Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh let's see. I call this uh November 10th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Uh before we take a look at the agenda, I would just like to uh quickly introduce Mac. Wallace who is our newest planning commission member and he is representing district 6. So taking a look at the agenda this evening. Are there any changes? Yes. Uh we've had a request from the applicant for item number 11 case number uh 2548. They requested to defer to a future meeting. They're recalculating their actual area for for the resoning.

Staff is fine with that deferral. So, uh, rezoning 25-48 is deferred. If there are no other changes, is there a motion to accept the agenda? I make a motion to approve. I'll second. Uh, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? And looking over the minutes from last month, are there any questions or changes or adjustments? If not, I will make a motion to accept the uh minutes as submitted. Is there a second?

I'll second. Okay. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Um, and I know that our last member will be here this evening, but is running. Yeah. Had a [clears throat] conflict

a time. Yeah. Small small commitment. Um, so let's see. We uh moving on to our first order of business. The planning commission uh is to consider and provide a recommendation for an amendment to chapter 155 in the zoning code to change hotels from permitted to conditional uses to establish certain use conditions and to establish enforcement of such conditions. Uh whoever's presenting if you'd come to the uh podium.

Yeah, if you're okay I'll just present. I don't have anything formal to uh actually present to you. I'll just give you a overview and discussion of it if you will. So u again first time I've had the opportunity to address the planning commission. So I'm David Garner. I'm one of the assistant county managers primarily overseeing our public safety departments which will make sense in a second while I'm presenting on this. Um uh differently from how ordinances are usually uh presented to council as they come by way of the planning commission. Uh this was one uh this ordinance change and recommendation came from the sheriff's office and was referenced out to the JPS committee from county council. Uh so the intention of this is to limit extended stay in hotels in the unincorporated parts of York County. Uh so the sheriff's office noted a considerable um issue with crime vagrancy, numerous issues uh primarily around the lower uh lower end hotels across York County and the unincorporated area and recommended a ordinance that would target extended stays and actually um the product of that was creating a permitted use, I'm sorry, conditional use instead of permitted use. So, this would limit the extended stays in your normal hotels. Um a lot of this is going to be centralized around the Carowinds Boulevard area. Uh but this is countywide. So, if you're familiar with Rock Hill, this is similar to an ordinance that Rock Hill has in place. Um but this actually creates an extended stay classification in the use table and creates a conditional instead of a permitted use. and Rick can probably speak a little bit more to that. [clears throat] Uh, but it also establishes enforcement criteria for that. So, it's a multi- agency jurisdictional enforcement that includes building codes, planning and zoning, sheriff's office, and including the fire marshall's office. But in order to do that, it had to be an ordinance change um that has to come before the planning commission as well. So, county council has already had some readings of this uh and it is up for their public hearing

and third reading. Uh, but being a change to the use table has to be presented to the planning commission for your input as well. Happy to answer any questions about that if you have any questions on the specifics of it, but that's the general synopsis of the purpose of this ordinance change. I do have a question. Um, I was actually pretty alarmed when I saw this. While I understand the idea behind it and the, you know, the the proposed reason, um, has homelessness of our, um, district students been taken into account?

I don't know. I don't have any data on that. I know homelessness is another area of focus in our safe community goal in our strategic plan. um working with a lot of nonprofits in the area. So, that is a separate piece, but this is not to drive the homelessness part because a lot of this is extended stays that are um creating a crime problem around certain areas. So, that is a secondary, but that is not part of this ordinance. So, I'll just share a little bit because I work or have worked in the past um with various aspects of the at least Fort Mill School District and so I reached out to um Alana who is the district social worker um and has counterparts in Rock Hill as well as York and so she was able to provide me some um some information today that is um frustrating for me or a a little bit alarming, but in the 202425 school year in York County, there were 212 families identified under the Mckin Vento Act um living in hotels. Um right now in the 2526 school year, there are currently 110 families that they're aware of. U but the only time that that question is asked is during initial registration. So obviously that could be a fluid situation throughout the school year. There are 11 shelters in York County. So a possible alternative, but only one allows families that include a single father with children or boys over the age of 12 and only three allow women with children and nothing with for boys over 12. So

I feel like takes away a very needed u resource. I mean 110 families right now that's a lot of kids. Um and I will say I asked her to follow up and um explain to me you know how long she has seen families stay in this situation and she said typically she has seen between six months to two years. So, if we're talking about limiting long-term stays to 180 days in a calendar year, what are these families supposed to do for the rest of the year?

So, if I can answer a little bit of that. So, the intention is not to take away extended stay throughout the entire county. It is to limit it to permitted uses and they would be conditional. Right now, there are no considerations for that whatsoever. this would actually create a conditional use. So, the locations that intend to market themselves as extended stay can do that. Um, but this is geared towards the ones that have lower rates, that have um just a high occupancy rate, that are not necessarily considered homeless by kind of what you're you're defining, but are more so um just staying around a central area. And that is what the crime rate is has been attributed to. But there is options. This creates the extended state classification for the areas that are offering that. So it doesn't exclude that. It just creates another use. Am I correct in saying that Rick?

Okay. Well, I just know you spoke specifically of the Carowinds region, and I do know that historically that has been an issue in terms of drug use and and other activities. And I I know that it's hard for the sheriff's office and other law enforcement agencies, but I also know at least in Fort Mill, that's where all of our transient families are living. So, I find it difficult without more robust county services or shelters available to those families to make it harder for our most vulnerable students to be in a semi structured and safeish environment. Um, so I do understand what you're saying in terms of, you know, a conditional use and um, spelling that out, but I think at least what I was reading, and maybe I'm, you know, misunderstanding, it just it it didn't seem to me like um, it was spelled out clearly enough like what that delineation was. I mean, I understand the time, you know, the time Um, but like how would that be how would that be advertised? How would that how would they how would that resource be um presented or I guess to whoever's trying to help.

Yeah. So, there is an educational period to work with the hotel owners and the managers. Um, part of the problem with what you're describing is the fact that we any solid data on that because we cannot necessarily go solicit that data. Um largely requires either the school district providing that which comes into other privacy laws or going door to door and unfortunately that's not not an option. Um so that's a little bit of a moving target that we don't have any data to actually back that outside of you know just a static point in time from the school district but they can't provide us addresses or anything like that of of ways to contact them. All we can do is go with the hotel owners or the managers to educate them and then we do have the resources that we can provide and put them in touch but we don't have a way to go find them unfortunately.

I have a question. When you when you mentioned you don't have a way to go find them are you talking about the individuals who are staying at those locations? Yes sir. Because we do not have a registry. We do not track that information. Um, part of that is one of the requirements of this ordinance is to be able to provide that registry, but it is not a requirement today. Uh, so we could not go and and find that information to be able to contact them as it currently stands

because here's here's a question I have and then I want to get back to that original uh question I had. I live in Rock Hill. Get on 77 at Cherry Road every day to go into Charlotte to work. And that street that's parallel to 77, you know where that McDonald's is. And I think it's a um polio chicken or something they put there. There's a little road. Uh the McDonald's on one end on one side and then the QT where Selines is. There appears to be an extended stay or something along that strip, but if you go if you cross Cherry Road, the McDonald's is on your left and um there are a number of well I would say hotels slash motel along that strip and there always appears to be a ton of people out a ton of people walking and when you mention this that's the first visual that came to my head that strip right along there and me thinking okay they would want to impact something like this because when you're sitting there you literally see people you're about to pro approach the bridge people are outside etc. There are some hotels there that are not titled ex extended stay. I don't know if they market themselves as that, but if there's an extended stay on one block and then there are others on the other block and there's the same number of people, I don't know what the crime statistics are along that strip. If this is intended to curtail all of that type of activity, then how would it impact those other hotels,

have has have you all gone to those to see, hey, do you market yourselves as an extended stay, the lower rates, etc. Because they don't appear to have names that indicate that they are, but then there's another one that clearly says extended stay. So, how are you differentiating the two? And if there's a problem that's being generate or contributed to by both, if we target one that says I'm an extended stay and I market myself as such, but the same activity is at another one that doesn't identify themselves, then aren't we kind of missing a whole area that's contributing to that? If you would just is are you looking at solely the ones who say we're extended stay and we market ourselves as such but if I don't call myself an extended [clears throat] stay but I still offer the same lower rates I still have the same number of people who I guess are hanging around the hotel and it looks like high crime. I would say that I'll just be honest. How are what's differentiating how you address one versus the other?

So in in the city of Rockill, the enforcement of that is on uh municipal police. So that is on the city officers. Okay? We do not enforce in Rockill. Okay. This would only be in the unincorporated uh parts of the county. And so we don't have that classification in the county. We don't differentiate the two. we would create that as part of this and that's part of that education period that if they do intend to classify themselves or offer that that that would be um one of the conditional uses that they would have to apply for a permit for in order to be classified extended stay and to offer those uh rates beyond what would be in compliance with this ordinance. So the ones that you're referencing in Rock Hill, we don't enforce that. Okay.

[clears throat] to go back to kind of both of their comments. Do we know how many extended stays actually are in the incor unincorporated areas? We don't have that classification. So, we don't acknowledge any of them necessarily as extended stays. I believe there are at least No, I'm talking about existing extended stays.

I I believe there's one, possibly two that do market themselves as extended stays. Um, but it's not a classification that we officially recognize or have part of their permit application process. And what if it was the situation like you had brought up where you have an extended state in an unincorporated area and then the same situation comes up not in Rock Hill but how would you address that? What are you asking?

Well, if there was take the scenario that I gave and just put it inated area that you're mentioning,

excuse me. Um, the concept of extended stay might be a misapplied term that needs definition in this ordinance. What the what the issue to be addressed is lengthy stays in a hotel to to which you spoke or a motel for which the durations of stay exceed maximum limit limit expressed in the ordinance. So in this case the term of art whether you're extended stay hotel or not would not be applicable. All extended stay hotels are hotels. So this is going to address um length of time in any [clears throat] category of of hotel or motel.

Okay. Whether extended stay or not. Okay. Now what you point out perhaps is that the extended stay definition needs to be refined to meet right to meet those existing hotels that have a certain market plan. And so we can certainly look at that in the context of this. Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think what we're talking about is a difference between extended stay in time period regardless of the establishment and establishments that have been specifically identified as extended stay type hotels. And what the ordinance is doing is about the time, not the type of establishment. Yes, sir. Okay.

What does enforcement look like for this? So is it just like you get a call and they go out and then what is it a fine what is it if it's if the say the hotel is not complying with this? Yep. So there are penalties uh described in the ordinance that would be assessed at to the property manager owner. I believe the the owner of record is referenced in the ordinance. Um so there are fines associated with it. there's an education period to ensure that they're aware of any potential violations before it ever arose to the level of enforcement. Okay.

I think it's $20 per day that they into that ordinance. I think I missed that part. Do um do we have data for you because you said Rock Hill has this, right? [clears throat] Do we have data on how it's how it's worked for them. Has it decreased crime? I don't have that data. I would have to ask the sheriff's office if they've been able to collect that or receive that. So, I don't have it, but I could ask for it. Okay. I would like to know that.

Um, I got a followup. [clears throat] [cough] So on the page three talks about maximum stays extended beyond 30 consecutive days shall be limited to not more than 180 days under the following you know national natural disaster fire whatever and then it gives a few more. Kate you you brought up a really good point about schools and stuff like that. I don't know if we could be that specific here, but that would be where you would put an additional whatever condition if it if it met the condition, right? Like she

Excellent point, Kate. So, it could go right here. What was that for? Sorry. Well, you it was before you got here. Yeah. Sorry, catching up. Well, Kate, you want to go? Just to recap the the homeless population for our students within um I'm most familiar with Fort Mill School District, but all of the county districts um so far this year is 110 families that are classified as homeless and living in hotels. Last year it was over 200. Um, and so there are, you know, there's a federal statute that guarantees them school,

but obviously we don't have a lot of resources in York County for right shelters and specifically family um shelters. So that's my my largest concern. I see. I see. But do you think it's generic enough in here? But you know, uh, the cases where you can extend more than 80 days. Yeah. So, I think it's something something we could put in there, right? Yeah.

And in addition, I was even thinking I think you don't have any resistance as far as wanting to target the crime. I think everybody understands that lock and step with you. It's those families because while we're sitting here, I just thought of, you know, knowing a particular family that's been impacted. Is there a way because when you mentioned earlier, you don't have the data, but if I'm the business owner and I don't want to have my business impacted, but I clearly see a family with kids have come in here and they're at the 100 day mark. Is there some requirement or is it possible to have them say, "Okay, ma'am sir, understand if you all partnered with maybe some agency or something where you require them to at least show proof that hey, we've contacted school system resources or someone someone else is aware of what's going on and that there's there are young kids here and they are classified, identified, categorized, however, whatever word we want to use. So, we don't pass something like this and they end up being kicked out on the street because they're already going through enough. But we can target the other people c because I'm now that we bring it up, I'm even thinking of child trafficking. If someone comes in there with a child there had should is there a way to require or maybe you all can consider partnering with another agency and where I don't think anyone here would oppose we would enforce requiring them to provide something to

account for here's a parent here's a child a resource officer has been contacted you can verify that so the sheriff nerves show up. Do you have form whatever to show that someone has been contacted regarding that adult and that child if they're in school, etc., etc. So, I would think that would address a number of issues for us. peace of mind to say, "Hey, we put something in place." So, if that child is registered, they have a resource officer, we're not putting them out on the street. If you are just there and you're past the 180 days, okay, we address the problem that you're trying to address. But if someone's in the gray area, they snatched the child and they're just there maybe to traffic the child, they're going to be questioned or whatnot, even if you don't prevent it, they know, but we can't just go walk in a place with a child. Just some measure to put in place. I think there is a way that we could expand the registry requirement. Okay.

To encapsulate that as well. Um because the registry requirement on part part of the hotel to provide that [clears throat] for inspection is a requirement of the ordinance. I believe that that could be expanded to what you're talking about as well to to provide that at that time. Okay. along with a documented exemption under that list of exemptions in the beginning and maybe spell out the basic framework that the schools will work with the county and law enforcement in those specific uh instances that would occur.

So if the hotel manager doesn't follow through with it or owner and you show up, their business is impacted. So they have skin in the game to make sure that all of this there there's compliance. Yes, sir. [clears throat] Okay. I've I've got another suggestion and I it may be covered by the language already, but I can conceive of a case of someone who has decided to build their dream home and sold their previous home and had to move out and is looking for temporary and maybe goes a little bit beyond that. Yeah, that's in there. That is one of the already listed.

Is that is that remodeling? or where see that's where I'm it's remodeling or displacement. It can it can be any of those. I I just maybe the language in that because it's just remodeling. Well, no, I'm not remodeling. I'm building a brand new. Sure. Just certainly clarify that. Yep. That's all. Thank you. [snorts]

Are there any additional questions or comments? Um, is there a motion? [snorts] Well, with with all the changes we have, do we need to see a revised version before we could make a motion on what's in front of us? Is it a motion to defer to review again next time or we could use some guidance there? I think well I would think we would make a motion with our proposed changes and then vote on it that way. Okay. Is there a way to delineate out those change? Maybe we get a little guidance from [clears throat] you all of how we

because we've thrown a lot at you here this evening. Right. I would agree. Well, so I'm I'm not interested in delaying the process, right? But I want to make sure that whatever we're asking for is communicated effectively and I'm not sure how to do that with all we threw at them. So So in addition to potentially a um variance or or a waiver for let's say children that are enrolled in school um what additional are we talking about? So we talked about

building the school registration and then the clarification of the extended stay in terms of the ordinance itself. So a uh a more detailed definition and then additional wording on the wording about the resident that it's beyond remodel. It could be new construction but for whatever reason they're and the school exemption along with the registration requirement. Right. So, however we phrase all that, I'm good. I'm just This is always fun when we're in remodeling and new construction. Yeah. Yeah. I'm happy to just add those two.

I'm happy to make a motion. Um I would make a motion that we accept with some um amendments. The first of which being a better definition of long-term um extended stay. Second would be the addition of um additional wording uh when it comes to remodeling to include also new build new construction new construction.

New construction new build. And thirdly, to uh exempt families with um children enrolled in county schools to include over the summer months when school is not in session. What about families with children who don't have school age children? Good. That is a good point. So, could it could it just save families with children that are experiencing I would be happy with that.

That brings up your point about trafficking. I like the I like the focus on the school. That's an excellent point though. So, some way to formulate that to capture that um younger child, baby, infant, toddler, group that might not be in school yet. Um, we can certainly work on that to have that a component of the exemption. Okay. But not um dependent on having older children. Does that make sense? Yes. They don't have to have an older sibling. That's right. Yeah. But are we addressing your point, the trafficking? Yes. [clears throat]

Well, that's what the registration was, right? Would do. Yeah. Okay. which is already okay. You're getting all that information. Okay, I got you. So, I guess the um the registration would need to include assigned school or but that's I don't think that needs to be included in this. Correct. It doesn't be in the amendment itself.

Okay. So my again my motion is um to add to the definition of extended stay or long-term to include new build in addition to uh re remodeling as a reason for extended stay and then also um children enrolled in school with also um children under school. I was going to say also to include children uh who have not yet reached the age of uh of school.

And I think I'll second that. So we have a first and a second. Is there any discussion? Um all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, thank you.

Moving on to our second item of new business, which is the master sign plan. L Karen Party is requesting approval of a master sign plan for the Westlake Market development. The subject property is zone general commercial and located at the northwest corner of Highway 55/highway 274 intersection [clears throat] council district 2. This was an item that was deferred from last month. Thank you. I'll start over since it was deferred for for [laughter] the work here.

Um again, uh the master sign plan just kind of going over what master sign plans are supposed to do. We're here because we expect a development over 100,000 square feet. um and uh required to have a master sign plan and you may approve may modify the the um they may ask for modifications to the sign plan. If you don't approve the sign plan, thumbs down, they just got to comply with current sign standards. Um and the current sign standards will apply to any signage that's not addressed in their plan. Um we kind of have a sign package for the entire development here and uh the applicant provided examples of uh the signs they're requesting and uh and com and and compared to the rest of what is found in the sign code. I've also included some examples of signs I found that were good comparisons. Uh in essence, you're being asked to approve the deviations from code. Um and this is big, long, and complicated. Um there's a lot of decision points. I've tried to break it down into like five sections. Um what I we would like to do uh is I'll go over the whole presentation, kind of digest it. Um if you want to hear from uh the applicant or not or have questions you can ask them and then what I would ask is to maybe make a motion to prove the whole sign plan and you can go through one through five and decide if you want to amend it or not. and and maybe that'll organize the the thoughts and kind of get bite-sized pieces. Um the first thing I broke down is the monument entrance signs. We just call them monument signs. Um they're proposing two entrance signs. There's a deviation from code. Uh sign A is proposed to be five feet away from the rideway. Um we find this is justified due to the u from 10 foot due to the site conditions. I got a picture of that and we'll talk about it on the slide. Um they're also

requesting a total sign area of 255 square foot each for each of these. Um that constitutes a deviation uh from the allowance of uh 150 square foot for these unified developments that have front. And so this here shows you a little area uh that's left over where they want to put the sign and they want to uh get a little bit closer to the rideway and they want to get closer the homegrown way not to uh compromise um the highway and uh when they come in to permit to sign they're going to have to show that they're not in a um sight triangle. If that's if they're in the sight triangle then we're not going to be able to prove it. Um they would have to come by and get some sort of variance if that was the case. Um, so I think that's pretty reasonable request. Um, here's another one in the eye of the beholder. Um, these signs are on Dave Lyle in Rock Hill. Um, the dimensions of the sign are pretty much right on with what the applicant has. You, you know, the the the grade is a little different. You would probably their signs are from the lower part of the grade. uh for if you're measuring total height. [clears throat] Um these signs have the sign area in the middle of that. That's pretty much in line with the 155ish area when I went measured it. Um the difference would be that they're asking the 255 would take the space of everything but the brick. It take it all the way to the top and all that way here. It' all be messy. Um so that would be the basic difference that you would see on the ground. Um there's a picture of it and pretty much same thing. Those are seven 17 feet tall. Um from brick to brick those were about 24 feet or 25 pretty much same sign.

Um this is kind of the site plan. And you can see where the freestanding A and B is um and the out parcels and we can go back and use as a reference when we talk about other signs. Next we're going to talk about monument signs for the out parcels. The applicant is proposing 50 square foot of message on an 8 foot tall sign. Um there's no allowance in code for unified developments um to have these monument signs. um you know they get a big entrance sign and they would have wall signs on on on out parcels. Um lots in non-residential development or nonre non-residential developments are uh minor non-residential which this isn't wouldn't be allowed to have the monument signs out there and they would could be up to 15 foot tall and 75 square foot. Um, the applicant proposes 8 foot tall signs of 50 square foot of messages for al parcels one, two, three, and four. Um, this is pretty much right on with what they're asking. It may be a foot taller depending on the grade, but that's basically a 50 foot sign out there in Dave Ly. Number three, wall signs. They're requesting two square foot of signage for each linear uh front of the building facade. Um the deviation of 100% basically we allow one square foot per linear foot in a code. Um they they've in their applicant they put they tempered this with the design of less than maximum signage for the out parcels of the shop tenants which may or may not be the benefit. It's a little convoluted. It depends. It's all equation depends on how much frontage they take and so forth. So I'm not sure how much to put into that but in

regardless they want two square foot of signage. Um and the other parts of this they want 300 foot of sign message for the anchor tenant. I don't find a big problem with that. We uh talked a couple weeks ago about um some amendments that came uh via the planning uh zoning committee and we recommended that they could have larger signs. Um, and then one more. They're asking for more than one sign per wall. Again, another thing that kind of on the road to hopefully being maybe be an amendment. Um, not too much of a ask. And the other one is another stylistic feature. My understanding they're proposing allowance for a canopy sign along 80% of the canopy to fit within the wall sign allowance. Um, that being the case, not a big problem. You have the amount of signage you could have regardless. Um, this is a deviation from the 10% allowance in code. Kind of works a little different way in in code. I think that's an addition to the wall signage, but this would fit in with it. It's kind of stylistic in nature and really wouldn't amount to more signage than allowed. So this is uh uh the applicant provided this to kind of show you the difference between uh the smaller square is one square foot um of sign per linear foot and x is a foot and a half and and the third is two and they uh put that on script what you might see in a signage you know on on top you have the one and to the right you have one and a half and you have the two square foot uh bottom do a little different proportion of those. Um, this is an example of the storefront. Um, those can be canopies. You know, you might see some letters on the canopies or something like that for cans. Other signage, um, these are signages

that, um, we generally don't permit, but they're asking for a little deviation, so I I'd give them to you, and I'll hopefully make this understandable. Um, so the incidental signs are kind of like directional signage and they want them at six feet tall and six square foot. Our code has an allowance of 4 feet and two square foot for these signs. Um, the next is temporary signs. Um, this is something we don't permit. Uh, I mean through the office is permitted. They would put them up and hopefully be within our code allowance. The code allowance allows for 132 foot sign. Um they would like two and uh they would decrease their allowance of uh 16 square foot signs from five to four uh somewhat of a tradeoff. And the next one is about the 8 two 8 foot tall signs. This would apply to the third to the up to 32 square foot sign. um they would like to have, you know, two of those signs on site rather than the one. And uh they'd have a decrease in the 15 foot signs from five to four. And if you're thinking about what is a 15 foot sign, it's probably the feathers or the flags or something like that. A 32 foot sign could something other than that. One more thing, the the fuel center, that's a monument. That's one of the out parcel monuments. Um, so that's kind of wrapped into that that request for the monument sign. They want to uh they want to put LED fuel prices. Probably something we could update the code with because um the options of nonLED are probably not as good as LED. Having a changeable copy sign is probably less attractive. But um so regardless, maybe wherever they might have to put this a good idea, maybe let them have the LED.

So these are are the um decision points that we can come back to. And um can you clarify for me is the fuel sign an additional sign or is that the second monument sign? Yeah, it would be one of the out parcel monument signs. Oh, it's one of the out parcel. Yeah. And this isn't it bigger than what we said the out parcel was? Yeah, it is a little bit. um bike, you know, well, you got like a message area and then you got okay, you know, the fuel area and and the applicant could probably um got go over that

and correct me if I would take in on any of that. It's kind of complicated uh application that we have 84 that's considering the fuel prices aren't messages. So, could we go back to the drawing you had with the larger signs in section one that showed where they were going to be placed?

Right. Okay. And can you back up one slide real quick? Sorry, one more. There we go. So [clears throat] when we look at this and and see where this is in relation to the road that's crossing perpendicular in front of it, Dave Ly, right? And come back to your Ruby Tuesday sign. Okay. Yeah. Can you come back to that one? Couple more in one more right here. And how far away that sign is from Dave Lao Boulevard. So that seems to me like it's more than 5T, but we're being asked in this that these would only be five feet. No, just Well, the one So, um,

a the one on A over there. And I have another slide that shows you that they have like a little remainder right here. It would go somewhere right in there. So, how far back from Charlotte Highway would that be placed? That would be they would have to be out of the sight triangle. I would say 10, but it may be more than 10 depending on you know where that is. They got to they can't block the the traffic, right? So what what's the request? Was there any it's just the size of the sign in the first place? Well, the one one request is to get five foot closer to homegrown way

because if they go up to the narrow part of that triangle, they just don't have a lot of you know there's not. Okay. So they're shortening the setback from Charlotte and getting from the homegrown way. Charlotte would still so that that sign's going to face homegrown way. You know, it's going to be perpendicular to homegrown way and it'll just it'll be back from the setback um from the highway, but it'll be a little closer to homegrown way than our code allows. We'd want at least 10 foot from the rightway. So it'll be parallel with Charlotte Highway. Yes. No homegrown way. It'd be it'd be going on home girl.

I'm having a hard time with my perpendicular and parallel. Okay. [laughter] But [clears throat] when I what I remember from school, I thought I heard him say perpendicular to homegrown way. Yeah. Right. You mean parallel. You mean parallel. Parallel. Yes. Okay. On me. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Railroad tracking. Okay. I was doing good. Yeah. So, so what we're trying to do is move from the smaller angle in that triangle towards Charlotte so that we can get it spaced away from homegrown way but still parallel with homegrown way. Is that No, no, I get the applicant to talk about this because I didn't you know you you seen you seen the um

example. So they're they're at that direction. It's you know Yeah. Well, that's back off of that's, you know, back off of the highway and a little bit closer to homegrown way because it kind of you got return and that will reduce how far it is away from Charlotte from homegrown way from homegrown way. It won't it won't impact how far it is from the highway. It's just so it's right there. That' be 5t like right there to Homegrown Way and still there's still so All right. So, okay. So, it's coming towards Homegrown Way, but it is not getting any closer to Charlotte Highway. Not that the code says and and and like I said, that's to be determined by the site when

that. Okay. That that's what I was trying to figure out cuz that that setback when you talk about sight triangle is trying to see down Charlotte Highway to come out of there, right? Okay. And I was trying to understand which wasn't obviously wasn't clear to me by everything I asked of how if they were trying to move that set back at all. Yeah. Okay. But it has to be but it's it's parallel to homegrown way the long side of the sign or the width of the sign or the whatever the way the way it's the way freestanding sign in that picture I would say that the sign is standing parallel with homeown. [clears throat]

It's all right. Is there any consideration for putting that sign on out partial three or you might can ask the applicant about that. I just have the I just have the application. It is that's not something I discussed. If you look at the other location freestanding B, I understand who owns the property, but it is within the boundary of the shopping center, let's call it, as opposed to before or after the shopping center. It's right there on the corner. [clears throat] What you're bringing up, John, is like sign B. It's within,

right? Yeah. Yeah. He's saying if A was mounted the way sign B was, it'd be in the same thing and wouldn't be an issue. Okay. I think that's all I had for number one.

I had another point for number one. If you drive through Lake Wy now, there isn't anything that approaches that size in terms of signage. And there are other multiple. There's a public shopping center. There's the food line. There are other shopping centers along 49. Nobody has a sign that's anywhere near this size. And you're asking about I understand the Harris ter is set back. It's not on 49 or 274 or 55, but there are going to be multiple signs, whether they're canopy signs, whether they're freestanding, uh whether they're on the side side of the building. Um, I just I have a personal bias, I guess, for proposing anything that exceeds the current standards whether they're published or not, you know, what what's currently there and would we be setting a new precedent by approving such a large sign?

Is this considered in Lake Wy? Yes. And okay, so another question I had kind of in general is the Lake Wy overlay district have anything to do with signs this? Yeah. And does it become a conflicting

we can have that but we violated the overlay district which was put together for a special reason etc etc. So well the cool comparisons are with the sign allowances in Lake Wy and through that long thing I did want to bring up one point too and I um we could talk about this a little about the monument signs you know if you if you if you want to entertain the monument signs you could also put different restrictions on that whether um they didn't know where they're going to put them if you didn't want more signs on the highway. It could be interior signs or or things like that but I just um wanted to throw that out there. But um yeah, they they are the standards that we're comparing them to is the Lake Wy science.

Oh, I just got a couple whatever. One clarification on um on number one. uh you've got 150 square foot um in your second paragraph, but then in your staff analysis, you got 105. So, I just want to make sure that it's the same 150 and that's just Yeah, 150 is the allowance that they would have with that code. They get 20 foot tall and 150 needs to be right.

Um in number two, maybe you could clarify some things for us. It says the commission in your staff analysis, it said the commission may want to explore if there's any unique site conditions that warrant the request. Could you give us an example of that?

Um, this is a new site. I mean, site conditions to me would be uh something to be overcome with an existing site. Maybe there's some, I don't know, grade challenges if this was non-frontage or if somehow they weren't able to reach their audience um for whatever conditions they may find. I'm not certain, but usually when we're looking at variances or or things when people need more signage, maybe there's a reason, maybe the applicant has has an answer for that. maybe you know you know there's things [laughter] to consider but I don't you know I don't you see in the application I don't I didn't see any of that exactly and this is a fresh green field site so

so really to leave it gray you know would probably be best but I I just wanted to see if you had examples um and then in um number three it says down at the bottom Here the page says the request regarding the additional signs per wall canopy allowance and 300 square foot maximum are reasonable but staff recommends additional scrutiny the request to double the sign message area per linear foot of wall. So what could we put in here that would stipulate that or are we going to talk about amendments? Well, you'll be able to make a recommendation where you accept the the two square foot for linear foot or something else or you'd have to go back to one. That that's in your discretion.

Okay. And just so I'm clear, the signs that you showed us on Dave Lyle, those are current standards. So that's the 150ish. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that that would be I would call that a compliant sign with the 150 for the frontage. That's what you'd see or what you could get out of that. Okay. Thank you. Do you know how tall those are?

About 17 feet. I mean, they're right on the money. Like I said, the grading is a little different. You know, like I said, the tall end of the long end of that target signs probably right at it. The other ones maybe a little bit just because the grade chains they go a little bit shorter. I know this is getting down into the weeds, but with lettering going up like that instead of across, sometimes people going they got to turn their heads when they're driving and that's not such a good thing. Uh especially if you can't What is that? It's just a comment, you know. I'd ra I'd rather see lettering, you know, how we read, [laughter]

but that's just kind of my overview on that. [clears throat] Sorry.

No, you're good. Don't apologize. So, we have um essentially one vote, but broken down into five parts. Um, unless somebody has a specific question, uh, there it's not a time. Um, that's the county's job. So, again, unless somebody has a specific question, um, does anybody have a specific question? So, does anyone have a motion? [laughter]

Can my question be, what does the applicant perceive as the inaccuracies presented? You can ask any question you'd like.

Sure. So, I'd like to put that question forward to the applicant. So, if you would please come up and state your name at the podium and your address, we appreciate it. My name is Karen Parti. Our office is at 2825 South Boulevard in Charlotte, North Carolina. think actually point at it or not. Okay, here we go. There you go.

So, this parcel here is owned by Ted helped me. It's news center news center who sold us help me out our parcel for development. And as part of that transaction, the agreement was that we would provide them signage at our entrance because they were tucked back behind this other parcel and would not have signage on 49. [snorts] They understand that that is their signage.

They won't get [clears throat] their own monument sign. So we are not over code. We've got I'm going the wrong direction. We've gotund Sorry. So sorry. We've got 150 square feet allocated for the shopping center and then we've got 75 square feet for new center for that parcel. And your ordinance allows that. It allows a 50% bonus when you are combining two different projects onto one sign. But so that gets you to 225. See, I've asked for 255. The additional 30 square feet are for our crooked sign. I'm willing to remove Westlake Market. It's nice to have the shopping center identified because somebody can say, "Hey, let's go get coffee at Westlake Market." Otherwise, they're going to say, "Let's go get coffee at the Harris Cedar Shopping Center." It It's not a big deal. If we're gonna if we're going to have to give up something, I'm going to give up the 30 square feet because I really [clears throat] with 18 shops, I need at least these six blue panels for my leasing team to be able to lease this space. That's all I'm getting to use. Harris Teter is going to use this big orange space up here, and New Center Property is going to use the green. So it it complies with code. It's just nobody's acknowledging the fact that we're representing this other piece of property back there.

So that was one of the ways that I felt like we needed to clarify. Um can I ask a quick question about the property? Absolutely. Would that secondary property that you're [cough] helping also become part of the shopping center at some point? It will be operated entirely independent. wouldn't the name Westlake would not apply to that property I guess is my question that unless you know differently I don't know

okay [clears throat] [laughter]

yeah I'm just giving you another reason to remove the West Lake because it could be confusing, not an issue. Um, and then going back to the question on just to clarify, I think I think we got there, but yes, our intent is to keep that sign tucked back in here, but we have a five foot setback from their property line and a five foot setback from homegrown that we're we're asking for as opposed to 10 and 10, which would have meant that triangle was too narrow to put anything. And while I heard the request about putting the sign on this parcel,

historically, I think I told you last time, our company's been at this a very long time. You're going to want to grab your customer as he comes down and let him see that sign or he has to make the decision to turn in. Yes, I think it's it is smart to have it before the turn as opposed to after. So, that's our goal there. That's what we would like to be able to if you're trying to make the turn after and look left and read it sideways. [laughter] You're never going to make the turn. You're never going to make the turn. So, as it relates to the monument sign, that's where we are. I also brought another visual with me. And I don't know if this is going to be helpful or not, but I was hoping to get one second. I need to see if I can figure out

that might be close.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger comes out of that, we're all in trouble. I used I used AI. Yeah. to help me figure out if I had a sign on the building and you were which clicker direction. Yeah. If you were at one of those 400 foot marks, let's say you had pulled up, you were going into the Harris ter and you look over and you say, "Oh, what kind of shops do they have over there?"

Would you be able to read it? So, this would give you the same impression as if you were standing So there's what actually Okay.

It's like a eye test. Thank you for the visual. Yeah.

Any other questions I can answer for you? I'll follow up on those signs. Would they be proposed on both the street side and the shopping center side of those buildings? Yes. Because many of those ten tenants will not have representation on the monument sign. We're going to encourage them to put signs on the back of their building so people know they're there. Okay. And that could be the same in the out parcels. the the out parcel signs, the 8 foot signs, are those proposed on the inside or the outside? I wasn't clear on that. I know I'm changing the They would be on the roadside.

They would be on the road side if the tenant chooses to put them. I mean, with building signage, you know, some some will and some won't probably,

but if anything else isn't clear, I'll be glad to come back and clarify. Thank you. And if I like this, that means I won't Rick, I'm sorry. Could we go back real near here was a aerial photo of the parcels here? Yes. Okay. If you wouldn't mind, I just a couple things. Um it's worthy um to want to provide signage for somebody else's property. Technically, not a front, you know, not a frontage issue. They have frontage not there. Um, and our sign code just allows them to have that much signage. They put whatever they want on it. Um, but you know, worthy thought, something to think about.

Is is there any stipulation in this that the other party understands they're not going to be able to have any additional signage because of what's being included for them? No. None. If if you approve this, they can put what they want on the sign. I mean, you can't really you can't, you know, for our sign code, we we can't regulate the message. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the designation of part of the sign for the undeveloped property, right? That that's what I think we were just Yeah, I'm just saying that we don't really talk that language. It's understood, but we could make that as an amendment that it's

I would recommend against it just because that goes against signed law and amendment. you know, you're you're allowing a space for them to put a message. It's their decision what they can put a message on. Um, I think it's a little dicey. You could you could ask Michael, but technically, you know,

but they would have additional restrictions. So yeah, what I'm what I'm just trying to clarify here is what I think I just heard was, "Oh, by the way, keep in mind that what we're adding down here is not for us. It's for them when they come along." Okay, great. Um, hey, that doesn't violate the code. Okay, great. Are all the parties clear? Then then that's it. There's not going to be another big sign for the next development that happens in that other parcel because your signage just got included in what we gave you the deviation for. Good question. Okay, that that's where I'm trying to get.

You have a thought on it I that that could go a sign expert, right? I just wanted to tell I think I was following I think what you were saying. You're saying the we don't have a name for this development. is the people who property shown here and they're trying to include the yet unknown or yet not yet to be determined development here. Yes. Into their signage and that's where the additional um entrance sign area is being included. Right.

And I think that's fair. If it was to be included, it should be part of the master sign plan. It should be included and held to the master sign plan and any changes that come in the future, it would have to come back in front of a board and have those changes approved because it's it's it's encumbered by the master sign plan as well. If it's part of the this entrance signs, then it's included as well, even though we don't have a site plan for it. So, we don't have it defined. Is this um the Harris ter project? But I think that's true that that I think you're correct.

Okay. and we wouldn't have to say anything special about that. I'm hearing from what you're saying, it's included by default because a deviation from that would need to come back to us. Yeah, I know I'm getting in the weeds here, but

I'm just trying to think in the application if it's if it's clear, maybe Karen can speak to that. if it's clear that it is encumbered by it. But so that may be a something the board could add as a condition just to make sure u just because I'm trying to think back through the application and because this development has not been approved by they were reviewed just in concept um it would be good to clarify it to make sure it is part of the master sign plan. Therefore these stipulations do apply um and any changes would have to come back update the master sign plan when this development actually comes forward and we actually the uh site plan for it. Great. Now, if we can just remember how to say that when it comes time to vote.

So, Mike, am I understanding you correctly that what you are concerned about is that when the new sub or not subdivision, when the new shopping center or development is built, that they will then come to us and say, then they'll come to us. We want a big sign. We want our big signt. Yep. And we've already designated space over here for this big sign and given an exception to make it bigger so that you could have it. So yes. Gotcha. Yeah. If we're using So everybody's clear. If we're using that as the basis for approval, then it should be included. Correct.

Yes, sir. That's right. If we're saying, oh, you're asking for all of this and saying it's rolled in together, then cool. Let's just codify that and make sure everybody's on the same page that that's what we agreed to. so that we don't have a later on of oh no we added that for other this and we still want to have it Yep. That's all. Thank you. I don't know if Michael had a thought on that because I just have I just have the one problem of regulating what they use the signage for if that's content regulating allocation. Okay. So that they would be encumbered because we say so. simply

but I mean the next so they would be so this this that that lot would be would have to be part of this whole sign plan they would have to come here and amend this sign plan they couldn't have their own I would need sign for that area just to be absolutely Acknowledge the representation that sign that parcel as well.

Okay. Not content. I have another question. Would that would that apply to both signs? Would you have to reserve space on the other one on 55 because you can also get to that future location from 55? I didn't understand the request to be different for the two different master monument or entrance monument. I'm not sure. I'm getting my monuments mixed up here. So, which those are the entrance monuments, right? Correct. And it I didn't see different versions for A or B. I saw that they'd be A and B and we've asked for it to be this way unless I misunderstood.

Just trying to get a clarification. Is the intention both signs would be equivalent. Okay. Thank you. I think they're trying to do a neighborly thing. I'm just trying to make sure that their neighbors understand what they're getting. Absolutely. Are there any additional questions?

I don't think so. Can we go back to the summary five point at the end there? Okay, I'm good. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve the master sign plan with the ability to go through each of the five areas if there's additional points that want to be brought out, I guess. So, I think you need to make a motion with the amendments, correct? Yes. Yes. So, we need to Right. That's what I'm saying. Amendments. Well, do you have them? Oh, [clears throat] so you're making a motion to approve all amendments by section. Okay. We've already discussed them. So, correct.

Yeah. So, I make a I strike that. Sorry about that. I make a motion to approve the master sign plan. The way it's written. The way it's written. Without any. No, with changes. I'm sorry. With changes. So, we got to we got to go over all we got to go through the changes. I think you could vote to approve and then make amendments to the motion. Well, that's what I was trying to do. And no, no, do not vote to approve. Yeah, we motion and then if you want to amend the motion or if you have a motion with all the amendments ready, make that motion in full.

But either way, you got to finalize your motion [clears throat] before you vote. Okay. You want to just go down those one by one? Yeah. All right. Number one, the the monument entrance sign. If we remove the West Lake, is it still 255 square feet or 225? 220. So, we get back to 225. Okay. From 150. That needs to be changed.

Okay. I've got that. uh out partial monument signs. I don't think we had a problem with the wall signs. It's currently one foot, right, of message per linear foot. We're asking for two. Do we compromise and go to one and a half? You can still the eye test still showed that you could see it from 400 feet away. So, um, and on the flip side, on the back side that's facing 55, that's going to be closer than 400 ft, right? So, there's two two ways to look at those out parcels. One is as you're driving by, it's going to be a lot closer. And while you're in the in the shopping center itself, so if nobody's opposed to it, I would recommend a foot and a half of message per linear foot. Um, describe what a directional sign is. Is that turn right, turn left or

could be entrance, exit, loading dock or something like that. It's kind of a big sign. And those are within the property. They're not on the peripheral. So they're in So is it directional for traffic or directional to direct people to a location? Did I just hear you say pharmacy? Okay.

Okay, I understand. They'll run all the people over, but they can see the signs. Um, I guess I'm okay with that. The fuel sign, I think there are already precedents set if you drive through Lake Wy that the LED is not is more common than not. Um, do you guys planning have a problem with the height or the size? Is it consistent with pretty standard fair? That's my two cents.

Well, quick question. Are we all in agreement on the one and a half versus two? [clears throat] That's what I asked if anybody that that was my proposal for the amendment. you certainly open to comment or I say does anybody have additional thoughts on the one and a half versus or the one versus one and a half or two? Well, I think the visual representation um two feet seem to make more sense if that's accurate. You know, it is slightly smaller as I get older. My eyes are getting worse every day. [laughter] Uh so I I would appreciate that. It didn't appear obnoxious to me. uh the size

and just for my opinion, you're driving, people are moving, they're trying to find each of the establishments. It's not big enough of a difference to where it's obnoxious, but I think it would help see help people see better. So, I would air on the side of two feet as well. Agree. And I have a comment on number one. All right. So hang hang on folks here just I think we are in the middle of an approval motion that's hung and we're kind of lost and we got into discussion. We did get

and so I'm not quite sure I Mr. Bach had the main motion and I believe he said he consented to those suggested amendments as presented. Correct. I think that motion requires motion as amended requires a second. Okay. So he'd like to make a motion with amendments. He consented to the suggested amendments, right? Which we have to find them. And so so let me go ahead and give you a second. Okay. So that we can now fully get into the rest of our discussion. Thank you. And following Mike, follow the rules and make sure we don't get too far out of bounds here. Now we've discussed several things. I say I didn't feel like they were actually spelled out. So

they haven't been and I think that's where we're in the discussion. So you you already I if you wouldn't mind because I've seen you writing down repeat for the group where we are so far. So we've discussed removing West Lake from the entrance monuments. Um we have pretty much said that we don't have a huge problem with the LED because there's probably already precedent on they're on every gas station. Yep. Correct. And right now we're discussing 1.5 versus two. And so far I'm hearing there are four of us at least that are okay with two. I concur with what's been said about that as well. So make it five.

How about you? You okay with bigger? I'm okay with two. Yeah. Are you okay with two? Okay. Um so it sounds like that's not That's a non-issue since that's uh as requested as presented. Yeah. What what was the clarification that was being asked about the 255 versus 225? So that was on the monument entrance sign. So that the vertical writing of Westlake.

Okay. So So that's what is taking us back to 225. Okay. Do we want to have a statement in there something along the lines of what we said about allocating to the other parcel? Right. I'm not sure how we phrase that. Do Michael, do you have a suggestion or I would simply suggest another amendment or qualification to the motion that the um master sign plan includes the allocations to the back developed lot on both both sides as I understand the requests. Okay. So, the new center property,

I think that's everything. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Can we just make a uh amendments and then have a new motion or do we need to vote down this and then Motification,

right? So that would be a motion motion. Sure. Glad you're here. Yeah. Yeah. Um so it sounds like we also though then need to vote on each of these amendments in part or in total. We can do it in part or in totending motion presum.

So I think what I'd suggest is that you motion to cover all the amendments and we can get a second to approve that and then that'll take us back to the main motion. Did I get that right? Not quite. We're we're discussing a very narrow Okay. consideration.

You you you need a propo. I view the main motion has already been amended with the with the specified components. Mr. Bach consented to that amendment before any rereading or vote. So now you need an amendment to include the this the back lot, the undeveloped lot. If that passes as an amendment, then you can vote on the motion.

Okay. So let me just recap. We do have a motion uh to include the amendments of removing the Westlake sign uh keeping the two feet as requested, which actually doesn't need to be an amendment. Sorry. and approving the LED. Again, doesn't need to be. And then um we need to make a motion to accept um or to convey that new center property is not allowed additional signage because they're included in this master plan. And if they need it in the future, they'll have to come back and

Okay. So, I'll make a motion for that. Make a motion to amend to amend with the restrictions on the signage as you've just outlined. Okay. And she gave me the second. Any discussion? Okay. So, now we need to vote on each of those. Okay. So, on the the one that's currently on the table, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And then the amendment passes.

That's a lot of amendments. We got a Yeah. Uh, so now we're just ready to vote. Now we're just voting. Yeah. Now we're just voting again and we don't need to have any more discussion. No. Okay. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Got it. Okay. And we have another thing coming up, Madam Chair, but we're coming to the 90 minute mark. Does anybody need a little break before we continue? So, we're requesting a a restroom break. Motion for a five minute break. Second. Second. All those in favor. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.

Okay. So, on to new business number three, which is uh the planning commission will receive information requested from staff on suggestions to better protect grand trees during ongoing construction.

Yep. So, I need to introduce myself. Uh this is my first planning commission meeting of after being here for almost five years. [laughter] So, um I'm Peter Kasiki. I'm their uh I'm the resident landscape architect at York County here. Um so I'll be discussing uh Grand Trees in particular in in regards to construction. So y'all voted a couple weeks ago out of concern um for a project particularly the Clover Village project up there in um 274 actually just right north of the uh Westlake Village project up there. So, um, staff had identified to preserve three grand trees up there a few years ago. I believe it's 2022. Um so the contractor developer they rolled out the tree protection fence at a uh the ordinance I've defined um one ratio which is the [clears throat] one inch per DBH um one inch per DBH per canopy radius is our is our tree protection ratio. So they installed the fencing properly per code, but we noticed that the trees declined after just two years. And so um after some discussion, we allow the developer to remove them after noticeable decline um due to root damage in construction. So even though the developer followed the rules, uh the trees still noticeably decline within that period. And so obviously there's some good discussion to have here because of this. So, our tree protection fencing is failing with these larger, older trees. So, the 1:1 ratio is a pretty standard ratio across municipalities. You look up any municipality in the area, um you're going to probably find that 1:1 ratio. Um so, it's it's pretty standard across local governments, um both city and

county in regards to that. Um but that one to one ratio does not include the nuance of tree age and tree species. So younger trees are more tolerant of construction um and certain species are more tolerant. So for instance maple is a little bit better about tolerance. White oaks which are most of our grand trees are white oaks or some type of oak species. They are not very tolerant of construction particularly white oaks. Um, I believe one of these was a white, two of them were white oaks, the other one was a peon in this example. Um, so we looked at some standards and did some research. I recommend to increase our tree protection uh ratio from one one to one to 1.5. So that would be 1 inch DBH to 1.5 feet per one dBH. Exactly. So where am I getting that 1.5? So there are there are a number of municipalities out there that have um proposed this. Um according to the North Carolina one of the North Carolina arbor arborist councils um a number of universities um they are they are a fan of this as well. Um and so number other argicultural um references would would allude to this as well. um anything beyond that it really becomes burdensome amongst the developer um is seen as extreme um so this 1 to 1.5 ratio becomes sort of the maximum ratio that I can really recommend and this is in reference to older trees that have a radius root um extension of up to three to four times the footprint the canopy radius of the tree. So if you think about um a

white oak that's say 40 foot in diameter, those roots could potentially extend 120 foot and beyond um that the trunk of that tree for at least especially for older trees, the younger trees, not so much. Um but the problem with that three to four times that that three to four time or ratio, it would really become burdensome on development, especially if you have like a smaller Chick-fil-A parcel. you're really pretty much saying that that parcel is not developable. So that one that one:1 ratio we recognize as Arbis landscape architects isn't ideal, but we have to marry that with the development realities of that site. And so that's why that one 1.5 ratio is really the sweet spot for protection because it does protect majority of uh your feeder roots and also your structural roots. There's two types of really roots, main roots they really need to be concerned about of trees. You got your structural roots getting you closer to your trunk going to be holding your tree in place. But then you have your feeder roots and those are going to lie in the outer extents of your tree. Um, and those are going to want they're just as they are described. They're going to be taking up the oxygen and the nutrients for your tree. But those are the most um sensitive to construction. that I mean you you cut those off and it could kill the tree essentially because that's it's feeding the tree and it's helping the tree survive. So I would recommend the 1.5 inch uh 1.5 in RA ratio um as a change from the 1:1 ratio and this would only be for brand trees. And um another thing to state is that gran trees are inherently older trees. though. And this is I would leave the one to one ratio in place for tree safe areas um and for buffer yards, but for grand trees because they're inherently older trees with larger root systems and they're

just not as vigorous. We need a little bit more protection for them. But I wouldn't go go beyond that one to 1.5 ratio. So Peter, I got a quick question for you. You talked about feeder roots and I understand that. Um, so with the 1.5, would the white oak be the only one that would have to be extended outside that one to 1.5 with the feeder roots?

I would say I would pro I would include most gran trees in that. Um, most of the grant trees in that in that region are going to be prone to um construction damage and sensitive. So the the species that we see the most um qualifying as grant trees are going to be white oaks, tulip poppplers, peacons or pecans. I know what you mean.

Um and I think we've seen maybe a few maples, but there's really only a handful of species that we see. And of those, white oaks are sensitive. So are and so are tulip poppplers. Um peacons are kind of in the middle. Some of them are a little bit more tolerant. Um like willow oaks are a little more tolerant. Um and we we've seen a couple of those here and there. They're kind of the middle of the road. There's another grant tree right up by the tractor supply company just south of Clover Village and it's doing great. And it had one to one protection there. Um and so you can even encroach root zones a little bit into that one to one. That tree will be fine. Um, but I just think those white oaks are particularly prone, especially the ones that are on the the edge of their lifespan. So, yeah.

Could it be stipulated that in certain cases that we would just go with the arborist recommendation into, you know, what the what the developer has to do or I I don't know. I I kind I know it's an open-ended thing, but yeah. Um I want So this arborist recommendation, would that be county arborist, which would be me? Yes. Okay, I gotcha. Um because we do have third party arborists that do look at submit reports to us um for the the recommendation as well. So um yeah, I'd like to keep it in the county.

Okay. Yes. I was going to say that that's there's a big difference between what the county would say and what an arborist working for that developer would probably say and this would be, you know, special cases where you would evaluate it and form your opinion. Yeah. Yeah, that would be fine. I I I think that would be nice to put that in the I mean there is there is quite a bit of nuance and that that one to one ratio is just it it doesn't hold up for a lot of these larger trees and it's kind of an average but like you said there is there is quite a bit of variation. So and it's I could see there being some discretion um being a good thing on this case. So

what if the discretion was the other way around? You set the standard at a foot and a half and then if someone pushes back on that or has a reason or valid reason to require less, that becomes the exception because I think what we're what we're trying to do and what Peter's saying is we're trying to maximize the survivability of these trees. And if you don't allow enough space for the roots to be protected, you can't go you can't go back and change it, right? I mean, and we've seen multiple examples of where you damaging roots. What and I'm not saying this is intentional.

I'm saying this this happens during the course of construction. I would say that the example you gave at at Tractor Supply that that tree was protected on three sides. It was protected all the way around. However, the only traffic, construction traffic was on one side of that tree. Yeah, it was. I think what happens is if you get a tree out in the middle of a construction zone, you've got I I think they're supposed to put mulch down and there's some other requirements. I don't know that that ever happens. Do you see it happen? I I I would just rather have the the Are we saying the same thing? Yeah. Yeah, we're saying the same thing. Okay.

Yeah. because I was asking him about the one 1.5 1.5 yeah if we establish a new measure then there could still be an exception that he would manage correct that's what I was trying but it's harder for him to go to 1.5 if it's not in the does correct that's what go to 1.5 and then at his discretion you know well from a staff standpoint it's definitely easier to start higher yes and go lower because typically developers want to try to go way up that as much as they can. That's what I was saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would like to go higher and really keep it high. Yeah. Yes. That's what I was trying to get.

How old do you estimate these tree? What's the lifespan of a white oak? Do you know? Um that's in a a book of dendrology, but I think white oaks can live hundreds of years. I think it's like three to 400 years. But that's in the most ideal condition. that's in the middle of a farm field that hasn't been touched and something that's in pretty good shape. Most trees are living 100, I would say around 100 or so because there's especially in urban settings. Street trees especially have very life short spans just because they're in so much stress.

They're surrounded by pavement. They have very little area to absorb water and nutrients and stuff like that. So you're like you're looking at like 30 to like 60 maybe. But yeah, there's it w it widely varies according to the environmental condition of those trees are in. Okay. So yeah. And the soils too. Yes.

Yeah. The soils. Yeah. So, some even some of your shortest growing trees or short um shortest lifespan trees like a a Virginia pine or something, they'll live 60 years, but they'll still outlive um you know, a white oak in a in a street tree environment if it if that Virginia pine is in a better environment. So, environmental factors are I would say number one in terms of um survival. um rate. So, yeah, thank you for the information. Appreciate it.

Can we make [snorts] some sort of um request that there be an ordinance amendment or does that need to come to us? We we don't have an exception in the in the ordinance currently. Is that correct for the for you to No, it's currently No, no, I'm sorry. Hang on. We're we're we're being asked to make a recommendation or or a revision to get to one and a half. This is a draft, right? Okay. This is the draft amendment.

This is the draft amendment. My question is, does the current ordinance permit any exceptions to how grand trees are treated? That is that Peter, you would be the one that would be authorizing today. Yeah. I mean, we we deal a lot with mitigation. though um because of the our county as being a pretty hilly county um we end up issuing a lot of mitigation permits for these trees. Um you typically see these commercial sites in sort of two to I don't know five to seven eight acre parcels.

I'm I'm sorry I'm I may not have been clear with my question and I apologize. What I'm trying to clarify is, do we need to add anything in an amendment to this that gives Peter or the county arborist, whoever that may be, the authority to adjust this requirement on a case-byase basis, or does that power already reside with him through the current ordinance? That's a good question. That's what I'm trying to clarify. It currently does not, but the one to one is the is the maximum. The one to one is currently. So, I think what what I'm hearing is um should I jump in and make a motion at this point? Go ahead. I'll make something though. It shows one and a half is the amendment. That's correct.

Yes. That's what's before. So, I make a motion that we approve the proposal proposed amendment from staff as is and add to that that exceptions can be made by the county arborist. That's good. And that was what I was asking basically. I got you. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. I'll need a second. You will? I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? And then what would the process be for that to take place? Well, that would be something the county would have to put in place about what that process is, but that there would be a process for there would be one and that would just be what the ordinance says. There is a process for that.

It has to go through the county arborist. It would need to delineate some with some specificity the the process he has at his disposal to address requests for reduction. Unless we have that today, then we have to be vetted with the planning and zoning department along with our office to set some parameters in place. Mhm. Hopefully knowing that the intention it sounds like of the commission is that really we're looking for more protection and not a lot of variance. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yep. Uh any additional discussion? All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Thank you so much. Thank you, Peter.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, moving on to our resonings of the evening. We have resoning 25-40. Christopher Mills, applicant, William and Karen Mills, owners, requesting to reszone a 2.81 acre parcel from RMX10 to RUD. This subject parcel is located at 991 Cole Branch Road in Clover and the property is referenced as tax map number 5710000006 council district 2. Good evening everybody. Tom Newman, long-range planner. So this property is just south of Gaston County along Lake Wy. The applicant proposes to allow the operation of a roadside agriculture and produce stand on the property. Um, you can see there are a couple structures on the site. The attached single family dwelling, a sizable garden, uh, space for storage as well as tube curb cuts that access Pull Branch Road. This area is predominantly residential. You can tell by all the zones. The uh, property does abut another rural development property. and the future land use. You can see this area is single family residential and rural residential. So staff recommends approval of this request with the following condition that the applicant remove one of the curb cuts along Pole Branch Road and create a single access point to the property. The request is consistent with the comp plan future land use map as it is larger than uh most of the other RMX10 uh properties in the area and the active use and characteristics align with the requested RUD zone. Any questions for staff?

If there are no questions, is there a motion? I make a motion to approve with the uh condition that the applicant remove one of the curb cuts along Pole Branch Road. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? How many curb cuts are there now? Two. Two. Two.

Okay. [clears throat] All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to reszoning 25-41. A ric Lake WY LLC. Applicant owner requesting to reszone a 6,400 square foot parcel from PD to GC. The subject parcel is located at 5356 Highway 55 in Clover. The property is referenced as tax map number 484000000003 and is again in council district 2. Very might look familiar. Uh we've talked about this a lot already tonight. Uh but this is at the Five Points intersection just off Highway 55. The applicant is proposing to incorporate the parcel into the Westlake Village Shopping Center as part of its open space. Uh it currently has a curb cut onto Highway 55 and is home to a two-story cinder block structure uh with a garage. So this is just context for the Westlake property that it will be joining with. U everything around here is generally generally commercial. Um again, Westlake Market is also general commercial as it is and future land use has this for neighborhood center where we're looking for uh those commercial uses that serve the immediate neighborhood with goods and services. We recommend approval as it's consistent with the comp plan future use map. We'll remove an antiquated PD for what was a special interest school since been vacated. Um the structure has also been demolished. Uh this contributes to the cohesive commercial development along major intersection and uh the other properties of our zone GC as well. Any questions for staff?

Is there a motion? Make a motion to approve. Second.

We have a first and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to reszoning 2542. Justin Justin and Ashley Messer applicants John McCarter owner requesting to reszone a 4.43 acre parcel from AGC to RUD. The subject parcel is located at 1285 Whitewolf Road in Blackburg. The property is referenced as tax map number 164000000009 uh in council district three. has properties along uh White Wolf Road in kind of northwest region of the county near Kings uh King Mountain State Park. Uh the app proposes to subdivide the lot and build an additional dwelling. Uh you can see the current dwelling is kind of centered to the south of the lot and has access direct down to Whitewolf. A lot of this area is undeveloped or rural residential in character and that's reflected in our zoning districts between AGC and RUD and the future land use also shows this where east side of White Wolf rural residential west sides agriculture and we see a conflux of these two uses um on either side of the road. So staff recommends approval of this request. It's consistent with comp plan future land use map. Uh the property is currently non-conforming. It's beneath that 5acre minimum lot size in AGC. And this request will actually form two conforming lots to the RUD zone. Um and we will match others within the vicinity. Any questions for staff?

Yeah. One question. Could [clears throat] the property owner I I know we're looking at two conforming lots, which is great. Um, but under RUD it the minimum's one acre, right? That's right. So, could the property owner subdivide into four lots? I mean, I I don't know if it's a I mean, I don't know if you could do that on this, but certainly with Do they have the opportunity to do that?

Yeah. Well, technically, as long as they have the acreage and it's all zoned RUD, there's that potential. Yes. that doesn't have to come back to us if they ask to subdivide into more. Right. That's all handled through staff. Yeah. So, so the main sticking point here is the fact of because in AGC they could add a second home, but in order to do that, they've got a non-compliant property. So they have to move through this process because it's less than five acres. Okay,

cool. Got it. Are there any additional questions? If not, is there a motion?

Uh, we'll make a motion to approve. [clears throat] I'll second.

Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to reszoning 25-43. Forsber LLC. Applicant Daniel Smith, owner, requesting to reszone three parcels that total 28, I'm sorry, 26.57 acres from UD to ID. The subject parcels are located on Leslie Highway in Rock Hill and the properties are referenced as tax map number 67300 0119 and 1 12 0 and 155. Council district 5. Good evening everybody. Uh this request is to reszone as you mentioned three parcels totaling approximately 27 acres. um parcels are located on the south side of Leslie Highway just to the east of I77. There is a uh Norfolk Southern Rail Line that runs along the top of these parcels. Uh they are currently a mixture of uses. The one to the furthest uh west is we believe some kind of a metal recycling business. Um the property in the center is mostly vacant with a little bit of a little bit of storage there. And then finally on the property to the furthest east are five single family rental homes off of uh Het Street. Um the intention here is to be able to develop the property to to construct an approximately 11,000 square foot warehouse building and utilize the remaining area about 17 acres for some kind of outside storage uh which is not an allowed use in the UD zoning district. Uh the intention is to in the future develop the properties uh to the east there where those homes are um to remove the homes and build there as well. Zoning for the area here. Uh there's still some significant amount of UD in the area, but just to the just to the uh the west of that, those

properties are zoned uh ID, but to the south are residential properties as well. for the comprehensive plan for the area here. Um the just to the the the west there is the I77 corridor and then this portion here where these sub properties are located is a neighborhood residential where transitions more to a residential sort of neighborhood kind of uses the proposed site plan. I'm just kind of walk you through this here. Uh the white areas, those white rectangles would be the future buildings. the area there in the green outline would be the area that they would have that gravel store or gravel area, maybe a layown yard, could be some trucking operations going on there. Um the blue areas is potential storm water ponds and then the the white outline is future development where those homes are right now. The applicant has uh voluntarily submitted some deed restrictions. Uh, one of them involves screening and even though they aren't allow or required to, they would screen the properties to the to the west side that's actually ab budding the ID properties. And they've also included a list of of use that they would actually prohibit from from operation on these these three sites. Um, I'm not going to read through them. They're in your packet here, but these are ones identified that they would not want to allow there. We are recommending the request here. As like I mentioned, it's not consistent with a comprehensive plan. um I77 quarter to the to the west was transitioning here to more of a neighbor neighborhood res residential area or institutional area. It's also not compatible with the surrounding area. It's adjacent to a high school just to the south of that and also residential uses in the area as well. And even though they've restricted a few uses, they're still allowing uh some area some uses are probably considered non-conform are not compatible with the area here as well. Any questions from staff?

The high school is to the south. Is that where it's at? I think if I go back to Well, there it is. So, um, the high school is to the south. So, it's it's actually adjacent to it. And then the property just over here as well. I don't want to hit Michael in the head. Um, that's also owned by a city, a Rock Hill School District. They could be a future use there as well for schools. So, both that one and the school use below it. I will make a motion to accept staff recommendation and deny the request.

Is there a second? I'll second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That don't work. That six to one. I'm sorry. Was there someone opposed? No. Okay. You just fell up.

Just just taking our time. Um, moving on to resoning 2544. uh Forsber LLC applicant, Linkwood Properties LLC owner requesting to reszone a 1.66 acre parcel from UD to ID. The subject parcel is located at 583 Linkwood Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 66613009, Council District 5.

This is a a 1.66 66 acre parcel located off of Linkwood Linkwood Road in Rock Hill. It's actually within a donut hole of the city of Rock Hill. The people there, but that's been hatched is a city area there. Um it's currently an existing uh building there. It's vacant. No longer has a tenant right now, but it was previously has been a a different kinds of light industrial type uses. um areas around there are also other um light industrial warehouse kind of uses within the city of Rock Hill as well as some within the county. You can see here that the uh we've added a zoning map here for those that are industrial as well as cities in rock parts in Rock Hill um and residential properties just to the south in Rock Hill as well as in the county. future land use map here for the area here municipal infill and because of that we look to the uh city of Rock Hills future land use map and see what they're recommending for here and they're called that as being an employment center which typically you would have light industrial type use within an employment center we're recommending an office request here while it's consistent with the comprehensive feature land use map and you can have ID within that employment center it's not compatible with the surrounding area there are residents nearby as well um as the Manchester Park and we feel that a light industrial might be a more appropriate zoning district in this area. It's compatible with what's already there right now.

Any questions for staff? Just curious if you had any discussions with the applicant about seeking LI instead of ID when they made the request. We've talked to them about that. Um, I think they're they're having some difficulty trying to market this property and get a tenant in there and they felt that the ID was added more opportunities for them to be able to go that route and that's why they were requesting ID. Um, we would still support LII for here just given the location. Um, you know, there are apartments just south of that. Yep. Mobile home park here. There's a lot of residential properties around there for those intensive ID uses. I when I read it, that's what it was coming to mind. You'd be proud of me. part of LI right away. Yeah, that would be more appropriate for what's

finally starting to get the hang of this and that would allow them to get the outside stores like they'd be able to do there. They can't do that right now in UD. Any additional questions? Make a motion. Yep. I will make a motion to accept staff's recommendation and deny this one. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to reszoning 25-45. Jonathan Kidd, applicant Robert C. and Georgia B. Kidd owners requesting to reszone a 1.90 acre parcel from RSF40 to RSF30. The subject parcel is located at 1976 New Grey Rock Road in Fort Mill. The property is referenced as tax map number 656 00000022 council district 1. Yes. So this property is just outside TK's jurisdiction um in and amongst the Baxter village development. So the applicant is seeking to subdivide the lot and build an additional dwelling. Here's a bit of a mockup of a potential subdivision they could pursue. Um certainly with the amount of acreage they have um there is technically enough land for two RF 40 lots with the addition of the new 10% rule. Um however we found that RF30 allows for more flexibility in how they may potentially divide it. Um given they have to account for things like septic field.

So as we can see in the zoning again this is kind of a donut hole within Baxter Village. um buts right up to DK um generally residential uses in the area and that's also reflected in the featured land use map. So we recommend approval of this request as it's consistent with the comp plan feature land use map. Um the allowed use of scale and character is expected within the designation and the size of lots created as a result of the subdivision will be closer in scale to the other residences in the area both in Tig and incorporated York County. Any questions for staff? I I only have one. Will there be a Is it recommended by y'all to have a separate driveway to that newly installed residence even though it's on the or can they just share that drive?

Um I mean I'm sure they could pursue an easement if they wanted to and share the driveway, but most likely I assume they would have their own driveway. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, moving on to our last resoning of the evening. 25-47 Eric and Kristen Hunsburgger applicants owners requesting to reszone a400 foot parcel from UD to RMX10. Subject parcel is located at 228 Ridge Reserve Drive in Clover and the property is referenced as tax map number 57600162, Council District 2. This is another property uh just off the lake um and is part of the Herren's Cove subdivision. So, the applicant is proposing to build a single family dwelling here um on this undeveloped lot that was originally part of the subdivision when it was created. Um here's just a quick concept of how they would do that. Just kind of proof that a you know detached single family home could fit here. uh that kind of fits the form and shape of the other homes in the subdivision. And you can see there's a smattering of UD, but most of the subdivision has flipped over to RMX20. Um certainly this was once all UD once, but later when um it was council initiated, incorrect, that changed all these over that qualified to RMX20 to flip over. This property was of course too small to conform and was left out. and future land use has this all single family residential. So, we recommend approval of this request and while it's technically not consistent with comp plan future land use map since um the requested zone is quite a bit smaller than what's expected in single family residential um but the allowed uses in the current UD district are incompatible with the neighborhood um considering it allows things like

industrial manufacturing production um and doesn't even allow residential uses. Uh the requested RMX tone is the residential zone that accommodates a lot of the size while still allowing it to be residential. Any questions for staff? With with so many parcels there, Thomas, that are UD still. If anyone attempted to do anything there, they would still have to come to us because UD doesn't exist anymore. There are still uses by right that exist, but um unless they were grandfathered, I don't believe anything new could be constructed. Correct.

Yeah, most of these things are are actually built out. There's still a couple of vacant lots within this profits area here. Um, we also allowed a a there's an amendment that we made to the uh to the zoning code that allows some amount of a non-conforming use to be able to have a small expansion up to a certain percentage. So, if there's some properties here that are zoned UD and want to be able to add a deck, they can do that without the property getting reszoned before they had to get before they had to get property resone to nonUD and then add the deck. We've made some amendments to be able to allow them to do that. And and just to clarify, I think I heard you say that council did something to reszone a lot of this.

Well, actually, it wasn't council initiated for these ones here. This is when we had the UD project back in 2015. And we went to neighbor to neighbor and said, "Would you like to get the property reszone from UD to a residential district?" And some folks said yes and some folks said no. And so, if you go back and you can see the zoning, you can tell the ones that said no are still gray, [laughter] right? Okay. And so if they attempted to do something beyond a certain expansion limit, they would have to come in correct and probably get a reasoning. Yes. Okay. We would support all of that. And it's still there's no charge. There's no fee for that one. So is is anything here still vacant? There's still I believe one more vacant property. Um

sorry over your thing. [laughter] Yeah. Still I think the neighbor next door I believe is still vacant. And that one's still UD. Yes. Okay. Yeah, but they can't build a convenience store there [laughter] in UD, right? Except back in front probably stop. Probably wouldn't have enough room for a residence, right? Okay. Are there any additional questions? No. No. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

We have a first and a second. Is any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Uh, so we are finished because our last resoning was deferred. Um, taking a look at the resoning tracking sheet. Are there any questions? Is there a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second. There we go. All those in favor?