 |
 |
 |
|
| The following summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville City Council. An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by City Council at City Hall 118 NE Main St. Simpsonville. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place and Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and faxed to the newspapers, radio stations, television stations and any concerned citizens. |
|
 |
SIMPSONVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2007, 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donnie McDowell, Kirk Leitke, Caroline Richardson-Mahaffey, Dick Witkowski, Mike Newman, James Boyd
MEMBERS ABSENT: Roy Shelton
CITY STAFF/LEADERS PRESENT: David Dyrhaug
GREENVILLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Robinson
CALL TO ORDER/OPENING REMARKS:
Commission Chair Dick Witkowski called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Mr. Dyrhaug held roll call.
Mr. Witkowski noted to the Planning Commission that at the last City Council meeting, by a vote of 1 to 5 the proposed “Pay Day Loan Ordinance” did not gain approval.
Mr. Witkowski presented the items on the agenda and the hearing rules of procedure.
Mr. Boyd motioned to accept the August 7, 2007 Planning Commission minutes.
Mr. McDowell seconded the motion.
Mr. Newman asked for feedback regarding the illegal signs he reported to the Simpsonville Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Dyrhaug replied that he had gathered information regarding the billboard which exists at the Georgia Road Commons site. This billboard was legally relocated to this site per state law. The previous location of this billboard was acquired as right-of-way. Therefore, the billboard was permitted to relocate.
Mr. Dyrhaug also noted that he asked the Simpsonville Code Enforcement Officer about the list of signs he had previously received from Mr. Newman. The Code Enforcement Officer related to Mr. Dyrhaug that the signs on that list were all legal.
Mr. Newman asked about legality of A-frame signs that are left outdoors overnight.
Mr. Dyrhaug asked about the intent of the regulation requiring A-frame signs to be brought indoors overnight. If the primary intent of this regulation is to protect against theft of these signs, then the business owners who are leaving these signs out overnight are doing so at their own risk.
Mr. Newman asked if he could take time-stamped photographs of the signs and give those to the Code Enforcement Officer so that he can take some action regarding these A-frame signs left out overnight.
Mr. Dyrhaug suggested that Mr. Newman should confer with the Code Enforcement Officer to determine if that is something the Code Enforcement Officer could take action on.
The motion to approve the August 7, 2007 Planning Commission minutes passed unanimously, 6-0.
The June 2007 Planning Commission Hearing minutes were approved.
Stokes Landing Planned Development Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Mr. Robinson presented a preliminary subdivision plat for the Stokes Landing Planned Development which has been submitted by the developer for approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Robinson noted that this is not Final Development Plan review. The Greenville County Subdivision Advisory Committee has reviewed the plat and made the following contingencies listed below. County Planning Staff has reviewed the plat and believes it to be consistent with the conceptual plan that was submitted at the time of annexation and rezoning. There are no significant changes in the street layout or lot numbers from what was presented in the conceptual layout. Mr. Robinson stated that staff recommends conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision plat with the following contingencies:
Mr. Witkowski asked how many lots were proposed.
Mr. Robinson answered that 81 lots were proposed in this planned development.
Mr. Newman asked how stormwater will be managed for the planned development.
Mr. Robinson replied that a detention pond is proposed in the southwest corner of the planned development.
Mr. Newman asked where they will be connecting into a WCRSA line. Will this be at Putnam Street ?
Jeremy Richie, an authorized representative with Gray Engineering, replied that his belief is that they will be improving the line in place and that they will be connecting into a WCRSA line approximately 600 to 700 feet away from the site.
Mr. Newman asked if plans had been submitted to WCRSA.
Mr. Ritchie responded that they plan on submitting plans to WCRSA.
Mr. Witkowski asked if the city has been involved in the review of the sewer to this point.
Mr. Newman noted that Joe Carter has reviewed this project. The developer plans to upsize the sewer line and turn this line over to the City.
Mr. Newman motioned to conditionally approve the preliminary subdivision plat for the Stokes Landing Planned Development with all of the contingencies recommended by staff and a letter indicating approval of sewer.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Mr. Leitke asked if any of the roads in this subdivision are existing.
Mr. Newman and Mr. Robinson both responded that all of the roads proposed in this planned development will be new.
The motion to conditionally approve the preliminary subdivision plat for the Stokes Landing Planned Development passed unanimously, 6-0.
Capewood Plance Planned Development Final Development Plan
Mr. Robinson presented the final development plan for the Capewood Place Planned Development which has been submitted by Capewood LLC for approval by the Planning Commission. The final development plan consists of 15 lots each with a single-family dwelling. The proposed homes will range in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to 2,000 square feet. An existing pond will be incorporated as open space for the planned development. In addition, a detention basin will be constructed in the southern portion of the development. Mr. Robinson stated that staff recommends conditional approval of the final development plan with the following contingencies:
Mr. Witkowski asked if the 25-foot wide buffer that had been previously requested was shown on the final development plan.
Mr. Robinson answered that the buffer was not shown on the final development plan. However, the applicant will be required to show the buffer on the final plat.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked if the detention in the rear would be wet or dry.
Mr. Robinson answered that the detention in the rear would be dry.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked if children would be able to play in the detention basin.
Mr. Robinson replied that the developer has indicated to him that this area could be used for recreation.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey commented that only two streetlights were shown on the lighting plan for this entire planned development.
Kevin Ross, an authorized representative with Land Design Services, responded that the spacing of the proposed lighting in this planned development is comparable to other subdivisions. He also commented that the proposed detention basin will be very shallow. In essence it will be a large flat field with a gentle slope. They purposely designed the detention basin to be large so that it could be so shallow. Mr. Ross also noted that DHEC has indicated that the stormwater management plans look acceptable and have requested five sets for approval.
Mr. Leitke identified that the elevation(s) of the planned development creates a problem for adequate lighting. He suggested that a light be provided near the midpoint of the proposed road in order to provide more adequate lighting. Mr. Leitke also indicated that he did not think that the detention basin would be usable during periods of rain. He also commented that his previous understanding was that all of the stormwater generated by this planned development would be piped into the existing pond.
Mr. Ross indicated that four lots on each side of the proposed road would be piped into the pond. Due to the elevation of the remainder of the planned development, the stormwater of the remainder of the planned development would flow into the proposed detention basin. Mr. Ross also noted that the detention basin could be fenced off if the Planning Commission felt strongly about it.
Mr. Leitke commented on the abnormal shapes of some of the proposed lots. These abnormal shapes result from the developer attempting to divide frontage on the existing pond to a greater number of lots. Mr. Leitke also expressed concern that too much stormwater would be directed into the existing pond.
Mr. Ross explained how the pond would operate in terms of stormwater management. He explained that stormwater for water bodies, such as this pond, is calculated as the difference in volume between the existing surface of the pond and the new surface of pond when stormwater is directed into the pond. In other words, the potential storage for stormwater would lie above the existing surface of the pond.
Mr. Leitke expressed concern that the pond presently has sedimentation and algae issues.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked about the landscaping, if any, that would be proposed around the proposed detention basin.
Mr. Ross responded that landscaping was planned along the perimeter of the planned development in the vicinity of the detention basin so that landscaping would be provided adjacent to neighboring subdivisions.
Mr. Newman asked if a walking path would be provided around the pond.
Mr. Ross noted that there will be a path adjacent to the existing pond but this path will not circle the entire pond. The proposed path will only be provided between the pond and the proposed lots of this planned development. The proposed path will not be provided on the bank of the pond adjacent to the perimeter of the planned development.
Mr. Newman asked if it would be possible to provide a street light at the entrance of this path to the pond.
Mr. Ross replied that he does not want to encourage pedestrian activity around the pond at night.
Mr. Newman expressed concern that the stormwater concept has changed from the proposals that were reviewed by City Council.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey inquired if the two proposed streetlights could be re-positioned such that adequate lighting is more uniform throughout.
Mr. Ross indicated that this could be done.
Mr. Newman requested that the applicant consider heavier landscaping within and around the entire proposed detention basin.
Mr. Ross commented that landscaping within the proposed detention basin is discouraged. However, they could oblige in providing more landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed detention basin.
Mr. Witkowski asked if standardized or uniform mailboxes could be incorporated throughout the planned development.
Mr. Ross responded that they could oblige.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey motioned to conditionally approve the final development plan for the Capewood Plance Planned Development with all of the contingencies recommended by staff in addition to the following contingencies:
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Mr. Leitke expressed serious concern regarding the sedimentation issues of the existing pond and the ramifications, if any, for future home owners in the vicinity of the pond.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked if stormwater approval was required from DHEC. She also asked if, in the future, nearby proposed subdivisions would be required to provide stormwater management facilities on-site.
Mr. Robinson answered in the affirmative to both questions.
The motion to conditionally approve the final development plan for the Capewood Place Planned Development passed with a vote of 5-1. Mr. Leitke cast the dissenting vote.
South Street Planned Development Phase I Final Development Plan
Mr. Robinson presented the final development plan for phase I of the South Street Planned Development which has been submitted by Vision Capital Investors, LLC for approval by the Planning Commission. The first phase of this planned development consists of a residential tract. This residential tract contains 223 proposed apartment units within 16 proposed buildings of various sizes. In addition, an office/clubhouse and swimming pool will be incorporated in this development. Mr. Robinson expressed concern regarding the traffic capacity in this area of the City. A traffic analysis was performed by the senior transportation staff at Greenville County . They determined that the first phase of this planned development will not have a detrimental effect upon the capacity of the existing roads. However, the future phase(s) of this planned development may cause substantial stress on these roads. Mr. Robinson stated that staff recommends conditional approval of the final development plan for Phase I with the following contingencies:
Mr. Newman inquired regarding the left-hand turn lane and deceleration lane previously discussed for South Street .
Mark Holmes, an authorized representative for the developer, indicated that the deceleration lane and the left-hand turn lane will be provided as encouraged by SCDOT.
Mr. Witkowksi asked if the City will need to be involved with future street-widening efforts.
Mr. Holmes commented that the South Street right-of-way is owned by SCDOT.
Mr. Holmes requested that the decision to require sidewalks adjacent to Corporate Drive be deferred until the final development plan review for the future phase(s). He indicated that sidewalks could be and should be provided adjacent to South Street . However, he questioned the need to provide sidewalks along Corporate Drive due to its industrial character. He also noted that if the Planning Commission does decide to require sidewalks, it will be much easier for the commercial developer(s) to bear the financial burden of constructing sidewalks.
Mr. Dyrhaug asked if the internal sidewalk along Corporate Drive could be connected to the external sidewalk adjacent to South Street .
Mr. Holmes indicated that issues pertaining to grade changes and landscaping would prevent this.
Mr. Newman motioned to conditionally approve the final development plan for Phase I of the South Street Planned Development with all of the contingencies recommended by staff along with Mr. Holmes request to defer the decision on requiring sidewalks adjacent to Corporate Drive until future phase(s) of the planned development.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey seconded the motion.
The motion to conditionally approve the final development plan for Phase I of the South Street Planned Development passed unanimously, 6-0.
Jasmine Commons (Second Phase of Jasmine Cove Planned Development) Preliminary Plan
Mr. Robinson presented a preliminary plan for Jasmine Commons, the second phase of the Jasmine Cove Planned Development, which has been submitted by Wike and Bridwell for approval by the Planning Commission. Phase I, the Jasmine Cove Apartments, is complete. This second phase plans to integrate commercial development. The plans submitted represent more of an intermediary step in the development process. However, since the City has no provisions for intermediary steps and final development plans have not yet been submitted, staff has decided to treat these plans as preliminary plans. The applicant proposes to subdivide the second phase of the Jasmine Cove Planned Development into five separate commercial lots, consisting of four “out” parcels that will front on Harrison Bridge Road and one larger parcel with access from Harrison Bridge Road . Mr. Robinson stated that staff recommends conditional approval of this preliminary plan for Jasmine Commons with the following contingencies:
Andy Parnell, an authorized representative of the developer, expressed issues regarding the provision of sidewalks adjacent to the private drive and connecting into the Jasmine Cove Apartments. He also expressed concern regarding the limitation on curb cuts. He indicated that curb cuts are integral in their advertisement of these commercial properties. He also expressed concern regarding the prescription of architectural styles and themes. He admitted that he was not prepared to respond to this review and requested that discussion of this agenda item be tabled.
Mr. Newman motioned to table discussion of this agenda item.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion to table discussion of the Jasmine Commons passed unanimously, 6-0.
Antiques Unlimited Site Plan Review
Mr. Dyrhaug presented the site plan for Antiques Unlimited which has been submitted by John Curtis for approval by the Planning Commission. This proposed site is a vacant property zoned C-1N. Mr. Dyrhaug noted some minor deficiencies on the proposed site plan regarding landscaping and off-street parking. However, Mr. Dyrhaug opined that the proposed antiques retail store is a suitable development at this location. Therefore, Mr. Dyrhaug stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan for Antiques Unlimited with the following contingencies:
Mr. Dyrhaug also noted that since the distribution of staff’s report and recommendation, staff met with the applicant to discuss the comments therein. The applicant has since submitted materials indicating that they will comply with these contingencies.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked if any loading or unloading activities would take place at this business.
Phil Curtis, the owner of Antiques Unlimited, indicated that the loading and unloading activities at the store would be very minimal and would consist of customers loading and unloading their furniture.
Mr. Curtis also noted that refuse would be handled inside the store as outdoor refuse containers attract trash from persons unaffiliated with his business.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey motioned to conditionally approve the site plan for Antiques Unlimited with all of the contingencies recommended by staff.
Mr. Newman seconded the motion.
The motion to conditionally approve the site plan for Antiques Unlimited passed unanimously, 6-0.
ATM at Bloom’s Shopping Center Review
Mr. Dyrhaug presented the proposed ATM located in the parking lot of the Bloom’s shopping center on West Georgia Road submitted by Capital Bank for approval by the Planning Commission. The addition of this proposed ATM represents a minor change to the existing Planned Development and thereby requires approval from the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted two alternative renditions for the proposed ATM. One rendition, labeled “Option Two,” consists of a blue kiosk with a green horizontal stripe around the middle of the kiosk and a green canopy. The other rendition, labeled “Option Four,” consists of a blue kiosk with a blue canopy. The applicant has also proposed to construct an 18-inch brick landscape/retaining wall around the landscaped island on which the ATM will be located.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey expressed concern regarding the height of the proposed landscape feature and its relation to safety and security of the patrons of the ATM. In previous discussions, the applicant talked about a maximum height of 24 inches. However, Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey recommended that the maximum height of the landscape feature be 18 inches.
John Fouke, an authorized representative with Capital Bank, agreed that security and safety is an issue and agreed that the landscape feature should be 18 inches.
Mr. Newman identified the ATM for the Bank of America as an example of how façade features such as stucco could be painted onto an ATM. He recommended that Capital Bank consider a similar approach of painting on a façade treatment.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey asked the applicant if they would be re-painting the existing ATM in order to achieve the color scheme presented in “Option Four.”
Mr. Fouke replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Newman commented that “Option Four” was an acceptable alternative.
Mr. Witkowski expressed his appreciation to the applicant for their efforts and serious consideration of the Planning Commission comments. Mr. Witkowski was appreciative of this improved alternative.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey motioned to approve the proposed ATM as presented in “Option Four” with the incorporation of an 18-inch tall brick landscape feature.
Mr. Newman seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the ATM passed unanimously, 6-0.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Witkowski expressed a need to enforce signs on evening weekends. He challenged Mr. Dyrhaug to consider various methods by which this could be done. Mr. Witkoski also asked about the status of the outdoor storage (“pod”) ordinance, the tree landscaping ordinance, and the overlay design districts ordinance.
Mr. Dyrhaug commented that the outdoor storage ordinance has been drafted. It was not placed on the agenda for this meeting because of the long agenda. However, it will be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting. He also noted that the overlay design districts ordinance is progressing. A lot of the text has been drafted. Currently, this proposed ordinance is being organized and revised for comprehension.
Mr. Robinson stated that he is following the progress of Greenville County ’s proposed tree landscaping ordinance prior to submitting a proposed ordinance for the City to consider.
Ms. Richardson-Mahaffey motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Newman seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.
Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. |
|
|
| 118 N E Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681 |
|