Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this uh January 8th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. We do have a uh amendment to the agenda. I'd like to make an a motion to um to flip-flop the final public hearing and the first uh order of new business. Unfortunately, um uh somebody's having trouble is involved in some traffic. So, um our number two uh public hearing is going to get switched. Can I get a second on that? Second. All in favor?

Okay. Anyone opposed? Um, so then any questions with the minutes from last um month? I almost said semester. Sorry. If not, is there a motion? Make a motion to approve.

Second. Second by Derek. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, the first order of business this evening is a public hearing. Um, if you would like to speak for or against the first point of business, which is um, excuse me, which is the waiver uh, W25-04 for Clint and Deborah Parker to request a land development waiver to remove the internal access road requirement for a major subdivision on property zoned rural rural development. The subject property is located at 2731 Meadow Road in the Clover community and is identified as tax map number 35700 056 council district 3. So we'll get a little bit of information and then we'll open that up.

Thank you. This is a a waiver from land development code for internal access requirement for major subdivision. Um the reason we're here, oh boy, new one. Um so you see the the pie shape there. Um when you get more than seven lots, you need to you're supposed to have internal um access of the road and you see the there's five um lots on the X arc of that and then there's one lot in the middle and they want to divide the lot in the middle into three. Um but we end up with eight um and already been subdivided and they're triggering the the major subdivision which would mean um by code they're required to have internal access. Um here's a zoning mostly all RUD. Um this is a proposed uh shared driveway instead of an access road. It still have the one um access point on Meadow and it would access all three lots. Um and they have enough lot width to meet the minimum driveway separation at uh 275 ft. The three lots again would be accessed by shared driveway and one point along Meadow. Um the access wouldn't be increased anymore than existing or proposed with the road. So it really doesn't add any more access points. Um and this access would be maintained by the users owners of the property rather than the county or state. Um so the findings for the internal road it can't there has to be a provision to cause unnecessary hardship and we believe the requirement um for the internal access for these three additional lots uh would be an unnecessary hardship um and it wouldn't result in any different

uh function for the roads or anything um just as well and also save the county a little money on maintenance. So we find that the pros waiver meets the criterion. Um and then we need to find that this uh can be made without defeating the purpose of the chapter. And uh and basically the access is a big issue here. We want to um for for uh subdivisions of more than seven lots, one that would hit all the lots um and this this one three lots with three single family homes on them wouldn't require the constraint. We would find necessary as a larger subdivision and all the other uh lots on the ark already have access. They wouldn't benefit them. We would find a proposed waiver meets the criteria and since it meets both criteria, we'd recommend approval for the waiver to allow the subdivision to have a driveway access instead of a roadway access.

Any questions? I got one question, Kate. Rick, um, is it would it would it be required to do an easement for whoever um, owns the three where it would be documented and put in the Yes. Yes. Okay, that's it. I have one quick one. The gravel driveway basically takes the place of an internal street, right? I don't know if they want to pay for it. Uh they I think that they um I'm actually taking over from Mary and I believe in the staff report says they they may pave it but they would need an apron or commuter driveway standard that's uh okay

wouldn't necessarily mean pavement but the county is not responsible for maintaining it. So we don't Let me ask this question. If that if that gets approved, the fact that they can put a driveway, a shared driveway in the future, do they need to come back if they decide they want to put separate driveways that meet the existing criteria at a later date? Let's say they decide they don't want that internal driveway anymore. Each lot wants their own driveway. Yeah. The variance is pretty specific here and and uh the papers in the ask for this was to share a driveway. Okay. So, if they weren't shared that one driveway, I would need to come ask permission for it.

Yeah. And if it's included in an easement, it's documented. So, that's all I had. Thank you. All right. Real real quick one. Rick, could we go back to the photo aerial view real quick? Yes, sir. So from from looking at the packet here, these these five properties down along the bottom are included in this development. Is that right? Well, they're included in the account that makes it a major subdivision. They've already been subdivided. Right. And so my question is every one of those properties enters Good Road. That's how you access those properties, right?

Sure. So why not for these three just have each one of them access metal road and not have a requirement for not have to put the driveway in gravel in at all and the deviation would just be that they would access from the state road. Well that's where that would well that is meadow. No sir I'm I'm saying there would be no yellow line on that and each of the three properties that are going to be three distinct residences would have three separate driveways on State Road. Well, it could be an applicant. This was this was the request um for that. Okay. I mean, you could adjust it in your decision if you like. Okay.

If they would would want to do that. I don't know that they would or that was seen advant advantageous. We did make findings that you know or your staff report this wouldn't be any more impacting than the existing un subdivided road uh parcel or a road. So, okay. Thank you. Well, it's a public hearing, so you'll have Oh, I'm sorry. Yep, that's right. Public hearings. Forgot. Any other questions?

Okay. So, this is a public hearing um to address this issue. If there are um people here to speak either for or against uh this waiver, uh if you would come to the podium and just introduce yourself and give us your address, we'd appreciate it. and then um we'll put a you know time limit of like two minutes and then or less and then have questions as needed. Okay. Um so my name is Deborah Parker. Um me and my husband Clint actually own the parcel that we're talking about now. We do not own the other four parcels that were previously subdivided. I'm sorry. And your address?

Um my current address is 27059 Catamaran Drive in Tig. Um, we have recently purchased the property and we are subdividing it with our two children. Um, so actually they were supposed to remove the shared driveway when we presented this to the council because when I had spoke with Mary and she wanted it proposed as three driveways because it could be deed as three separate driveways. Um, we have more than ample road frontage. Uh, I think the smallest acre has or the smallest lot actually has 400 feet of road frontage. So, according to South Carolina DOT, we can have individual driveways. Currently, we're choosing not to do individual driveways, but if the property were sold in the future by my children, they could actually then apply for a DOT permit for another driveway.

So, Diane, quick question. Would they then run into the qu the issue that John was trying to bring up? Mike. Mike. Gracious for tonight. I'm just having I'm having a night

having a night already and we're already 10 only 10 minutes in. I apologize. Um, so is it an issue since it'll be over that seven limit of coming back later? So, so like Rick had said, if if the document includes that they're going to be putting in shared drive a shared driveway, then they must do that. If they wanted something different, they have to come back and request to remove that requirement. Um, and also like Rick was saying, the purpose of that shared driveway is instead of having one road, one access, you just have one driveway, one one access. That keeps it sort of apples to apples. Yeah. If you have three, now you have three access points where a road would been built, you just have the one access. That's why staff was supportive of that. Like

I guess my question is more is that something that they would have that would have to be a a condition of sale. Correct. I mean they couldn't Well, they would they'll put an easement actually on the uh on the plat that says a shared access point, shared driveway. So that would be required for it to go forward. Yeah. So if if you then did decide at some point down the road to sell, it would be a requirement that then you would have to come back. So, I mean, it would be a hardship, I guess, a little bit on you guys, I guess, is what I'm just trying to get out. Okay, we're okay with that. Okay. And if I might, it seems makes more sense that it's a the family. Yeah, absolutely. Building on those three lots, you could conceivably put a gate, right,

at one location instead of having three gates if that's what and that's the purpose. Okay. Yeah. Mind reader. We wanted one access point for all of us. It makes sense. Any additional questions? Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak against this waiver? Okay. If there's no one else here to speak, um, we can I have a motion to adjourn from uh public hearing. I'll make a motion to adjourn from public hearing. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll second.

So, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, we are going to switch it up and um uh do do we need to make any ruling on this? So, we've closed public hearing. Now, do we need to make Right. So, um so what I'll make a motion to approve as recommended by staff. Okay. So, we have I'll second a motion on the table and a second. Is there discussion? All of those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, now we get the check mark.

Are you presenting our preliminary plats tonight? I have a Yeah, I have a few. Found out this morning I'd be doing that. Okay. So, we are moving ahead to um our first order of new business as opposed to our second preliminary hearing. Correct. Yeah. Perfect. This works pretty good because this is a followup on our waiver application for the um actual preliminary plat.

Um again, you've saw this picture before um and the zoning. Um basically seen this before. You're going to make the three lots. You know, you have 12 acres and you're going into three and some change in two four and a half acre lots. Um pretty simple. They're going to have well septic. uh they meet the minimum size requirement of an acre and uh they don't need actually don't need DEC approval for septic at this time since they're more than two acres. Um again they made the density requirement. They're doing it 33 residential units per acre and they can do up to one. Um and the TIA was not required for this project. Um we believe they have adequate u connections and pedestrian facilities and health and safety their access from metal road intended by large lots of a rural nature just same as we had before time

yeah the required open space and buffer has been provided 20% open space is not required for rud and uh tree survey has been completed and accepted by staff and we recommend approval for this plenary Any additional questions? I got a real just quick one. Mike has a question

of when we're in Now, this is part of major subdivision even though they don't own it, right? It's M. Okay. Does does the canopy cover or open space come into play because of that versus the RUD? So, so in other words, this is a subdivision, right? And I think I just read we didn't have those that 20% green space. Yeah, that's true. Does the fact that it's a subdivision now put them in a different category that they have to have something? I

just want to make sure we're dot eyes, crossing tees, right? That we might not have to rule some other exception for them with this. Yeah, and that's what I have in a staff report. I want to read it again. I didn't make the staff report. I'm doing this out. That's okay. I I know I'm putting a little pressure on you, Rick. Oh, it's not any pressure at all. Just take a moment. It's all right. Um, I can help you out here. So, um, so an RUD does not require any open space and so, but a tree save I believe is is it required for the minor one as well or just the major? Uh, tree is required for based on

so yeah they yeah so the tree save is required for for both whether it's major or minor heroes require a tree save okay which we already would have calculated that previously and so the the amount of green space is determined by the zoning that it's in not so much by whether it's a subdivision so also make sure we're talking about tree safe versus open space and not green space okay so so tree safe is required for All of them open space is required by the district and so RUD does not require open space whether it's major or minor is not required. Okay, cool. Thank you Diane.

Any additional questions? If not, is there a motion? Make a motion to approve. I'll second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, we you'd like I can do I I don't think we have an applicant in here for the last one. If you if it's okay, I could do Hope's Corner before the next What's the I could do number four.

Okay. I will make an Excuse me. I will make a motion to um again move up the next that's the next plat. Yeah, it' be my different motion. Madam chair, why don't we move that one to the end of the agenda for now and when and if the applicant comes in, we can move it back ahead so that we don't have to do this if we have two or three more delays. I'm Is that acceptable? That makes sense. Yeah. So, we have a motion. you can just amend the motion to Mike's point and then we just need a second and a vote. Okay. So, is there a second to Mike's amended motion?

I'll second it. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Good idea. That clears it all and now we can roll through whatever we need to roll through. So,

thank you, sir. We are now moving on to new business. Um, our second item of new business, which is a preliminary plat for JCM Corporation of York County. They're requesting a preliminary plat approval for a revision to the previously approved Hopes Corner subdivision. The subject property is uh zone rural development and is identified as tax map number 44400 036 137 144 and 145. Council district 3.

Okay. This is a preliminary plat. It's basically a revision of a a preliminary plat. The applicant is seeking approval of the revised preliminary plan to allow for removal of a tree save and uh easements tree safe easements on lots 20 and 21. They want to replace them uh with proposed tree safe on lots 20 and 29. Um because of building concerns on on 20 and 21, the tree saves make those lots uh kind of undevelopable. And this is a picture of the one ones on top where the tree save area is currently and the ones on bottom lots they're proposing it vicinity map and you see the zoning map for mostly RUD rule stuff. Um this is a map made up to show you the areas that um area in blue is a previous tree save site. They're moving it the blue areas into the red and uh we have some green unchanged areas but the numbers are working out to make meet the requirements for tree safe. Um picture of the plat kind of on a side because that's which way the words are going. Um but nothing else is changing. The lot's changing. Lots aren't changing there. There isn't anything about the previous plat that was approved is proposed to change. Um, so the only thing we're really looking at is uh a tree survey and just a finding that it we accepted the amended tree survey. Yeah. Here granting approval of that, do we recommend approval?

Are there any questions?

If not, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve as recommended. Second. We have a first no second. Is there discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to our third order of business. The planning commission is to review and provide a recommendation to amend chapter 154, Land Development Code section 154.202, tree protection during construction to increase the tree protection radius for grand trees.

Yes. All right. So, uh, from our previous meeting, as you know, we've had some issues protecting our grand trees. Um, this shot was taken from Clover Village, um, as as John had brought to our attention. So, um, these trees, um, and all trees within the county that are grant trees are supposed to be protected at a 1 foot canopy radius to 1 in DBH protection radius. And this is pretty standard across the board. Um did some comparative analysis from last time. I know that um needed to be looked at um from last time. So I'll just go to the table um here. And most counties and and municipalities in South Carolina do use that one one protection radius. Um but we propose to increase that to 1.5 to give these cha trees a better chance at survival um and also protect their structural stability uh and give them longer term success. So there is one county Lexington County outside of Colombia they do protect at one.5 to one inch radius uh protection. Um, so it it is unheard of. Um, and it is within within best practice to do so. Got lost a little bit here.

I think I'm going the wrong way. Say we're now we're Yeah. And we're done. Yeah. Out here quickly. Let me get back to uh All right. Close. Need to back out of here.

I was going to say you went backwards.

Oh, one more. One more. I don't know how to stop this thing. Okay, here we go. There you go. Great. Oh, you're going. No, you're going too fast. We got to go back. Uh oh. There you go. It seems to be playing. I think that's the problem.

Okay. Yeah, there we go.

Sorry. I had the uh play button on here. All right. So, back to the presentation here. So, under our current tree protection guidelines, so we do the one to one inch radius. We'd amend that to the 1.5. Um, and this is just diagrams from last time. If you increase it, you're you're helping to better protect those feeder roots and uh structural roots um in tandem there. And uh these are the factors um listed in the ordinance. So um it wouldn't uh change the comprehensive it wouldn't conflict with the comprehensive plan or the future land use map. Um this amendment would not uh conflict uh with any of the adopted plans. Um as mentioned before, this amendment falls within best practice. Um and then lastly, increasing the street protection radius u would help to improve survival rates. Um and that would I think would really um contribute to public safety and general welfare. Um if we are to keep these trees uh we do uh as mentioned before in the last meeting we do um mitigate allow for mitigation for a lot of our trees and one of those concerns is public safety. If these trees are going to be around a lot of people who definitely don't want any issues with limbs or branches falling on people or cars or anything within that vicinity. um and increasing that tree protection radius would would definitely help. So um and that's that's pretty much it. So

thank you. Are there any questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Uh any discussion? Yeah, I just wanted to say that to put it in perspective, more trees are mitigated than not. I don't know what the percentages are. So, what we're basically saying is, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but what we're basically saying is for the trees that are deemed important enough to keep that qualify as grand trees that are healthy when when you look at them. And again, it's a minority of even within the Grand Tree survey on a on a given plat. We're just trying to save the ones that have the most opportunity to assist. Let's put it that way. Yes. We're looking at the

two separate those two different trees, right? The one oak and you know, the ones that are old. Yes. Um Yeah. I mean, most of our grant trees are are going to be old trees. I mean, just because of their size. Yeah. Um I mean, you're looking at at least 50 years plus on the at least the average grand tree from there. Um

and you know, we we mitigate 90%. So, we're looking at the the small minority, the 10% of trees that are deemed valuable enough and in a good enough position within a site to actually contribute um as an asset to a site. and have a chance of survival. But even those 10% if they're not protected properly, they will die um if roots are cut off. Um and I just I don't believe that a one protection radius is enough, especially for these older white oaks that are usually our grand trees. So,

so I have a question and um so will this if it passes when it goes into effect I mean immediately I'm assuming would that be retroactive to things that are already under construction or would that be for any new projects? To my understanding it would be all new projects. So we wouldn't be able to go out and extend some of the things already in motion. I can't confirm, but I don't think so. So, once something's been approved, it's Yeah. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. There's been discussion. Is there any additional discussion? All those in favor?

Any abundant opposed? Thank you. Thank you. So now we are moving on to uh number four on our new business which is the master sign plan. Rise partners LLC is requesting an approval of a master sign plan for the Newport Commons development. The subject property is zoned planning development PD and is located at the southwestern corner of the of Highway 161 and Highway 7 274. Um, the adden church road intersection council district 3. Not that hard, Peter.

Hi, Jim Kersner. Uh, county zoning. He's a I had to do it. I had to get

I don't know how the rest of these buttons work, though. Let's see. So, we have a master sign plan application for Newport Commons plan development. This board's already seen. This plan development's already been approved by council as a resoning. Um, but this is part of the master sign plan which is a part of that plan development project. We have the vicinity map. It's basically off old Jerk Road in Adma Church Road, those parcels. We have the PD zoning or vic zoning map for it. Um, here's the Newport PD um reszoning plan. I don't know how you highlight in here work. Oh, it does work.

Uh, this is pod one. You've looked at this before. This is what the area we're talking about. There's a residential portion pod two, but this is focused on the retail pod of the PD. So, the master sign plan, special districts in regional non-residential developments require a master sign plan. Uh, plan developments are required uh to have a master sign plan. So specifically it is a special district basically PD or a special district. Uh the planning commission may approve modifications to the standards of the sign code. So the applicants presented a master sign plan. Uh you we're going to look at um what standards apply how they compare to our base code standards and you can um make modifications or conditions to it. Um along with the applicant, uh the applicant has proposed a master sign plan for pod one, as I said, for the Newports Commons. Uh pod one will be the commercial area. Um as a PD, the master sign plan will be the sign design standards for the project. So we just had a master sign plan that was a modification to the general commercial district base standards. For a PD, there's not really a base st there's not base science standards per se. There is the general code standards for signs, but specific standards like the size of a ground sign is not, you know, for a PD, you have to establish that. And so the the master sign plan is both modifying existing base code standards for signs, but also establishing establishing them for the PD itself. It will be a document with along with the PD other stipulations for the PD that you've already looked at. Um the PC is being asked uh asked to approve the request that deviate from existing code as we'll point out. Uh the current sign standards will apply to the sign standards not addressed in the sign plan. There are some just basic sign standards in the in definitions in the code that we can utilize and then the

master sign plan if that's adopted. That would be essentially the ba that would be the main standards for this particular zoning district. Uh number one type of signs, monument entrance signs. The applicant is proposing four entrance signs. Uh two are at York Road. Uh one at Adna Church Road and one at Lionberger uh Lane. Limeburgger Lane is the new road they're building off of um basically on the corner of Old York Road to access into the plan development. So it'll be a new road. the the actual dimensional standards proposed for these signs will be equal or less than the uh code standards for the regional non-residential development. That's the regional non-resident residential development or as you remember commercial developments, non-residential developments. They have at least 100,000 square foot of floor area. This development far far exceeds that. And we're kind of use that as a comparator uh for this PD master sign plan. Um the signs A and B, which we'll flip to that. Um let's see. So we have A and B right there. That's the largest proposed sign. Uh large signs A and B are proposed to be 20 ft in maximum height and 150 square feet in maximum message area. Um sign C which is um a smaller sign will will be six feet in max height and 19 square feet in max message area and sign D will be 11 ft in max height and 50 feet in max message area. We'll get to the map and show where these different signs are at, but that's the stip that's the size and dimensions they're proposing for these different um monument signs. Uh the ma the master sign plan deviates from zoning code by proposing to have four entrance signs for the development uh for pod one. Uh

pod one will have three road frontages. That's one extra basic multi-tenant or entrance sign, monument entrance sign, you know, because it's uh the code allows one ground sign, one entrance sign per road frontage. And there's three road frontages, four signs. That's a that's that's the deviation. uh from just being a just a a for this for these signs for being a re if it was a regional non residential development. Um again here's are the actual signs proposed and the dimensions of them and there the last one is uh E which will talk about the out partial signs they're proposed which is also in here. Uh here's the map that we have. This will be Lionber Lane and Old York Road. That's sign A. Sign B is as another entrance also on Old York Road. Sign C also on Limeburgger Lane but farther down. Um basically entering from the residential portion of the PD and sign D is proposed to be on Adnet Church Road. And those are the four entrance signs. This is another um aerial. It kind of shows the location on the parcel. Give you an idea of where these signs will be located. Uh the second type of signs are monument signs for the outlot. So there's there's four proposed outlots and they're proposing to have a 70 foot square foot max sign area like a ground sign and with a maximum height of 12 feet. Uh, as we've talked about with the previous master sign plans, when you do a non-residential regional non-residential development, you're supposed to have just one or the code requires one joint

um, development sign per road frontage. Um, but they're asking for each parcel out parcel out lot to have their own sign as well and and use the entrance signs for the development and for like the primary tenants on that parcel that retail parcel and each outlot also have their individual sign. So that's a deviation from code. And the size of the sign is comparative with our our u our minor runon residential development lots basically our smallest retail lots and their sign sign. So if they each as we talked about before each individual lot if they just had a sign apart from the development this is about the size of the sign it would be. So it's not a deviation from the size. Um, for wall signs, the applicant is requesting buildings with requesting buildings less than 100,000 square foot of floor space. The maximum w sign message area will be um two square feet for one linear foot of wall width. And that's for primary walls as established in the PD in the site plan for the PD or an option of 10% of the facade area with a maximum total message area of 400 square ft. Um this is a deviation because the code allows only current code only allows one square foot for every one foot of wall width. Um, and allowing the 10% option is an increase u is also a change to the base code. As this board is knows, there's a a text amendment in front of the council right now u to change some of the wall sign standards to possibly allow a 5% option to allow a maybe possible larger 400 square feet up to maybe 600 square feet total message

area. Um it's currently in review now. So some of these standards are going to meet base code uh just not right at the moment and but some of the things like the two per one and the 10% is not what's being proposed right now in the text change. So that is a little bit different than even what's the text change shows. Um for they're requesting for buildings with more than 100,000 square foot in floor space area, the maximum wall sign message area will be one for one or one square foot for every one foot linear foot of wall width um or 5% of the primary wall facade area. Again, reflecting back to possibly uh uh the code change up to a maximum message area of 600 square f feet, which if you remember that's being proposed possibly as well for buildings over 100,000 square foot um possibly going up to 600. So that that could become base code, but currently the master sign plan's kind of reflecting um that proposal. Uh wall signs continued. The proposed PD will allow more than one wall sign per primary wall. Again, that's another proposed text change that may happen where we don't have a restriction on the number of signs, just on the square footage. And if they want to use it in a couple different signs or just one large sign, they'll have that option that the PD is going to master sign plans reflecting that possible code change as well. Uh here's the examples for um buildings greater than 100,000 square feet. This kind of shows how it would look with some of the building designs proposed for buildings less than 100,000 a square foot. So, more like the shopping center. This is going to be the two for one possibly or 10%. So, that's kind of like they have like some examples there of what it could look like with that size signage on the building the buildings

they're looking at uh building. Here's some more examples of that designs. other signage. Um most of the other master sign plan reflects either reflect or referring back to base code about temporary sign signs, window signs, um incidental signs internal to the site. Um canopy signs will be calculated as part of the wall area signage. So that's pretty consistent with code. So not a big changes there. This is the master sign plan that the applicant has proposed for port uh pod one. Uh essentially this is going to be the standards if it's adopted um that will apply when we approve signage and it will take place over base code unless we need to reflect back to base code on something like it's referred to here and essentially these are the proposed standards for this U PD uh for the master sign plan we um the commission may approve the proposed master sign plan is presented approved with amendments or conditions or deny the application. Uh please approve or modify or deny based on the uh presenting presentation number. So we have one through four. Then we had the monument signs as we already talked about with their dimensions and also allowing multiple monument signs u for pod one at the entrances. um the outlot outlot monument signs uh with their dimensions and also allowing those outlots individual signage even though there's going to be those entrance signs as well and that's a deviation from the code base code. We have the wall signs with the two different types, you know, buildings more than 100,000 square foot, less than 100,000 square foot, uh allowing more than one sign per wall on primary walls is what they have proposed. And of course, the other signs, those are

mostly just reflecting back the code, but it is in the master sign plan. So, I just wanted to kind of put it on there. Oops. Are there any questions? Do you want to go back to uh particular slide? I Oh, go ahead. I have a couple of questions. So, for the individual out parcels, the the deviation, do we have examples of that sign? Which one is that? Yes, I'll go back to that. It is E E. E. So, obviously they don't know the tenants or, you know, they're not really, but they're having given a template there

of what I guess each of those out lot signs will be um what they'll look like. So, it's actually they're actually larger than the internal small sign. Yes, they they're are a little bit larger than some of the smaller entrance signs like I believe um like D the small or C C is the smallest one. the one off of uh kind of internal to the planned development right here off of Limeburgger Lane. That's a fairly small just almost entrance sign. I mean entrance sign but like a like directional entrance sign as opposed an advertising sign like the larger signs. Yeah.

So we're talking then three more signs. I mean we have outlot one, two, and three. Oh, and four. There's four as well. There's four outlots. Do you happen to have It was very helpful I thought last month when we had pictures of the larger signs in terms of sort of um you know examples within the community. Yeah, we didn't have a you know we don't have like comparisons for this exact types of sign. um you know as we as we

particularly the 20 foot tall strikes me as very tall. Do we have some ex I mean can you think of some around here as we talked about the master sign plan I mean the last master sign plan we just discussed um that would be a larger sign for outside of maybe carows assign it's quite big but out of our jurisdiction when we provide those examples after the board kind of came back um and reheard that um we went out I think those are in Rock Hill those were on rock hill

so those weren't necessary our jurisdiction so I don't think we have something compar comparable exactly with this jurisdiction, but I will say the A and B sign, they do meet the the code standard for like this district. Um, it's just it's just a number. So like the 150 if it was in general commercial GC like we talked about before, not a PD. If it was 150 square feet, then that would meet that code standard. And we don't actually have any height restrictions. It's just overall square footage. Correct. I think that it's 20. It is 20.

Yeah, that's is the mass back up. We don't have any in the area that high. Yes. I guess that's what I'm trying to I'm trying to visualize a little bit more. Can we go back to the sign represent the drawing schematic with the heights of the signs, right? Yeah. So for A and B, 20 feet is the max, 10 feet is the max, and then you're limited on the amount of square footage of signage that can be there where the red is, right? So you've been putting those three together. You're saying that's what it would look like with the sign being in the red and white area and the black the bottom being bricks or whatever to support the sign to that height.

Right. Right. Yeah, right. Does that Yeah, the tenant the red part and then I think the applicants here if you want to ask about like the design, but I believe what's in the red is at least on um the first three is the message area. That's kind of what I'm there's I think there's a notation on the my can see on my print out but I think there's a notation on the development as well like a small sign incorporated in there too. Yeah, the other one we looked at it was vertical on the left hand side and we decided that took up too much space. But yeah, it's hard hard to see on there, but it does say Newport Commons in that middle like right under the red. Yeah.

So, it does have some extra signage on that block as well calculated. Yeah. I'm not trying to split hairs, but is is it tenant or tenants? Is it the main? Well, I don't know. We haven't got anything on message area. just design I would say in the applicant maybe could speak more precisely. It does seem like these main entrance signs are directory for the for this lot two and lot three these lots

and that's why the out parcels are requested to have their own signage because they're not going to be represented on these entrance signs. They might be able to speak, you know, if there is going to be some representation, but I'm taking it that sign A, B, B, and D won't have or not plan to have the outlots tenants on their signs. Maybe just the anchor and maybe some of the lots. Like I said, we don't have details on how the message area be used. As we talked about before, we can't dictate message area, only the area provided to have the message, right? Any additional questions?

Yeah. Now I'm going to get into transportation engineering, but it'll be a real quick question. Sign A, sign B that you got up here. This is in a curve. And are there besides sight triangles in a curve? Do you also add Yeah. footage that has to be back, you know, so that you you're coming in a curve?

It's a it's a good question. We had we had this obviously talked about before. Do we have the plan de we had the plan development site plan here for the PD resoning? What we have not had unlike the other project is a civil plan review. So we haven't gotten to the very details but they're not asking for any variance on the 10-ft minimum setback for the ground signs. And obviously we will still look at the the engineering on the the road entrance DOT standards our standards site distance easements you know that stuff. We haven't gotten that close on it um because we haven't actually gone to a civil plan review of the retail section. This is providing the standards to start that review. You know, just like the whole PD resoning.

Reason why I'm bringing that up. If you can turn into those outlots that are on the other side of Old York Road, that's the concern I have. you turn left into those, you don't see these people coming down 50 miles an hour because the signs might block it. Yeah, we're going to have to work on that. And obviously the out parcels, they don't have direct access. They they have these shared access drives where these entrance signs are going to be. So you're going to have some signage for the business and then you have to know, but that's where they do have the logoing on the design of Newport Common. So, you'd have to just kind of know that you have to go past this part like out lot four to get to the entrance to get into it.

Yeah. I wouldn't even question it if that was a tangent section through there straight. No, that's a good question. And like I said, that's what we have to deal with when we start getting into the detailed engineering on an actual civil plan with grading. Um, you know, again, sight lines, all that. Cool. Thank you. And again, I believe the applicant's here if you have any questions.

Just to follow up on your question, the last exception that we made was driven by the fact that the size of the sign was maximized because there were future potential uh stores, commercial stores in that development that wanted to reserve part of that. If you recall, there were two sections at the back. Yeah. For Westlake. And we also considered providing

additional space for the for the main stores. But I I would have a potential issue if we're talking about whoever the anchor store is creating a sign that's a single sign on on the uh the monument the the four monuments that's just promoting that one anchor store. Well, he said that is that would Yeah, I don't can we ask that question? Yeah, you could ask the applicant that question because again what you know as staff we don't have that information. We we can't really dictate message area. So you know how they plan to use it.

That's kind of their right and we can't dictate message but we can if the applicant is here would you mind um stepping up and just answering that question specifically on the larger out building or out parcel signs? Um yes. Is it the is it one or is it many? And if you don't mind introducing yourself and giving us your address, please. Sure. Uh, my name is Mark Kuzvki. I work for MJM Architects. My address is out of Nashville, Tennessee. Do you still want to 7234 Thorpway, apartment, Nashville, Tennessee? Okay.

Um, as for the messaging, uh, it is unclear for right now how many tenants we may have maybe on the messaging. So, right now is what we were looking for along with staff not being able to decide what the message is. We're looking for the message size so that we have the capability and flexibility of as to what we may need to do. Okay. Does that answer your question enough? Well, the issue is right we don't have we don't know any of the tenants really, you know, so for the the development itself. So right now this this helps for the tenants depending on what our flexibility be and I guess I'm hearing there's concern that if it's just one huge name up there that that would be distracting possibly to traffic or

Yes. you know seem out of place. Yes. Well kind of along those same lines is when we did the deviation last time it was because okay you need a little bit of extra room because you're trying to all of these different things to fit. And if you're going to have just one entity, why do you need a deviation? Why do you need things to be better than what's already in the code? I think is kind of Am I reading between the lines? Okay, John, kind of where you're going. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I didn't want I didn't highlight it. So, I wanted to make sure. Here's an anchor tenant. There's also these shops here

which are seen on the like the wall sign demonstration and shops here

and these are sort of lots one, two, and three of sort of the main retail lot and then you have the outlots as well. So I just want to make sure that it's not just the anchor tenant lot. There's actually shops here and shops here proposed as well. We we understand what what we're trying to clarify a little bit is what I think our intention was the last time we did this was oh okay you want to advertise multiple things and to make the signs big enough that they're legible and people aren't slowing down and causing traffic jams to read. Yeah, you might need a little bit more space to do that. But if if your intention is to sign it only with the anchor store, then are we making a deviation that's going to set a precedent that's going to cause other issues for us down the road because you guys have taken a lot of time to put the code together and say this is the size sign you need. So I that's that's where I'm

well I mean he is saying there will be some smaller internal stores, right? But but we don't know what's going to be on the sign, right? So it's which I guess is something we could put in the in our recommendation, right?

Yeah. I think is similar to your line of thought. I'm thinking when you look at the size of the anchor store anywhere around here when we pass a Lowe's, Target, Walmart, even a Publix or Harris ter that anchor store, you how many of us look at the outlet sign, you see it coming on the building, but it's those smaller ones that may be on the side of the anchor that you're look if I'm driving and you know, we really don't look at 2,800 block, 2900 block. Most people don't do that. They're going to look at the sign, right?

And if it's going to be used for that purpose, those other buildings, then I could see the additional size because to your point, you don't want to slow down. If I can see it up the road, okay, it's in there. Turn in, figure out the rest. Sure. Sure. But I've never seen an anchor sign, a sign that big for one store when you can see it on the building a mile away. Right. Well, so the other thing is back when I had hair, I used to look at those signs to see where I wanted to go and now we all have these things in our hand where we just say, "We want to go to this place." And then we say, "Oh, okay. Ah, that's in the public shopping center. I know where that is." Right. Right. So

that's typically how we get I just want to make one thing point clear to the commission um that content we really can't regulate content signs. You're approving the size of the sign that the applicant can put whatever they may on it. So I don't I don't know that it would be proper to tell them that they have to have any uh certain display on the sign. Okay. Okay. Well, fair enough.

I I guess I have a question with the signage and this may be a question for the applicant. If I want to lease space in here or whatever, if I want my business advertised on that sign out there, do I pay anything additional? Because I'm sure revenue is tied to it, they're going to throw as many on that sign as possible if it drives revenue.

So, typically the way signage is uh allocated to a sign from a tenant based on the size of their square footage within a development. So they're not charged for the sign itself or the ten of the panel itself, but the bigger the tenant usually the bigger size of the panel they have on their signage on out by the road. And the reason for the large sign out in the main road is because of the speed and the entrance and roughly the distance that building is from the York Road probably about 1,000-500 ft. It's a pretty significant amount. And when all those out parcels are fully developed, you really won't see that building from York Road. And when that we've also reduced the other two signs to being a lot smaller because they're really targeted for the development behind the space, right? Just to get it them to understand where the entrance is.

Yes. If it's helpful um and looking at it, you know, sign D and sign C if we were just dealing with the entrance signs are smaller than what's allowed as well. So there is some balance depend on which different roads. Um, so it's they're not all at maximum size for the road fringe for a multi-use development. So yeah, you would think if you wanted to optimize the square footage for is is the red area the maximum square footage, not the entire sign. There's more signage outside the red area. Um, let's

because if it isn't I mean if you look at CD and E the bottom the bottom brick area. It's hard to see on here but it has tenant it has Newport Commons and it has another I think might be a small area depending on the sign at least on the A and B. So it definitely had the Newport Commons. I think the area I think you could say the red area is for the most part is the message area. Yeah. Other than Newport Commons, the red area is the message area and the rest is brick or block or whatever. Okay. It's hard. Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to see.

Maybe one other thing if you could go back to our list that you wanted to review point by point

at the end here. Yes, sir. So I I heard mention of there's things under considerate council's considering currently about making some changes to this. So is there anything in these that if we were just to approve as is would conflict with anything the council's considering? I wouldn't say conflict. What we're saying is some of these standards that might be a deviation today, if they do update, adopt the wall sign modifications that we talked about a couple months ago, then those won't be deviations from the base code like for wall signs. Okay.

Could you point those out to us in this abbreviated list real quick of what things would no longer be a deviation considered a deviation? Um the 5% is no is not a standard currently but it's being proposed as adding it as an option. So when they add the 5% if they adopt that that won't be a deviation. Uh the 400 ft maximum sign area even up to 600 square feet maximum sign area for these size of buildings may if they go forward with what's been presented to council in front of them may not be a deviation anymore. As of today, it's not in the code. And then having more than one wall sign per wall, that's also being um considered to be removed and just basing everything on square footage and not dictating one sign as opposed to like groceries and, you know, outdoor or whatever, you know, kind of breaking that message area up as we talked about when we talked about the possible text change. So those are things that won't be um that may not be deviations in the future. It would still be part of the master sign plan. They still present this master sign plan as a document.

And also as a PD, there are certain things like the the when we compare these sizes for the entrance signs and the out parcel signs. These are based on our base code like it was a general commercial district. But of course with the PD that's not a that's not a district that has its own ground sign standards. So we're almost kind of establishing them. So only only thing we know as staff is do is compare to what we have in our code. But it is kind of making especially in the ground signs because the wall signs kind of cover all districts.

But the but the ground signs don't really have standards. So we're this master sign plan will be establishing those standards and we're just trying to just do comparison if it was just a general commercial district as opposed to a PD, you know, for the board to kind of consider the that that those as deviations and and anytime you do a PD there could be different stipulations within that PD that varies from one to another anyway. It could be. Yeah. With a PD it could just say and we had P like in the past that just said it will meet zoning code for the signs. Right. Right. or they could have specific standards or they could do the master sign plan. So there there is options there. It is a specific district. It's not a base district. So and it's a special district.

Now the point I was making more is that a PD by itself is somewhat specialized. So you could have two PDs right next to each other that have slightly different requirements. That is true based on what we're talking about. This wouldn't be allowed in GC. Well, we talked about that last master sign plan, but this is not GC. It's kind of its own thing. I think that's how the district works. Okay. Can you go back to the overhead uh shot? It's got the four red dots uh representing where the signage will be. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And so right now the applicant can have one monument sign per road frontage. Is that right?

Yeah. The base code for an entrance sign or a monument sign for a development is one per road frontage. There's going to be another road frontage when they build Limeburgger Limeburger Lane. So they would would sign A be assigned to Limeberger Road. It's both. It's on the corner. So it it's either they're either having two on Limeburger, two on Old York. I just said really we have two on Old York. And that's the deviation that we're being that would be a deviation if this is in a base district. But outside of that, the sign itself as individuals all meet applicable code.

Yeah. They're either equal the size and heighten that the basic dimensions and or less. Sure. As like C and D are are less than the maximum allowed for this size of development. And so sign C would be a deviation, but it's much smaller than any of the other internal neighborhood. switched it and said sign A is Limeburger and it was on the corner which is legitimate that could be

then and B is old York Road and D is Adnatur the smallest one might you could look at as the only extra sign that's true that's a good point because it's only again that one sign if again trying to compare it back to the base code that was general commercial against PD but we had to compare it to something Uh if it was GC, we'd be talking about probably sign C being the extra sign as per the base code standard. Yes. And so the the the sign of the the size of the sign and the area, the square footage of the message area, that's not in question at all. Right. It's just the extra.

It's a question in sense we need to establish for for the B PD, but it's not a question in the sense that we're calling a deviation from base code for this size of commercial development. Wall sign clarification. We're currently one foot per linear foot. Yeah, for linear foot. I think for GC we talked about one and a half and then we settled on two. That was for the previous Yes. manufactur master sign plan. I'm I'm just trying to say previous master sign we're not exceeding what we had already approved. Yes. The previous approval for a master sign plan in GC was 2 to one.

Okay. Yeah, that's right.

I Any additional questions? I think I'd like to make a motion to approve as presented by staff. Complete. Second. Okay. So, we have a first and a second to approve as presented. Is there discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Didn't want to have to force you go through one, two, three, four again, brother. Excuse me. If I could let the applicant is here for the waiver. If we want to go ahead and bring that back up. I appreciate that.

Okay. So before we jump into number five in old business, we're going to backtrack uh to our second public hearing of the evening, which is waiver W25-10. Jonathan Street is the applicant on behalf of HOF LLC owner. Uh they're requesting a land development waiver from the required driveway separation of 325 ft on a road with posted speed limit of 45 miles hour. The subject property is located at 3474 Highway 21 in the Fort Mill community and is identified as tax map number 721 000055 council district 7.

Thank you. We found it. This is uh for the dash in proposed dash food store. Um they're asking for a waiver from the requirement for the 325 foot minimum driveway separation requirement. Um this here's the the site uh the current uh house of fireworks is there and they're proposing to remove that building and and make a convenience store with uh gas. Here's your zoning with the GC and leftover UD all around it.

Here's the difference. So basically they're going to go from about 121 to the 19 to 152. And you can see the the first well the first this this would have been this is a previous existing one going into the house of fireworks and they kick it down and get it a little further away from McDonald's and bring it up to the one 52. Um, of course they're here because they they need to meet the uh 325 according to the the roach standard and the speed and everything. Um, so they want to increase the driveway separation from 121 to 152, but still under the required amount. Um, the applicant has tried to gain uh a shared driveway agreement with the McDonald's that is to the north and they were unwilling to uh to deal with them and uh the applicant does have an approved TIA and concurrence with DOT with with their change in uh the current configuration. Um, so the applicant got has to show some unnecessary hardship and of course with um only 280 foot of frontage on that lot, they wouldn't be able to gain access at all. And and as of right now, there's no other access available to that lot. We find it meets and then uh you know, you can make make this waiver without defeating the tin of the chapter. Um and here it's you know the efficient movement of traffic and you know they've gone through the the the exercises of trying to get a little better access but um you know we we've reviewed this and they do got a ta got some concurrence so we would find that it meets criteria. So we we'd recommend approval and it would be a deviation of 173 feet from uh the current standard.

has got one question, Rick. Looks like it's a right in, right out, correct? Okay. So, that'll remain even when the new roads put in, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. They'll there'll be a a barrier in the middle or island in the middle. And I believe they're going to have a little triangle. I call a pork chop in Yeah. I go by there all the time. Yeah. Thank you. is part of what they're being asked to do is also has a slight rewidening.

Yeah. And when they come, you know, they're going to do more work on that road. So, they they showed on your packet, they'll show a little a little different um return uh when they come through there and kind of improve 21 or the road in front of it along eventually a road beside it. They've looked into the future. Was there any thought of just making the entrance on the new road? Not Yeah. Well, you know, with DOT projects, we don't know when that will occur. So, they do have a plan to uh access that when it's made, but until then, they wouldn't have any access to that lot.

I actually think it's good to have both. Well, I just think people are going to come down here and pull you is do we know what the 51 realignment is going to look supposed to look like? The penny there's a pennies for progress. Yeah. That's realigning that. Do we know where that's going to end up? Supposed to be right on the south side of this and and Yeah. And they don't show it. I mean, they get to the very end of this picture is is where the realignment would go. Um if if you go to the um I think you have the vicinity map in here. Yeah. So, you can see where 51 they've actually done the uh the the lots just south of the red area there. That's where will come through. That'll be a light at that corner. There'll be a light there as well.

Yeah. So, it's going to line up in between the uh this current in the property. And then the idea is to take out the the balance of 51 below that. Yeah. So, then they'll put a culde-sac where 51 now intersects with 21. Yep. And um direct traffic over to to 21 there. 51. The new 51 will Okay. It's just nice to know what that area is going to look like supposedly at some point in the future. At some point in the future. Pennies for progress. Do we have any additional questions? If not, is there a motion? Public hearing. Oh, sorry. It is public hearing.

Just getting carried away again. It's all right. Okay. So, uh, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this project, um, we invite you, uh, to the podium. So, if you please share your name and address.

Yeah. I'm Mark Strickland, civil engineer for this project. Um, well, working with John Street, who's our lead civil engineer here. Uh, we're 1942 East 7th Street in Charlotte. Um, I think he already already covered most of the main points here, but we've got two adjacent highway projects. Highway 21's being approved. Highway 51 is going to be built. Um, we tried to negotiate an access to share it with McDonald's. We got shot down from them. We don't even have enough frontage on the parcel. It would put the our entrance in the intersection if we actually adhered to it.

So, we started conversations with DOT and the county right away. At the beginning of this project, we went through a couple of iterations and this is what they determined is the one spot that they can approve and it's basically our only option to give this site some degree of access. Um does help a little bit more from the existing conditions. Gives you an extra 30 feet, but we're still far short of what the code would require otherwise. Um that lane turning into McDonald's is going to be widened. So, right now it's kind of a tapered turn lane, but it'll be a full width through lane up to that McDonald's entrance with the construction of our project here. Um, the Highway 51 access, we don't know when that's going to happen. So, that's why we need this waiver to get the access on the 21 here.

Thank you. Any questions? Also, thank you so much for shuffling the agenda. Stuck in traffic. Appreciate it. We understand. If you came from Charlotte. Yeah. Yeah. We all drive in so we get it. Um are there any additional questions? Is there Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak on this topic? If not, is there a motion to close? Motion to close public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? So, is there a motion on Yeah, I make a motion to approve. I'll second.

So, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you. Moving back to our resonings in new business number five. Uh that would be resoning 25-49. Latif Taheri Azar applicant owner requesting to reszone two parcels that total 09 acres from UD to RMX 6. The subject parcels are located on Ridley Street in Rock Hill and the properties are referenced as tax map numbers 6700059 and 060 Council District 4.

Good evening everybody.

Good evening. So, uh, these two parcels are just outside Rock Hill along Porter Road, part of a subdivision called Sunrise Acres. The applicant is proposing reszone these, uh, so they can build, uh, single family detached homes on them. Uh, you can see they're right in the center of the subdivision and zoning district. A lot of this area is zoned uh, D. Um, you can see that there's a sprinkle of RCF30 through here. A lot of these were reszoned as part of the UD resoning project a couple years back. Um, and RF30 was chosen to allow the manufactured homes that were pre-existing on these sites. The future land use is municipal infill given how close it is to the city. And looking at what city of Rock Hill is expecting, they're looking for interstate employment and that's roughly equivalent to our I77 corridor employment designation. And we're looking for manufacturing distribution uses here. Despite that, we do recommend approval. Um, again, it's not consistent with the comp plan, uh, either ours or the Rock Hills, but the active UD zone is completely incompatible with the surrounding established neighborhood. Again, these two parcels are right in the center of what is entirely residential space, and RMX 6 is the only residential district that will accommodate the lots of this size. Any questions for staff?

We didn't see an aerial. Is there it looks like on that one map there's a building that is out there. Is that or is that a parking lot or something? Sorry, I did forget to mention there is one of them does have a derelct. I think it's,200 square foot building there. Used to be a residence. The other So are they going to knock it down? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So it'll meet all the um what do you call it? Side requirements. sideyard requirements, whatever. Okay. Thanks. Any additional questions? No, this one's pretty straightforward. I'll make a motion to approve.

Second. We have a first and a second. Is there discussion? All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Um, let's see. Moving on to rezoning 25-51, Old York Road LLC. Applicant owner requesting to reszone two parcels that total 2.55 acres from RSF40 to NC and NC2 GC. The subject parcels are located on Alexander Love Highway in York and the properties are referenced as tax map numbers 39500 010 and 01 council district 3. Yeah, these two parcels are directly south of York, kind of major intersection of York Highway, Alexander Love, and Old York. The applicant proposes to build a parking lot as an accessory used to the adjoining automobile dealership that's just uh you can see it there in the aerial just within City of York's jurisdiction. Uh these two parcels have residences on them with a total of three access points on Alexander Love. zoning map shows that there's a lot of commercial uses in this space. Um, and reflecting that is a future land use plan where we see that a lot of this is designated for transitional area um, as we're going to see these residences kind of switch over to commercial uses. So, we recommend approval of the request and while it's not directly consistent with comp plan future land use map, um, it does allow for the expansion of a pre-existing neighboring business. Um, it will match the other commercial uses within general vicinity and will remove these residential access points from a highway. Any questions for staff?

Is it is it just to build a parking area? Basically, okay. What's the buffer between the residences and the parking? So with any uh commercial development the I believe it's type-C C buffer which always needs an opaque element. I think six foot opaque element um specifically for parking use I believe that it remains I think it's strictly tied to the zoning district but perhaps Diane can speak more to that. You're correct. Yeah actually goes by the use and so but it was a type C buffer for there they can I think it's 50 foot. They can reduce it if they put in a fence. Okay.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Is there a motion?

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

All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to reszoning 25-52. Chris Goodwin, applicant, Haven Home Investments LLC, owner, requesting to reszone a 20.18 acre parcel from RMX10 to RUD. The subject parcel is located on Hair Road in Fort Mill and the property is referenced as tax map number 7380046, Council District 7. This property is just outside town of Fort Mill near Doby's Bridge, Fort Mill Parkway intersection. Again, it's 20 acres. You can't really tell with the scale of the map, but it's quite a large space. Applicant proposes to create a major subdivision to attach single family residences with lot size averaging between one and two acres. Uh there's a lot of residential zones directly around uh that kind of Doby's Bridge, Fort Mill Parkway intersection. Uh but you do see we do a butt um rural development and feature land use plan. Again, a lot of our more intense residential uses remaining around the intersection and coming off that single family residential. We recommend approval of this request and while it's not directly consistent with comp plan feature land use map um being a little bit less intense than expected within the space the current RMX10 district is much more intense than expected and allows for housing types that are incompatible with the area um and of course it does neighbor an RUD property. Any questions for staff?

If there are no questions is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Thank you. Okay, moving on to reszoning 25-58. JD Renovations LLC owner applicant is requesting to reszone a 5.89 acre parcel from AGC to RUD. The subject parcel is located on Mobly Store Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 5140000000077 council district 5. Now this parcel is in the south side of the county. Um the applicant is proposing to subdivide the space and build three homes. The parcel in question though has kind of an interesting case because it has uh road frontage on Mobly Store Road uh at Lark Lane as well as Anglewood Road. So, here's some ways that the applicant proposed to divide this. Um you can see some of the the different divisions here. Again, the idea is to have access points on each of those three rows that keep them private and separate. It's currently zoned AGC and again it abuts that RUD space and we can kind of see the interaction between zoning map and future land use map as we have res rural residential coming down from the northeast kind of encroaching on this AGC space. though we recommend approval of this request and while it's not directly consistent with comp plan future land use map again that rural residential space is uh organically coming down southeast towards uh this intersection here it neighbors a lot of other properties that already zoned RUD and the subject parcel again has the road frontage across three different spaces to give everyone private access points any questions for staff.

Couple couple real quick if we could roll back to the hand drawing. So these are possibilities but not just just some like they are hand drawings of what we might do but we don't have a final plan. Is that right? Certainly with um it being you know almost six acres going down from agency to RUD the minimum limit would be an acre. Um they could technically do more. So, if we make this approval, it could turn into five or six given there are some restrictions given uh frontage and they've expressed intent to do three at most. Understood. But by right, if they wanted to decide and do it, they could turn it into six, right? Okay.

With easements as um the the second question I had, where was that that I was trying to see? So, I'm sorry, Jonathan. This is just Jonathan Thomas. Listen to me, dude. What did you do? What did you do to me? Holy smokes. I'm rubbing up on you. Um, I need I need to see one of the other maps that I saw. One of the other pictures maybe just Yeah.

the AGC versus Yeah, I know. I know. We were down to one. Okay. Maybe this is it. Yeah. So, that's that's zoning. That's how it's zoned now. Is that's RUD above that, right? That's what I'm Yeah, it's not within RUD presently, but the request is to go to RUD. Yeah. I'm sorry. What's the lighter rural development? How is that property zoned in the lighter green then? Is where I'm was because this is so dark green's AGC. That's right. Is the lighter green RUD there? That's right. Okay. So, this is on the edge of existing RUD. That's right.

Okay. Okay. That was that was something else I was trying to clarify there. Okay. But to go along with your question, Mike, um, so the 2035 land use plan makes the distance between rural, residential or whatever, and the A here makes it a little bit further away, which, you know, it's almost certainly and and you know, it is always a reminder that future lane map is is a guide. Um, a lot of these, in this case, the zoning is kind of showing us where the the feature land you should follow.

It's almost like they're increasing the ad. No, what was what was confusing me is these if you could see these two slides side by side, right? So, future land use says, you know, we see agriculture being to here, but the actual where we are, it's actually further away from that, right? And that that's where I had this disconnect in my head. But if you look at it, it draws a line straight through multiple properties. It's literally just the county. I get it. I'm just saying I was having a little bit of a disconnect following because normally it's the other way around, right? Good point. Okay. So, it's okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Are there additional questions?

Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. So, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? Yeah, just real quick. I am very hopeful that we hold to the three sites. I don't know that we can impose any kind of limitation when we do something like this, but I am very hopeful that the applicant will be true to their word and go with some version of what they proposed, but not go beyond lots that are going to get down to one acre and try and put five or six folks in there. All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Thank you. So, let's see. Our other um business is to take a look at our meeting dates for next year. Does anyone have any major issues or dates? Nope. Do we need to have a approval of that at all or no? I don't think so. Yes. Oh, it is. Oh, yeah. It's a action item, isn't it? Yeah. Well, I'll make a motion to approve the dates as outlined.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Any questions on the reszoning tracking sheet? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. And a merry Christmas. If there's no discussion, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Have a good night. See you next year. Good job.