but technically supposedly they should be all under that 300 whatever it is. So it would be over the 200 max now, but it's been existing there for a long time. It's just example something that's you could say is technically non-conforming. Um, but would be conforming if the 400 was the max and and the length of the walls like 330 ft or something like that. I can't remember exactly what the distance is, but I looked at some of the shopping centers and they tend to be 200, 300, 400. Didn't see a lot over 600. So that's trying to capture the majority of them.

So you're saying for multi multiple tenants, as long as their place, their wall is under 400 or whatever. Yeah. the total and and you could look at it from a standpoint of there. Um maybe each sign is like 20 square feet, 25, 30 square feet and they kind of add up, but hopefully they would stay under the maximum, you know, 400. Um and it's something this is existing shopping center. Usually just replace one for one, but we have to do look at new shopping centers and kind of have them plan out their tenants and how many

how much wall area they have. Sometimes they even plan out an area for the sign to be placed in. It's nice to know kind of what they're working with. That way it makes it easier when they go and new tenants in there. Well, I mean, we go into these places, we look for whatever that place is, you know, we got to have some kind of Yeah. sign. Some kind of sign to say, "Oh, okay. That's where it is." Yep. So, okay. Thanks. Thank you for being our sign expert.

Yeah. I have a question for you. Spartanberg County defines usable wall area. We don't make that distinction. Right? So, if it's a building that's got 400 square feet and there's 100 square feet of glass, that's still considered a wall of 400. The measurement actually in the code and in the measurement standards of the sign section, okay, it actually just defines it height and width. Okay. Are there any additional questions? If not, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to accept

as presented. As presented with the 600 ft not included. Not included but as a variance option. As a variance option. Yes. Okay. I will second that. Is there discussion? Okay.

So, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to again a review um by us to provide a recommendation to amend chapter 155 zoning code table 155- 5.58-1 minimum setbacks and maximum height in base districts and table 155-1272-1 exceptions to maximum building and structure height to allow for an increased building height with additional setback requirements and to provide a new exemption from maximum structure height calculations.

All right, good evening uh commission members. Jonathan Bono, planning director. Uh so this topic was referred from county council to the planning and zoning committee of council. It's a three- member committee. Uh the specific ask was to examine the height restrictions in both commercial and industrial districts and also uh specifically to look at hotels. Could we do different or should we do different around maximum building height for hotels. So, anecdotally, we have had a couple of instances over the years where a hotel developer has mentioned a challenge of alluring certain brands or getting uh the amount of site that they uh the amount of rooms that they need on a smaller site given our current height restriction. In most cases, they're going into the general commercial district. That's a height limit of 50 feet. So the planning and zoning committee discussed this topic twice uh at their meetings in May and uh here recently in September and they went through a long discussion. Uh they talked about the different districts and ultimately they settled on asking for a change specifically to the general commercial um height limits and then also to add a new type of exemption and I'll get into that. So, here's a draft. Uh, this is a larger table in the code that includes all of the rest of the zoning districts, but this is uh the section that would be amended by the amendment before you all tonight. You can see this is to take out general commercial from the row it appears with office and institutional and light industrial right now. Move it down, create its own new row so that that additional footnote number four can be added in the uh height maximum column. And so that would add that new footnote number four that would allow maximum height to go from 50 to up to 60

uh for buildings that are set back at least 200 feet from a residential lot. Fairly straightforward. Any questions on that? Yes, sir. So, Jonathan, um, so really the only change that's being presented tonight is in general commercial and we're going from 50 to 60. Is that right? For this, there's two total changes. So, that's the first one. Yeah. Okay. What's Okay, we'll get to the second one. Okay, we'll get to the second one. Okay. Um, thank you.

Yep. So, here's that second one. So, the committee talked about the potential to lure in new types of uh hotel brands and they thought it was important to make available u the opportunity to have rooftop bars or rooftop restaurants, that type of thing. Um so, they asked for u that type of amenity to be exempted from how you measure height in the zoning ordinance. So, that's the the draft here. You can see the short list of projection types in this table that are exempt from when uh you measure maximum height for a certain structure. So, this would add rooftop amenities and occupiable spaces to that list. Now, there's a couple of parameters that are included in there to try to make sure that people aren't taking advantage of this or you don't have a lot of visual b bulk on top of the roof that is essentially an additional story. So included in there, it limits the space of these occupiable rooftop amenities to 25% of the total roof area. It also limits it to 15 ft above the roof line and it adds a one one step back ratio from the roof exterior wall. So similar concept for uh to a setback. A step back is a distance from uh the exterior wall of the roof to wherever the structure is located that closest point. just a couple of exhibits to uh give some visual aid to these changes. You can see right now a office building, a mixeduse building, a hotel building located general commercial, you're limited to 50 feet. The proposed code change, they could go up to 60 as long as they are separated at least 200 feet from that residential lot line. And on top of that, they could add a rooftop structure of 15 feet in height. And you

can see there that step back is meant to reduce the visibility of those rooftop structures. It doesn't completely obscure it, but it does limit it to some degree depending on how close to the structure you're standing. Can you clarify for me? So, if they did choose to do a rooftop structure, it needs to be 15 feet from all sides or just from a residential side? Yes. So, uh, this exhibit here, so this piece, uh, is area looking down on top of the roof. So, here's your example of a rooftop bar. And this is assumes that the rooftop bar is 15 feet in height. If it's 10, they would only need to have a 10-ft distance. And it's from any point on the bar to the closest point.

So, any point, even if it backs up to another building, even if it I mean, granted, it would be the tallest structure. Yeah. It doesn't even look at any other structure. Business district, it doesn't matter. has to be equal. I mean, yeah. So, it's just looking from that rooftop structure to uh the edge of the roof. Doesn't look at any other structures. Jonathan, is 15 ft the max height you can have on a rooftop, right? Yes. Yeah. Per this exemption. Yeah. So, we've got hotels that are over 60 feet. So, are they non-conforming or what?

What do you mean? Well, like the one that Rick showed at Carowinds. I know that's probably what 10 stories. Yeah, something like that. Yeah. So, that's got to be over 100 feet high. Yeah. There are some out there that I'm sure are u before zoning was adopted before our current height limits were I understand that. I understand that. But I I'm just asking the question.

Yeah, that's a that's probably a pretty good one. Although I think uh was that property reszoned to OA? that part of the Yeah. So, there's actually no height limit in the uh OA outdoor amusement district. A lot of people don't know that, but that's meant to facilitate development around Carowinds. So, there's actually no height limit there. Oh, there wait say that again. There's no height limit around Carowinds. Yep. So, any property that has the OA zoning. Okay. Y So, they would So, a hotel if it came in and it's So, yeah. If that site needed to redevelop or another site that has property with the OA zone, I get they they would not have a height limit.

Jonathan, just to be clear, this is being uh discussed using a hotel as an example, but yeah, that's the primary target, but it would uh so the height exemption would apply broadly to anything. Y okay, because when we did the exception for the data center, it was just for data centers. That's right. So this is a little different. Y and I just want to make sure it's just for GC, right?

No. So um the the one change to go from 50 to 60 that's exclusive to GC. The uh projection exemption list applies to any district, any development as long as it meets those criteria. Jonathan, the the area that is um not under rooftop, so the setback area, can that be utilized? Is it open for use? So, could there be umbrellas there? Could they have a glass wall all the way up to the edge of the structure? So, you're saying on the roof? Yeah. Yeah. Rooftop situation.

Yeah. So if you had uh they're not structures, things of that that nature or if you have structures that are um below the height level um but they're complimentary, they're accessory pieces to that. Yeah, you could include them in the stepback area. So it's just going to be so you know shade implements, umbrellas, seating areas, things like that. It's really going to be the structures that we're looking at. Any additional questions? Is there a motion?

I just have one question. Are we being asked to approve these two points separately or in conjunction with each other? It's uh it it's strapped as one ordinance, so you only need to do one vote. If you'd like to separate them out for a different recommendation, you can certainly do that. If there are no more questions, I'll make a motion to approve as presented. I'll second.

Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. Okay, moving on to our uh master sign plan L. Karen Party is requesting approval of a master sign plan for the West Lake Market development. The subject property is zoned general commercial and is located at the northwest corner of Highway uh 55, sorry, and Highway 274, Intersection Council District 2. You're back.

Thank you. Now, this is a new thing, so I may need to be interrupted if I get something wrong. And uh we'll we'll take time to try to explain this. This is sign code can get complicated. Um so, we have special districts and uh regional non-residential developments require a master sign plan. This is something uh we haven't done before, and you're the body that uh gets to make a recommendation on it. And um if you didn't approve it, we need to fall back to all the standards found in code. Um so what basically is a sign package um what I'm trying to do is highlight the deviations from code. Um and uh in essence you're being asked to approve uh the things that are deviations. But, you know, in reaching that deviation, maybe you figure that there's some trade-off or something or condition um that you would like to add to uh soften that or or however you feel and that's all acceptable. Um and first off, they uh they talk about um signs that we would call monument signs for the entrance. Um and they have two of them and they have a sign A in your packet. And I I got a a site plan that'll show you where it's at. They want it to be five foot away from the rideway. Um we find this justified uh due to site conditions. There's a little sliver of land left over uh there to put the sign. It's just not large enough to meet all the setbacks and we don't see a particular problem with that. Um they are requesting a total sign area of 255 square foot for per each sign. that would constitute a deviation from the allowance of 150 square foot. Um they kind of picked out a standard that's not applicable to this

particular development um that they compared it to. Um which would allow them to get 50% more sign. Um so this is going even a little bit over that um since they're going to have uh advertised the actual site the Westgate market. And this is uh what their sign would look like. And the sign area there and the the colors is 50% more um that would be allowed in a unified development. And this the two places they want to put their freestanding signs in A and B here. And that gives you a little idea of what we're looking at. Um you'll notice we got our art our out parcels that aren't developed yet. Um so we don't have sign designs for them, but we'll kind of describe what they want. And uh you kind of see how the site looks. Um the next thing we look at is monument signs and they're proposing a 50 square foot message on 8 foot tall signs. Um with the unified development, ordinarily they wouldn't be allowed monument signs. Um again, this is kind of a new thing. Um we're seeing how it goes. If they didn't have this uh if they had non-minor a minor residential non-residential development, they would be allowed a taller sign and bigger sign than that, they would be able to get, you know, 15 feet and 75 square foot if they were developing all the lots individually. Um but technically there's no allowance for that in a unified development. The next thing is wall signs. There's a lot of words here. Um we'll try to go through it. There's a little um different request that's being made. They're asking for two square foot of signage for each linear uh front of the building facade and anchor tenant. You notice currently in code we have one per linear foot allowed. Um they tried to temper this

request uh with a design of less than the maximum signage for some of the art out parcel and shop tenants. Maximum signage for the anchor tenant proposed to be 300 square foot which is interesting because we're just trying to massage the code. We just asked for 400. So not not too crazy of an ask I don't think. Um as deviation from 200 until we would get a change in code. They would like to uh out parcels are proposed to be limited to 125 square foot. Um, right now technically they could go up to 200 square foot. So, but they're seeing a trade-off in the way they present this. The shop tenants are proposed to be limited to 70 square foot uh per tenant per facade. Um, they're also proposing more than one sign per wall frontage and we just talked about the allowance and code for that and made a recommendation maybe that's a good idea that we allow share the maximum sign allowance between multiple signs. Um the final point is is um they want to be able to use an allowance for uh canopy sign for 80% of the canopy. We allow 10% of a canopy. Um we found it's real stylistic. I I don't see any harm in having the canopy sign. Um a lot of times we might you might consider canopy sign part of the wall. They're sharing the wall frontage with canopy signs. So overall you're not going to get more signage. there's going to be displayed on the canopy projection. Um that that may be there. Um so that's not too big of an ask. They talk about incidental signs and our uh our uh uh code is supposed to be written um in a neutral language and uh these are signs that don't fit our other um definitions

of signs and code and they're generally directional signs and things like that. um they want to be able to go a little bit taller with them. They're six feet tall and maximum of six square foot area where currently they would be allowed to be four feet tall and a maximum area of two square foot. These are interior signs kind of tell you where to go and provide directions. Um I believe we have temporary signs. Temporary signs are something we don't permit uh through our office, but um there's allowances for them and there's a little deviation. So, if we'll bring this out in code, they're proposing uh to place 232 square foot signs, which is a deviation from the one allowed in code. And and for that, they're going to decrease the amount of 16 square foots that are allowed as from five to four.

Can you speak up just a little bit? I can't hear you.

Yeah. Try to have to hunch over to get in front of the mic. Um so then there's another kind of a tit for tat here that the applicant's proposing uh two 8 foot tall signs a deviation from the one allowed in code and they want to decrease uh the amount of 15 uh foot tall signs from five to four. Final thing uh is a fuel center there. This is kind of a technical exception. It's something that, you know, it's kind of an allowance that may happen, but we'll bring it up, make it formal. Um, we prohibit LED signs, but we do kind of agree with the fact that you should be able to display your uh fuel prices and things with an LED system. And so, technically, that's the only thing they're really asking for here is the use of LED to display the fuel prices. Um and uh you know you may approve the master sign plan as presented. You may add conditions or amendments or you may deny it. Um we kind of looked at it and it it's you know there's some values and how you feel about signage here. Um we seem to think it's within reason compared to what we see in some other places. But I'd be glad to talk about a lot of this. I know there's a lot of sign wonkiness and uh be glad to take our time and go through.

Did uh did the council's um planning committee did they review any of of this information? No, this is adopted code. We just haven't used it yet. We've had it for a couple of years and it's just never never never uh been requested to be reviewed or been submitted before. So, it was the first submitt. Um, we had to do everything from make an application and and uh we'll definitely uh take lessons from here about how to try to improve this presentation and how how to contrast and compare what they're doing because it it's a lot.

So, if we were to approve with whatever amendments or whatever Would it go to council or would it go through the committee? No, you're you'd be the it's kind of a quasi judicial decision of sorts here. So that you would be the um authority on it.

I have to be honest, that's a little bit my concern here because it hasn't come before us before and we're asking for a lot of changes off the bat. I don't quite maybe understand why everything has to be changed just a little bit. I mean we set we set this you know this was set out initially based on some of the other you know stat or things that we put into place not statute but um what type of reasoning were you given for all of these specific changes? Well as in the application and I I have we have an applicant here.

You might want to give them a chance to to explain some of the site conditions. You know, the the the five- foot ones. There's a couple easier ones than not. And like I said, if if this gets denied, then they just fall back to the standard code. This is an opportunity that somehow was seen fit, you know, in the code to offer. So, but Right. No, I I appreciate that. And I mean, I understand that we don't get everything right. It just seems like right off the bat this is a lot of change for what's supposed to be sort of a standard

a standard or a sign you know a signpost like this is what to expect. Um, you know, I do we have specific questions that we want to ask the applicant or is there maybe she she could explain some of the changes to us and we get a better idea. If you wouldn't mind just quickly stepping to the podium and and giving your name and then um if you would just speak to maybe the ma you know the major changes. Um, it just seems that each section wants to be

upped just a little. Just another one. Just another one. And that's interesting to me. And Madam Chair, sorry, if I could just before the applicant gets started, you do have the option uh tonight if you want to defer a decision on this. If you want additional questions based on what you hear from the applicant, you always have that opportunity as well. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you for that clarification as well. Yeah,

Karen Parti with Aston Properties. Um, I've been with Aston for 38 years. Aston's been in business since 1980. We've built a tremendous amount of shopping centers and have great depth in what it takes from a signage perspective to have a class A shopping center and to have class A tenants. And the two are married together sometimes when it comes to the signage. Um, one of the reasons that I like doing a master sign package is because I can hand this to my tenants and I can say this is all you're allowed to do. Because you'll notice as as he presented, there are some places where I said you're getting less than what the ordinance allows because we have tenants that want to sign leases that say you're agreeing that I can do the max of what the ordinance says and I know before they even get ready to sub submit their sign package that it's going to be too much. It's going to look hideous. And so there's times that I want to tamp that back a little bit and make sure that they don't make our center look like a carnival. Um, on the other hand, I've also done enough signage to know that one square foot per linear foot is only good for your really small mom and pop tenants. It's if you've got a 20 foot width tenant, that's 20 square feet of signage. That won't get you a good great clip sign or a a decent AT&T sign. It's got to be a little bit more than that. Yes, I asked for two square feet. Could I live with one and a half? I could probably live with one and a half. I did do the math when I saw that you guys had this other amendment that was going on for the five one per one or 5% and it turns out that it's exactly the same number on my shopping center. Um, so I I

need more than one. Um, like I say, one and a half would probably work if you feel like that's something you want to push back on. Um, the reason for the monument sign is it's my understanding, my read of the ordinance, and perhaps that's an error that because we are partnering with another developer, not we don't own his property, he doesn't own ours, he does not have frontage. He sold us our property and we have to allow him on our monument sign. So, it's a shared monument sign. The way I read the ordinance was that that gives you a 50% bonus to put his sign on our his signage on our monument. So, that's the reason for the 225, which would fit without bonus, without uh anything from you guys into the ordinance. The 30 square feet above that that I'm asking for is to cover the Westlake Market. And I'm willing to take West Lake Market off the sign if I have to to keep because I've only got six panels for my tenants and we've got 18 shops shown on our site plan. I'm not going to get all my tenants on there. It's a 55 mph road. They don't have time to look over and see the buildings and see who's in that shopping center. And if I want my tenants to succeed, I've got to have good signage. So, I'd rather eliminate my Westlake market to make sure I get what I need on the monument side.

Real quick, let me just interrupt you and ask the question. So, is that a fair um interpretation? between Highway. Okay.

They do have a talking sharing that future But then another sign would not come in additionally. It would be shared on this larger sign is what I'm understanding.

Yeah. come back. This is good. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. No,

that's fine. Um, I guess I'd pause and just ask what specific questions you have or concerns you have about the things that were presented that I might be able to address. Are there any specific questions? Had a question about the location of the monument signs. Um, one of our early concerns and I'm trying to didn't bring my magnifying glass tonight again. Um, the freestanding sign A on uh highway 274 right in the right way

that um as you said that's a quite a busy stretch of road and I think are we still allowing a lefthand turn out of there? Okay. So my only concern with a 20 by 18 foot sign is the location relative to traffic that's trying to get out across what then becomes three or four lanes of traffic. And that similar to other areas uh when it gets busy you've got a light at the corner of 55 and 274. traffic, I guarantee you, will back up past that entrance. So, I my concern is and I don't have a suggestion where to put the sign, but a sign with all that information on it with cars coming towards that homegrown way intersection trying to make a left or even a right. If the driver is not paying attention, um there's going to be an accident. So I is there an alternate location or a recommendation as to where the monument signs would fit? I I'm almost thinking on the back side of out partial three might make more sense than having it. So Jeeoff, I don't want to speak out of turn here, but I think we're meeting the setback from 49. It's really the setback from homegrown way. So it's not a it's not a traffic impact so much as it's a side to side

where we're being squeezed. You're going to pull up to that intersection and have plenty of room to stop and look left before you make your decision to pull out. Now, if you if you decide you want to just run the stoplight, can't help those people, but um there's not is there a light at that at home? No. The problem is it's not lighted. Yeah. I know that was one of our

Okay. But outside.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Yeah, Jeff, that was my followup question to John's about the sight triangle. So this is just a master plan. So specific dimensions off the road and But it wouldn't fall into that area where you're Yeah.

And is there an idea where the monuments for the out parcels would be positioned at this point? Okay. Would they likely be internal or we don't know or or they'd be facing roads? They would have to meet all the setbacks that are required. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate the input. Thank you,

Jeff. I uh got a question for you. Just signs in general. So, it was about a year or two. And I brought up about breakaway signs and things like that because the closer you put these signs, they have to have some kind of breakaway device. I mean, typically, especially for 55 55 miles an hour, do we have that in the standards for signs? And and I'm I want to bring it up because this

I can't hear you.

Sorry. They're not The way I look at it, as long as DOT, it's within DOT guidelines, you know,

right?

Thanks. Another another sign question. Talking about the field signs, there is an existing sign directly across the corner at the 7-Eleven that's at a 45 degree angle, so you can see it from both streets. How does that Do you know how that sign compares in size to these?

Okay. Okay. I can go measure that sign for you tomorrow about five minutes away. I I I don't want to get to the point where we have, you know, it's a contest to see who can put the bigger fuel sign out there. It should be relatively

Yes. I'm thinking it's smaller than these. I'd like to check that at some point if you don't mind. We may want to put a cap on. Yeah. Um, so do you have additional questions or do you want to make a motion? How would you like to move forward?

Um, I don't have any additional questions, but I'm not sure if we're ready to make a decision on every like you said, there's quite a number of different signs and yeah, I said there's there's quite a few different requests here. Um, and I'm I'm not sure if we're prepared to He's saying he's not without the rest of our members to to vote on this this evening. Can I ask an additional one? Absolutely. If you don't mind.

Are there any kind of master plans for signs in other parts of South Carolina that we can kind of compare this one to with all the proposed changes? Is there something that you based your numbers on? I don't know.

I'm not studied up on that other than, you know, the comparison and signage in general. We could we could do a comparison study, too. A lot of places um hand out a lot of sign variances. I I don't know if that's the case, but in general, some some places they have in the past is kind of need a bigger sign and they kind of grant them. But I I haven't done a study on that in South Carolina.

I mean, I commend you for doing presenting it to tell you the truth. I mean, this is what really should happen in these developments is have a master plan. I think it's great. I'm just asking, you know, where were these numbers based? I guess it's experience or a similar situation or a size of development that was in the state somewhere. I I'm just just asking the question.

There's there's a lot of different standards. The one thing she mentioned that I um support too is that you know there's a formula to be able to be able to have a legible sign and the speed at which you travel past it is part of that. But um those are probably the best functional kind of thoughts on that.

Um if I may make a request and I don't know whether or not we'll be able to make a decision tonight or have to defer, but in the future when um this is presented just like you did with the other one to have like a picture of the building and the sign and what the difference is because for me these measurements don't mean a whole lot unless I can visually see it. So, it's helpful to have that. So, I do appreciate that on the other one, but if we could do that on these as well, that would help me. I tried to get that on the application.

I agree with that request. I mean, it is difficult to to visualize not only the size in general, but the difference from, you know, what is in Yes. our standards. So, to what's being asked, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, it sounds to me like we're not comfortable making a decision. Would you like to ask to defer, John, or what's your I would like to ask to defer. Would you like to make a motion?

I would like to make a motion to defer. I would like to make a motion to defer final decision till the next meeting till the full planning commission has a chance to look at the package of information and we may have some additional measurements and questions that comparing what exists today versus what this is asking for. Is there a second?

I'll second. Is there any discussion? And all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, we're going to defer that until next month after we can hopefully maybe get some pictures or at least percentage differences.

Yeah, I think the applicant she might be able to provide especially on the wall signs more information and I suppose we could look at other similar size signs for the monument sign. Okay. Yeah. I mean, obviously, we don't want to put, you know, too much additional work on you guys. Um, but as it is the first one that has come before us, I feel like it's difficult to make so many changes right off the bat without having a little bit more of a a visual representation. Um, although I know it's not, you know, legally binding or uh it's I think it's important to start off on the right foot. Thank you. So, we're going to move on to our resonings. Um, resoning 25-26. J. Cleveland Wilson, the applicant owner, is requesting to reszone a 2.87 acre parcel from AGC to RUD. The subject parcel is located at 1723 Beamguard Road in Clover and the property is referenced as tax map number 26200000024 in council district 3.

Good evening everyone. Thomas Newan, long-range planner. Good to be back. So case 2526. This is west outside the town of Clover. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property and place a manufactured home. Uh you can see this area is characteristically quite rural uh with single family residences that line Beamu Guard and have access onto it. Uh the single wide manufactured home you actually see here in the aerials has been removed. Uh but the plan is to add a double wide after the subdivision. I apologize for the quite cluttered image. Um but really what's important here are the lot lines. Uh you can see that given we have almost three acres of space it is possible to subdivide this lot. Um in this proposed one uh you can see it has one of the parcels has most of the frontage and all of it actually and the second parcel sits behind it with an ement to get access to it. For our zoning uh this area is widely agricultural conservation. Uh but you do see we have a rural development along Beamguard and some RSF30 down below. And our future land use has this whole area for agriculture where we're looking for farms, timberland, and lowdensity residential development. Staff recommend approval of this request while is not directly consistent with the comp plan future land use map. Uh the property is currently non-conforming as is beneath the 5acre minimum within AGC. Uh and it will form two conforming lots if uh switched to RUD which has a minimum of one acre. And the properties in the general vicinity are zoned RUD. Any questions for staff?

Yeah, Thomas is can you go back to the aerial view? So is the what is that structure? Is that a double wide or whatever structure that's right next to the road? Sorry, that is a the primary dwelling. Okay. So that's staying. That's staying. Yes. It's just this one with the white roof that has been removed. Okay. Where is So, the second home is going to go further back on the property and you're going to subdivide this parcel

through the review process. There's certainly some details to shake out with that. Um, as it is now, uh, it will have to be set back a little bit more than it is see aerial details about the easement will have to be sorted out. But there's this is going to be subdivided in the future, right? Is that right? Yes, it will have to be subdivided for a second. Uh okay. Well, it' be on the lot. The Are you done? Yeah. Um the single wide trailer that was there, um was that being used as a residence? Yes. I believe the applicant's uh son was living there.

Okay. So this is not a code enforcement. The the ordinance is that in in AGC it's 10 acres for two. Is that right? That's right. So this is just they want to have and now a double wide there to give to their son. Is that how I'm understanding it? That's right. Okay. Any additional questions? And there's a small sliver up to the north on the picture. That is RUD. Those few lots there. Mhm.

Is that what I'm seeing too? Yes, those are those are RUD. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second.

Any discussion? So, my issue with this has come up before. Um, it's a non-conforming piece, but it's also kind of right in the middle of all this AGC. Um, there is the RUD there. Um, and I don't I don't like it, but I also can see, you know, it's for family. Um, and so those are kind of my concerns. It's going to it's going to, you know, make that into smaller lots. It's a hard one for me.

Any additional discussion? So, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to reszoning 25-38. Sunb Belt Development Properties LLC. Owner applicant is requesting to reszone six parcels that total 1.74 acres from RSF32NC. The subject parcels are located at the intersection of South Sutton Road and Grady Hope Road in Fort Mill. The properties are referenced as tax map numbers 658 000035 through 04, Council District 1.

Yeah. So, these six parcels are in the Riverview area outside of town of Fort Mill um kind of along the I77 corridor but south of Baxter Village. So the applicant proposes to consolidate these six properties and construct a multi-tenant mixeduse building with potential for up to 11 upper story dwellings. Um in code upper story dwellings we define them as uh pretty much any dwelling that is above non-residential use. Uh you can see in the aerials the area has a combination of residential and commercial uses around it. And so in the concept plan that was submitted, uh you can see the residential curb cuts have been taken off of Sutton Road and added to Essie Circle and you can also see the parking has been managed quite well. Uh given the space, it does have enough to meet the requirements within NC and the land uses that are potentially going to be there uh including you know potential retail and office space. The buildings are also uh in the corner that's the farthest from the residences that share SE circle for access. And so in our zoning uh you can see a lot of this area is our SF30. Uh and you again see those splotches of commercial development. In our future land use we have this as a transitional area. uh where in the comp plan we expect um residential properties to adapt and assemble for civic office and more intense residential uses. Staff recommends approval of this request since it is consistent with the comp plan future land use plan. Uh the proposed development will again assemble those properties as expected and it will remove those residential curb cuts from the major roadway Sutton Road. Any questions for staff?

Do we know what the what the plan is for the mixed use? Is it you saying it's going to be some residential, some commercial, or what's what's your thoughts on that? The idea would be that the uh first floor would have um the six units that are for office and retail and then the above that would be where the dwellings are. Any additional questions? I'll make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to resoning 25-39. Matthew Con Alpine, applicant, Matthew Con Alpine and Benjamin Wolverton Brewer Brewster, excuse me, owners requesting to reszone a 9.99 acre parcel from UD to GC. The subject parcel is located at 2203 Deerfield Drive in Fort Mill. And the prop property is referenced as TA tax map number 71600000054, [Music] Council District 7.

All right. This property is north town of Fort Mill off Springfield Parkway between I77 and Highway 21. So the applicant proposes to upfit the existing building and add a fieldhouse to operate a health and fitness center. Uh you can see this area is largely undeveloped around it. Uh that is because the existence of the south bridge plan development. Um there are expectations for deer deerfield road which kind of ends right before uh right after the building excuse me. Um and there are expectations that that will eventually connect to highway 21 to the east. Uh here's the concept with the fieldhouse added. Uh you can see they have parking remaining where it is. Um the existing building will remain where it is but be upfit and just the fieldhouse will be added. So the zoning is a little interesting. Uh again this area is um pretty much totally enveloped by the Southbridge PD. Um and in the PD these the budding sectors are designated for um commercial uses that are similar to what is being proposed here. Um everything within the PD is mixed use but these specific parts are for personal business and professional services. The future use map shows this area within a community center node uh where we expect multi-story mixeduse buildings uh that provide commercial services. um and draw regional patrons. And beneath that is the I77 corridor employment where we expect businesses with operations that benefit from proximity to the interstate. So we recommend approval of this request. It is not consistent with the comp plan future land use map again because that underlying I77 uh corridor employment designation, but the proposed development does support the future development of the neighboring Southbridge PD which will include that mixed use district that emphasizes those

same types of uses. The applicant's business model is going to be by appointment only and therefore will have minimal potential traffic impact even when Deerfield uh drive is completed. Any questions for staff? So, is the gym going to be or whatever the health center? It's going to be the upfit part, right? But also the fieldhouse. That's right.

Any additional questions? Just one other thing. I don't know if you said it, Thomas, but the intended use, you know, I'm reading in our on page 75, the intended use supports the future development of the surrounding area even though it does not align with the comprehensive plan. Can you kind of get into a little more detail on that?

Yeah, so some of you know being a planned development um the zones don't line up one to one with what we would expect. Um but given the community center node and given the presence of the PD u given that we have to plan ahead and assume that when the PD is complete we will have these businesses that exist. Um and this kind of sits as a donut hole in it makes sense to make it match those uses that will eventually be present there.

Thanks. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? We make a motion to approve. A second.

Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to our last resoning of the evening. 25-17 Rise Partners LLC, Prestige Land and Site Works LLC and in Investor Investor I Vister Group, excuse me, Prestige Land and Site Works LLC uh and Ark Homes requesting to reszone approximately 97 acres across 11 parcels from RUD and PD to PD and from PD to GC. You made this hard on purpose. The subject parcels are located on the south side of York Road just west of the intersection of Hans Mill Highway and Admouth Church Road in Rock Hill. The properties are referenced as tax M tax map numbers 498000000002 003 004 00500 900 11 12 and 0037 0074 075 uh in council district 3.

Good evening everybody. This evening's request here is to reszone these 11 parcels from RUD and GC to PD as well as one that is currently a PD to GC and then to overall amend the existing PD. It's 97 acres located on the south side of Old York Road in Rock Hill. Located just past the uh Rock Hill city limits at the intersection of 161 and uh Adna Church, Mount Hinsman Highway property here um located. It's like I said just to the west of City of Rock Hill. You can see that property highlighted in blue. That's the one that's currently the part of the PD being removed from the PD and going to GC. Um the properties here are heavily treed. There are a few ponds on the site as well as some streams. Uh zoning for the area here. I think just about every district is located within this area here. So we do have four residential districts. We have two commercials, two industrial districts in the area here, a PD as well as some UD. So pretty much everything on our chart is listed here. for the comprehensive plan. It's located within a community center which is centered at the intersection of 161 and Hansill Highway and then sort of spans out along 161 and then north along Hans Mill. The underlying zoning district or designation for the area here is single family residential and that's that that yellow color there as well. So just to kind of give you an overview of the request here. So like I mentioned, first part of it is to amend the actual boundary. So on this map here, you can see the parcel circled in blue that's being removed from the PD and the two parcels circled here in green are being added to the PD. Um it's actually at the end of the day it's net increase of about 15 acres from the existing PD. Uh but the purpose here is to be able to

accommodate the development of a mixeduse center to include a variety of commercial and residential uses. uh pod number one and pod one and pod two. Uh the pod one is the commercial area here about 35 acres. It can do commercial, retail and office as well. And then pod two on the south side of this property here is for the residential portion. It's about 62 acres. Um they can do this to a maximum of four units per acre which is about 247 units. Um be combination of both single family detached and town homes. A little bit of parcel history. In 2008, this property here was reszoned to a PD. It was established to the Newport Commons PD. In that case, it was pods one, two, and three. Um pod one and two, very similar where you could do it's 35 acres. You can do office, commercial, but in this pod here, you could also do town homes and apartments up to 18 dwelling units per acre. And the southside in pod number three is 50 acres. And from that you can do single family detached homes up to four growing units per acre. Minimum lot size uh 6,000 square foot. Minimum lot width is 50 foot. So that's the existing PD as it stands today. If this did not go forward, this PD is still an active PD. You might remember a few a few months ago this year uh you all approved a preliminary plat for Newport Commons. And in that plat as you can see here it was reserving about 10 acres in red there. That was for the commercial component and then below that are the town homes and then below that single family residential. So that was it was approved or has been approved still a standing P or a preliminary plat that could go forward if this does not get approved. So what is a PD? So just to kind of give you an over overview of what a PD actually has and what it's purpose for it is it's to achieve the goals of the comprehensive plan. It's to promote a

variety of mixture of uses. is to improve your design and your character, preserve your natural resources. It's always has a mix of housing types and arrangements. Um, it's to promote the fiscal health of the county by facilitating the efficient provision of streets and utilities. Once again, here it's to preserve scenic and natural open spaces. When you have a PD, you actually establish some some dimensional standards. So the PD like other districts don't have assigned lot widths um uh lot sizes, setbacks, building heights. These are all established within the actual PD itself. And also within a PD is required to have two distinctly different residential types. In this case here we have um single family detached and attached town homes. That's where they're meeting their requirement for the two different types. So here's our concept plan uh in the periwinkle color. At the top here is the commercial area. Uh that's going to be pod number one. It's going to be accessed and I've highlighted there with the little circles off of 161 and Adnet Church. It has two over there on Adnet Church and two off of um Highway 161. And then uh in that one in that periwinkle of the commercial area, you can do a subset of the GC uses. So the applicant took the whole spectrum of GC uses and paired down a few that weren't appropriate for the area and remove those. So, it does have a subset, but it's generally the general commercial GC uses. And then in pod number two is the residential up to four dwelling units per acre. It's going to be accessing off of Highway 161 and coming through the commercial area as well as one off of um Adnet Church Road. And from that, they can do single family detached and town home units. So as as part of a of a PD, the applicant can has the opportunity to develop their own development code or pattern book or they can just opt whatever with the ever the codes

require. But in this case, they did provide a development code or they have little modifications from the from the existing code. They cover uh general provisions, um amenities, open space, landscaping buffers, access utilities, land use, buildings, and so like I mentioned, this can include both things that are consistent with the zoning ordinance of the land development code and things that are contrary to that one. Also, as part of the um as part of a of a PD or of a special district, they're required to do architectural plans, both commercial and uh residential. Those were both in your packet. And I may also do a master landscape plan. And also for a special district, they're required to have an approved traffic impact analysis. So they have submitted the TIA. It's been in front of York County as well as SE DOT and it has been approved for their requirement in mitigations. So like I mentioned um in your packet you will see some tables um that actually show what is different from what the code requires and what the applicant is requesting it as well as a staff recommendation of how we either support it or might want some kind of an amendment to it. So we have 10 of these to go through. I will go through them. If you have any questions just let me know. So the first one here is talking about amenities for the commercial area and that's determined for the commercial park by the number of parking spaces. It's a very large site, lots of parking spaces. They would have to do up to about 15 or minimum I should say minimum of 15 amenities for that whole commercial component. And so they had the request to be able to go to down to three amenities. And so we have a recommendation here and that we concur with that as a reduction in the overall because 15 might be a lot but we do require them to have a significant high quality amenities. Um the other thing the applicant requested was to be able to add the storm water pond as a type of

amenity and our recommendation is that should not be included as an amenity in the commercial area unless it's part of a centrallylo focal point of the pod. And if you may have seen on the concept plan, that stormwater pond was behind the building. And so we thought if you want to have it as an amenity, need to be a focal point. The next one here is the um for the residential area. That's based upon the number of dwelling units. Uh so based upon what their yield could be, they could have a minimum of six and they've asked only have to do four. Um and also once again, they wanted to be able to have the storm water pond for the amenity. staff concurs with the reduction just before. Um, but we also made the comment about the storm water ponds are okay in a residential space. They can be in a many only if they include a trail, a fountain, seating areas, and are designed to be both visually and resident safety or visibility and resident safety.

We can pause if you'd like. Yeah, sure. Going back, I am so sorry, Diane, but what is a high quality amenity to you? A very good question. We would like it to be able to be left up to staff's discretion as we review something to be able to determine whether or not that's a high quality amenity. If you can look at the table of amenities, they has things that just could be like a bench. That is not what it would be. So, what we're looking for, if you're going to reduce that to to a fewer number, they need to be uh some public art, some water features, a fountain. We're looking at that level of of public amenities is what we're looking at. Okay. Thanks. We want to have some flexibility, but we want to be able to know that we can we can

govern that. Thanks. I'll keep going.

So, the next one is going to be open space. Um the code has what they call usable open space and that is area where it has a slope that people can comfortably utilize it by the residents. Uh according to the code, uh they're required to have 40% Open space must be dry land with a slope of less than 15%. And the applicant here has requested it to be 10% with um the slope of 15%. And so that usable space refers to compact level unobstructed areas available for safe and convenient use. It provides active recreation, passage recreation, and community interaction. The usable open space should be higher than 10% but maybe less than 40%. So if you were to reduce that to 10% or allow that to go forward like that, you're reducing the quality of your open space um of having usable actual open space. Um the second part of the open space is you can it has limitations of what you can actually include in open space. For instance, here um you can have uh storm water ponds can be only 20% of your total open space and buffers and tree safe can only be 50% of the open space. Um it also requires spin water ponds to be amenized. And so what they're asking for is to be able to have up to 30% for the stormwater ponds and 65% for the tree saving buffers. Um and we are uh for home plans and property buffers are generally not usable space but given the scale of the proposed commercial pod it may be pro possible to achieve the base may be impossible to achieve that that those limits. So we're okay with the um this slight increase of allowing for the stormwater ponds and for the um buffer tree safe. So going back to what what would your recommendation be going back

to the unused open space higher than 10%. What what what's your what's your think? Leaving it up to to the planning commission and whatever you are are comfortable just know that the lower that number gets the less opportunity they would have for usable open space. So you know it it needs to be somewhat within that range. Um so that's whatever you're comfortable recommending. Dan, the second piece um of the open space, the code requirement is that the ponds be amenitized. Does that get excluded in what we're asking for?

What do you mean by excluded? So, so they're it's in it's in the code requirement, but it's not in the applicant's request. They are actually mentioning their pawns. Okay.

They are The next section here is the tree preservation. So the first part about the about the tree save is the code requires existing canopy to be saved a portion of that and requires 20% for residential and 15% for commercial. And the applicant is requesting to do 15% over the entire area can go into one portion of the pod. So essentially what they're saying is they want to be able to move some of that tree what any amount of tree say from the commercial all into the residential which is probably like likely what would happen. So that switch even though it's a net reduction in the overall will probably they'll probably have a better quality tree in the residential area by putting all those trees from the commercial park over onto the residential. So staff is concurring with that that change. The next part of tree preservation is the grand tree. The the code provides a process to mitigate the removal of grand trees and to do that they can do it in three ways. It's administrative approval or a waiver is required from the PC and they can provide three ways to mitigate that. They can do additional tree save, they can plant new trees or they can do a fee and loo up to 50%. The applicant's request is to be able to for grant trees to be removed without the administrative or PC approval and any combination of replanting DBH onsite or fee and loo

and so that that would eliminate any approval step and also eliminate the cap on on the on the fee and loo mitigation. So in practical ter terms, this could result in little or no grant trees preserved and all mitigation would be offsite in the form of monetary contributions. But the grand trees qualify as the u the tree buffer area, right?

The grand trees can be within the buffer. Yeah. and they haven't made any changes to what consists or what type of branch that table that we have in our code this day forward. Now the final four here are what we call site design. The the first two happen to talk about parking and so for for larger developments the code requires this is gets kind of once again like they were saying before wonkyish and it requires that parking areas to be screened by buildings occupying at least 80% of abuing street frontage. and that's to be able to have a screening of utilizing the buildings to be able to screen the street frontage. Um the requesting to delete this for all for the outlots. So if you can think back to the concept plan the outlots along the front of the property line to be able to remove that requirement um to have that 80% of screening. Um given the proposed commercial outlet spatial arrangement with the anchor parking lot, staff concurs with this alternative. The second one here is um for for larger developments, the code requires that a portion of the parking to be located to the sides or the rear of the buildings to be able to minimize that that sea of parking. Um so the code requires that no more than 40% of the parking spaces. They be located between the front facade of the building and the abuing road. They're requesting here is to delete the requirement for the retail area on the southern side of pod A. So, if you don't mind, I'm going to

go back

because that gets kind of confusing. So, they're speaking about this pod. This is the retail area of pod A and that's the parking they're speaking about is to not require them to to meet that requirement. Um, an alternative site design would improve the visual appearance and function within that sea of parking. The next item here, uh, talks about the drive-thru queuing. And so the code requires one bypass lane when two parallel queuing lanes are provided. And so that means if you're in a drive-thru at a at a, you know, McDonald's or whatever, you have a way to a bypass lane is to get out so you aren't stuck there. Um, they want to delete the bypass when you have two parallel lanes are provided. So if you have two lanes, they don't want to have to do a bypass. They just want to have the two parallel lanes. Um, bypass lanes, like I mentioned, are necessary to allow for proper management of drive-throughs. Um, and staff recommends the bypass lanes be provided. And the final here, one for the site design is the bike racks. Uh, code establishes bike rack based for all special districts that require to do bike racks. Um, and it's all based upon your number of parking spaces. and we counted that up and they probably would have had to do like 80 parking 80 bike racks for this location here. And so they recommended to come down to 20. We agree with that. Um and on the southern side and then each outlot gets two bike racks as well. So 20 on the southern side and then two on up on the top part. And we recommend that that alternative. Now we're going to go to our traffic improvements. And I'm going to walk you through this. This is from phase one. So the development is broken down into two separate phases. And the first phase is the anchor lot and I believe 50 homes

and that's to be completed based upon the TIA by 2028. And the rest of what happen in the second phase and by 2030. This might not be difficult to read. So I'm going to walk you through here. There are a couple things where they're off-site improvements. And so for instance, um this is the intersection. is 161 going this way. This is Hansville Highway and Adna Church going south. There's a light right there. By for phase one, they're required to put a westbound turn lane. So that's people coming traveling from Rock Hill going towards York as they approach Hansville Highway. They have to put a turn lane in to go back north up there. That must be done in 2020 in the for the first phase. They're also required on phase one to be able to to this is Param Road. So if once you get past the site as you're traveling for this is Mount Gallant. There's a traffic light right there. Road comes through here. This is a failing intersection. They're required to make that no left h no left turns coming down Pum onto 161. They're required to make those improvements to prohibit the left-hand turns. um throughout the site during the first phase they're required to do access lanes here turn lanes coming in and out egress lanes um for access A B and then also on C D and E um on access for B there is no right hand I'm sorry left-hand turn leaving the slide at access B and at access C across from Marian it's a right in right out and so like I said two off-site improvements. The other the ones were being being done with the development itself. For for phase two, there's just going to be off-site improvements. And for that one, they'd have to do I think they're making a left-hand protected left coming down 161 turning left on Adnet Church as well as a traffic signal at access A. And based

upon the TIA and the study, they feel as though uh warrants will be available or will be met once they get to the phase two to be able to put in a traffic signal that location. I'm going to pause here if you have any questions about transportation or traffic improvements. Did they ever think about putting a roundabout there at the church and 161? Handsome Highway 161. I don't they don't think they modeled that. I don't think a roundabout would work at that that volume through there. There's a lot of traffic coming through that intersection. I think a roundabout's going to work.

Yeah. It's just going to queue in a lot of all these lights cue people in. Yeah. You know, and the roundabout makes it gives a little bit more flexibility of getting through a busy interchange. Yeah. I don't I don't believe a roundabout would function. You might get away with that. Just a thought. Yeah, sure. Sure. You might get away with that on admin church, but you're not going to get away with it on York Road. Old York Road.

All right. So, a recommendation. We're recommending uh approval of this one here in consistent with the future land use map as a community center node. Uh we do have the recommendation for have the following amendments amendments to development code. Um those are the four that I highlighted that were actually bolded in your table and that was for the amenities for the commercial the storm water ponds residential also storm water ponds usable open space some number between 10 and 40 and then to require the drive-th through queuing lanes any questions I noticed the imperous surfaces are really the percentage is astronom economical.

Um, you know, pod one, I mean, you're looking at 80% of the area is impervious. I think 75%'s required by allowed by the code or required by the code. So, you're just up a little bit higher for that one. Um, I believe it was 65 or 64 the residentials. So, there was some there was some jump. by alams if there was something I didn't highlight that you that you have take issue with on the belt and code you know that's your your purview

yeah I had I had a concern with the grant tree removal I think we should stay with administrative approval or waiver it's not that much of a it's a requirement for a reason and I wouldn't I wouldn't leave it up to the developer to decide to pull all the trees out of I'd like to see our arborist go through.

That would be in addition to the four that we've had showing here. Mhm. You guys all right with that? Yeah, I agree with that. Absolutely. Do you want us to come up with a number on the usable open space or do we want to leave it 10 to 40? Well, we'd like to get an idea as to which way you're leaning if you were thinking about changing changing something. So, yeah, if you could recommend something, we appreciate that. I'm at 40. I was going to say I would stay as high as possible. I think when you provide open space, you have less people leaving the neighborhood to go do things. If the kids have places to play, if they're not having to drive to a park,

if you know, I think I think we have open space for a reason. Personally, totally agree. Same reason we have Grand Tree ordinances for a reason. Um, everything tonight seems to be wanting to inch everything up. That's frustrating. Um, this is inching this is actually inching it down. Well, but you get the idea. Yes, I do. That's just my two cents. No, I I agree with the 40%. Keeping it. I mean, you know, if it really came down to because of storm water or something, you had to lower it slightly. I could maybe see that, but again, I feel like it's a huge It's a huge difference.

I feel like they have it right. Exactly. One 10% to to 40%. That is That's the difference between Yeah. I feel like it's unreasonable. Did they give a a reason behind that number? They haven't been specific about the reason. I'm going to say that there is a lot of slope on this property or some too. And so I think it's a challenging site and that's where they felt they were able to achieve. That was a number they felt comfortable with. They could definitely achieve um based upon with how they see the grading. Um, might have to move some things around, which I know is easier said than done. Leave it at 40.

And with 80% impervious, that's a big storm water pond. I mean, I I don't know if they realize that. That's a big big Well, they increased it, right, from what the code is. Yeah, it's a slight increase. I think it's 75 required by the code and it go to 80%. Yeah, but it's sight specific. You know what I'm saying? Mhm. Kind of topography, grade. Yeah, that's how you size those ponds by grade also.

Um, yeah, you saying it kind of kind of drops in elevation. I I mean we don't have a topography map here but there in your package there are a bunch of that had topo lines on them. Yes. Towards the back of the staff report. Um because there there is a large site and there's a lot of topography. We did add some um quite a few with the amenities number. Again that's a a big drop. I mean, I'm definitely thinking what is it 20? Seemed they they're required to do um 15. They like to do three.

Do three. I think they identified I think that may have included the storm water pond as one of the three. Um so I think they were showing on their site.

An amenity would be going in this section over here. I think there's a small amenity. I think there was one over here. maybe some art and I think they were going to include that one there. The applicant is here if they have any questions for the applicant. Are there any additional questions? Um, I would excuse me. I would be willing to um make a motion. still think 15 to three amenities is stingy, but

five. Well, but I mean, you know, I that can be up to the people purchasing the the homes if that's enough for them. Um, so I would make a motion,

Madam Chair, if if I could have recommendation for how you might go through your motion process because this is probably going to be a little bit complicated more so than most resonings, right? Um, so my recommendation if you make a uh clean recommendation for approval with nothing added to it and then uh take up a series of amendments that uh to that main motion that you can talk about each issue one at a time and that you all can land on that one issue, cross it off, move on to the next one until you've got a single motion that's got a series of amendments you've already voted on. Okay.

Okay. So, I will make a motion to approve. Um with amendments. I say you want us to actually vote. So, you would just need uh you just make the motion to approve, get a second, and then someone could make a motion to amend my motion. That's right. Okay. Seems like that could be more difficult than it's it's more work, but it's much cleaner, I promise.

Okay, I'll start making some notes. So, um, like I said, I will make a a motion to approve. Uh, is there a second? I have a second. So, we have a first and a second. Is there discussion? I don't know that as the person putting forth the motion I can make the first amendment. So is there like do we want to go in order? I think we just go in order. We'll just go in order. Yeah. Or plus anything else that is of you know importance to you

right? So I would say the first amendment um would be the amenities in commercial that the stormwater ponds should not be included as an amenity in the commercial area unless they're designed as a centrally located point to the pod. You want me to just read them down? We can start with that one. Is there dis uh so that would be a motion? We would need a second on that one. So, you're okay with three, right? Yeah. This could be both the number as well as the storm water pond.

You want to go five? I mean, is it's arbitrary at this point, but it's it's higher than it I think we all agree going from 15 to three is a little dramatic. Looks like a lot. Yeah. So, I'm going to go back and reference how many Okay. So, typically it's 15 in the code requirement and the applicant is requesting three including the storm water as an amenity. Correct.

Correct. And I can direct you to um in their development code on page four, they do have their list of what they are allowed to be able to choose and you know for what counts as an as an amenity kind of give you an idea as to what that might look like. So I don't know what pages on your packet. I apologize. Um it's after the staff report. It's after the site plan. Um it's going to have a cover that looks starting off with this. Yeah. That code and it's going to be on page number four. Okay. And that that includes a list of of what they would they can choose from from this list. Gotcha. It's page 117 or 136.

Amen. Uh okay. Does everyone have access to this? So we're talking about amenities of they're asking for a minimum of three amenities from the list below are to be placed upon the anchor pad. So, seating area, gazebo or other covered shelter, multi-use trail, bicycle storage and repair station, water feature, public art, storm water pond, including any other at the bottom of that any other similar deliberately designed amenities, but it's got Yeah. Oh, go ahead. Was the 15 in the code for the entire PD? This is the commercial section. Just the commercial. Yeah, we're just looking at the commercial section. The top part of should have been 15 just for the commercial.

Yeah. And that's based upon Yeah. Just for the commercial. It's based upon number of parking spaces. Okay. That's what what drives that. Okay. So, you've got two seating areas and bicycles that are kind of no-brainers, right? By racks, I would think. So, so you're asking for they're asking for one more amenity and that's why we had that provision about being of a high quality standard. So, you know, I don't know that we would have staff would support if it was just a, you know, bench. I don't think that's the intention either to be honest. There was art also. You said you can do public art. I think I've seen on one of the plans there was a place for public art. So um that was for pod one which is the commercial and then pod two which is the residential,

right? That's the second item on the the list of things that's residential which are very similar but then they add you know more res I think they add playgrounds basketball more residential in nature correct outside activities y yeah and that went from six to four so that wasn't as large a drop right

I was say if it's four in one do four in the other that's what I was thinking Let's just make it four. Just make it four for both. Four and four. So four in the residential as well as four in the commercial. And the storm water pond is not included. Include not including not unless it's amenitized, right? Central located central located, right? A fountain or a walking trail or Yeah. And I Yeah. If you can see in their in their um list of amenities here for their open space, they would intend to do all that. just putting it behind a large building. Got so usable space essentially some place where people want to go. Focal point.

Hopefully. Gotcha. So that is amendment one is for the um residential or I'm sorry commercial or pod one amenities and the recommendation was four. Four. Four. Is there a second? Um there's a second here. There's a second. Is there further discussion on that? No. Um, do we need to vote on each individual amendment? On each individual. Okay. So, vote on each of individual and then the main motion at the end. Gotcha. As amended. Thank you for the clarification.

Okay. Okay. So on that first amendment which has to do with the commercial amenities moving from dropping from 15 to four. If there's no further discussion um all those in favor anyone opposed? Okay. Um moving on to is there any discussion on additional amendments? Uh yeah, we want to cover the one the usable open space or the number two the residential amenities. Yes. Okay. The residential. Do you want me to? Sure. Yeah, go ahead.

So the um residential amenities um the storm water ponds in the residential spaces should serve as an amenity only if they include a trail, a fountain, seating areas, and are designed for both visibility and resident safety. And the number which was four four. So that would be a uh that' be your motion to amend. Is there a second? I'll second. Is there additional discussion?

No. So um there is a first and a second to uh amend that to include four residential amenities. Um all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Are there any additional amendments? Number three is usable open space. Um do we want to assign a number or we saying we want to keep it we'll keep it at 40. Keep it at the 40.

Okay. So usable open space usable level open space should be 40% not less than 40% of the total provided open space or the code requirement. Which is what it is. Yeah. Right. for the existing code requirement. Okay. And uh is there a second for that amendment? I'll second.

Is there any additional discussion? Okay. So, there's a first and a second to amend the uh open space to stick with the code recommendation of or the code guidelines of 40%. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Um, looks like the drive-thru queuing is a potential issue. So, I would make the um amendment to take staff's recommendation to uh include bypass lanes when there are two queuing lanes so that there's a way an egress around. It just makes

safety smart to me. I mean, y seems smart to me. Um, is there a second I'll second. Is there discussion? Uh, all those in favor of uh the bypass lane recommendation. Anyone opposed? Is there any other concerns? There was one more that we wanted to add. I think was the grand tree. Okay. Um requirement the code existing administrative approval or waiver required to remove any grand trees from the property. I would second that. I think oversight there's a process.

Exactly. Is not a bad bad thing. Um, is there additional discussion? Can I just get clarity on that one? I'm sorry, John. You say to go by the existing code. Is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So, what do we know the percentage of the property that's currently wooded? Um, no, we don't. Well, not officially. Um, so there's probably a number of mature trees. They have they have identified um they've done a tree survey, so they know what the grand trees are. Uh, we know the area for the for the tree saves, but we haven't officially reviewed that information yet. I don't know what number that would be, but I know that they are there.

So, we would have to have administrative approval over X number of grand trees. We don't know what that number is. Yeah, we don't know what that number is, but we'd actually be approving at this point,

but there's typically I mean typically the process is to have it waved. It either has to you either have to get a waiver or there's administrative approval process and there's different ways you can do that. So, and there's actually you can do some by by having tree save. you can uh plant more trees or you can do a fee and loo and the fee and loo is when they would put money into a bank to put trees somewhere else and the code has a requirement of minimum how much you can do for the fee and I think it's 50% for the fee and loo and so this would be removing any of that and giving them

so there was a motion motion a second second additional discussion the Second. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. Additional discussion. I'm good.

Okay. All those in favor of the amendment to uh basically stick to the existing uh code when it comes to the grand trees. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Is there any are there any other concerns that we would like to add amendments for? So now we would sorry

on the parking area D. Can we go over that staff recommendation was an alternative site design would improve the visual appearance and function within the sea of parking but that's not C. And we did not give a recommendation. We were just giving you how what the implications of how they what they're designing like this. In order to be able to do that require really a large change to their site and it would require them to redesign the site to be able to achieve that code. Oh, okay. Yeah. It looks like there's no real space to the to either side unless they took out a good portion of

have to redesign the site to make that that section of the code work. Okay. Are you okay with that? Yeah. Yeah, we're good. Yeah. Okay. So, we have a um motion on the table with amendments that have all been voted on. Separately voted on. So, then we would like to vote um on the amended motion as amended. The main motion as amended. Is there a um second?

I'll second. Is there any additional discussion? Okay. All of those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you for helping out with that one. Yeah, that was a long one, Diane. Thanks. Welcome. So, um, we do have some other business this evening. Uh, it has been, uh, requested that we discuss actually the, uh, Grand Tree ordinance. um brought to us by one of our uh planning commission members. Um so John, do you wanna

Yeah. Um I think we're all familiar with the Grand Tree ordinance uh 154200 which is protection of grand trees and I don't have I don't think there are any issues with any of that verbiage or the intent. That was something that I think we did several years ago that that we looked in detail. What I was hoping to discuss was 154202 which is grand tree protection during construction. And the reason I want to try and revisit that perhaps um is that there have been several examples. I I know first of all I know the department does a great job of looking at each tree, looking at the health of the tree, determining whether or not it should be mitigated or saved. Um and and I think we give contractors and developers quite a bit of leeway when they have a valid argument to remove a tree. when the trees are asked to be saved. I'm not sure if we can do anything more to uh maybe protect the critical root zones because I can give you several examples where trees two or three years ago during a construction project were required to be saved. there's supposed to be a fence that's put around them and in many cases the trees die two years later because either that the roots are still damaged or there's construction equipment or something happens. So I had a brief discussion with with Jonathan and I think Peter also had mentioned that there's a currently there's a a one foot

per inch of tree u requirement to create a fencing area around a grand tree. If you're looking at trees that are much larger, I mean we've got some that are 32 and 40 in and higher. Maybe there's a way And we probably need to get Peter involved to make a recommendation to perhaps increase that to like an inch and a half for 30 or foot and a half for trees that are greater than 32 in or 2 in for trees that are greater than 40 in because these are the ones that we really want to try and save if possible. some some some areas call them heritage trees.

Um, and I I just don't think that that the existing requirement in the ordinance protects the tree root the critical root roots of the tree sufficiently to maintain that the health construction to during construction to maintain the health of that tree.

C can I ask is Peter the arborist? Yes. Okay. So, I would be good with having an arborist, you know, look at each specific case, you know, that we're going to do a tree save. And it's based on the species that it is because I mean, you know, I mean, there's different type of oak trees, for example, that what you were talking about, that wouldn't get damaged, but if it was a different type of oak tree, you'd have to increase that radius. Yeah. His his concern was is the trees get older, and you're talking about trees that could be a hundred years old, the roots are much further out,

correct, than a younger than a younger tree. So I I don't know what your recommendation would be to further a discussion with Yeah. So the planning commission uh like council has the ability to request text amendments to code. So to kind of start that conversation, um if you are all uh on board with asking that be a direction that we take, uh you might have a motion that suggests that staff um look into are there better ways to protect grand trees or other protected trees if you wanted to include that u during active construction. I think that's something we could take a look at and get back to you.

That's Yeah, we'd love that. Well, are you with that, John? I'm fine with that. Yeah. Okay. So, Diane, can we can we make a motion then to um have staff review some potential alternates to the existing 15420 [Music] uh protection during construction that that might help u save some of these trees? And can we request Peter to come in here and and kind of give his thoughts?

U yeah. Whenever we have a a staff process where someone is researching and evaluating a specific question or a specific change that's been requested, that staff member would be the the subject matter expert that would come forward and talk to you all about it. So yeah, absolutely. Okay. In a form of a motion, I say were there any other concerns or No, that's that's sufficient. Yeah, I made that as a motion to for staff to make some recommendations on second on that motion. I'll second that. And any discussion? Um any uh Okay. So, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions on the uh resoning tracking sheet? Your favorite. My favorite. If not, uh, we will adjourn at 8:06. Thank you. We need to make a motion for Oh, we probably need to make a motion for that.