 |
 |
 |
|
| 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 OCTOBER 2, 2007, 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donnie McDowell, Kirk Leitke, Caroline Richardson-Mahaffey, Dick Witkowski, Mike Newman, Roy Shelton, James Boyd
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 presented the items on the agenda and the hearing rules of procedure.
Ms. Mahaffey motioned to un-table docket number SP-07-02.
Mr. Newman seconded the motion.
The motion to un-table docket number passed unanimously, 7-0.
Mr. Boyd motioned to accept the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission minutes.
Ms. Mahaffey seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission minutes passed unanimously, 7-0.
The June 2007 Planning Commission Hearing minutes were approved.
AXZ-2007-04, Rezoning Request for to PD for Proposed Annexation
Mr Dyrhaug presented a petition for rezoning and annexation into the City of Simpsonville . This petition entails 12 properties along West Georgia Road . Seventy-five (75) percent of these 12 properties have signed this petition. These properties have requested rezoning to the PD zoning district. With the exception of one property which is currently zoned C-3, the remainder of the properties included in the annexation petition are zoned R-S. The majority of the properties in this area are either undeveloped or used for single-family dwellings. The PD zoning district encourages innovative and creative design. Staff opines that this zoning district is appropriate for this area as the City will be able to review access management, site design and architectural design, thereby encouraging smoother transition and compatibility with surrounding properties. Therefore, staff supports the requested rezoning to PD for the properties listed in this annexation petition.
Mr. Russ Poole, a realtor with Clyde Realty, representing Anne Stenhouse, indicated support for the annexation and rezoning petition. He indicated that when he approached the County regarding rezoning, the County indicated their preference for the property to be re-zoned to NC as opposed to a more intense commercial zoning. He also mentioned that Standing Springs Baptist Church is in a neutral position regarding this annexation petition. Mr. Poole has listing for two of the properties in this annexation petition.
Ms. Mahaffey asked Mr. Poole if he had a prospective buyer.
Mr. Poole indicated that there is a prospective buyer for his listings. He indicated that the potential use for these properties would be similar to the Bloom’s development also located on West Georgia Road .
Mr. George Smith, brother and neighbor to one of the property owners included in this petition, voiced some objections to the proposed annexation. He prepared a list of seven objections to this annexation that he distributed to the Planning Commission. These objections concerned the manner in which this annexation petition has been compiled and how it follows or does not follow the State laws for annexation.
Mr. George Smith expressed concern regarding his water if his brother were to be annexed and his brother’s property was to be re-developed. His concern is that he would be left without water.
Mr. Newman asked Mr. George Smith why his brother is listed as one of the applicants if he is in opposition to the annexation petition.
Mr. George Smith answered that his brother did not sign the petition.
Mr. Leitke asked Mr. George Smith how his brother was included in the petition and yet Mr. George Smith was not included.
Mr. George Smith replied that he was intentionally left off so that the 75 percent criteria was achieved.
Mr. Jake Dickens, a real estate representative of one of the property owners included in this annexation, indicated his support for the petition. He stated that Simpsonville knows best what should be developed along West Georgia Road . He also indicated that a precedent for commercial development has already been established along this corridor.
Mr. Poole commented that Mr. George Smith was not included in the annexation petition because Mr. Poole had already known that Mr. George Smith was in opposition to annexation. Out of respect for him and another property owner who was not included in the petition, Mr. Poole left these property owners off the annexation petition.
Mr. George Smith commented that the Word of Life Ministry’s school was contacted by someone who enquired if they would like to be placed on this petition. They school indicated that they did not desire to be included in the petition and therefore they likewise have been left off of the petition.
Mr. Dyrhaug read a letter written by the Chairman of the Board of Deacons of the Standing Springs Baptist Church . The letter officially announces the position of Standing Springs Baptist Church regarding annexation petition docket number AXZ-2007-04. Their position is one of neutrality.
Ms. Mahaffey questioned whether a decision has been made by Standing Springs Baptist Church even though the letter from the leadership declares neutrality. She expressed her interest in tabling this item until a future date when the City will be equipped with a legal opinion regarding the validity of this annexation petition.
Mr. Dyrhaug indicated that this planning commission is only to consider matters pertaining to the rezoning request of this petition. Matters pertaining to the request for annexation are considered only before the City Council.
Mr. Newman stated that the State Laws cited by Mr. George Smith directly pertain to the petition for annexation. These State Laws have no bearing on the request for rezoning. Mr. Newman also expressed concern that the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding zoning would be fruitless with a legal opinion regarding the validity of the requested annexation. He also indicated interest in tabling this agenda item.
Mr. Leitke expressed concern regarding development along West Georgia Road . He indicated concern that West Georgia Road could be developed just like Fairview Road . He cited the atrocious condition of West Georgia Road west of Neely Ferry Road. He is wary of the City inheriting problems that may be associated with West Georgia Road and potential development thereon. The City needs to be careful about plowing into this thing because the road itself is conducive to a lot of development.
Mr. Shelton requested clarification on if West Georgia Road is a state road or a county road and what are the plans for expansion along this road.
Mr. Russell Hawes cited a Federal earmark of over $4 million for preliminary work for expanding West Georgia Road to four lanes west of the Bloom’s shopping center. He did not know the time frame for this project but he did indicate that it is on the Local Transportation Improvement Plan that is prepared by the metropolitan planning organization known as GPATS. This is a regional entity. So this expansion has Federal funding.
Mr. Shelton indicated that it appears that this road may become a major artery. He expressed greater confidence in the City of Simpsonville governing future development along this road than Greenville County . He is wary of the County granting a request to rezone this corridor to some form of highway commercial.
Mr. Leitke cited that the City of Simpsonville and the Planning Commission was involved in the development that occurred along Fairview Road . Mr. Leitke does not share the same confidence as Mr. Shelton.
Mr. Dyrhaug reiterated the standard procedure for this request is for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation regarding zoning independent of the public hearing regarding annexation before the City Council. The Planning Commission should make a decision regarding the rezoning request regardless of the outcome of City Council hearings and discussions pertaining to the annexation request.
Mr. Witkowski asked Mr. Dyrhaug if we are confident that this annexation petition has followed the State procedures for the 75 percent petition method of annexation.
Mr. Dyrhaug expressed confidence that this annexation petition has followed the procedures governed in State Law.
Nr. Newman motioned to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested rezoning to PD for the 12 properties listed in the annexation petition of AXZ-2007-04.
Mr. Shelton seconded the motion.
The motion to recommend approval of the requested rezoning to PD for AXZ-2007-04 passed by a vote 6-1. Mr. Leitke cast the dissenting vote.
SP-07-02, Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Jasmine Cove Planned Development
Mr. Dyrhaug presented a revised preliminary development plan and statement of intent for the Jasmine Cove Planned Development. This PD consists of two phases, a commercial phase and multi-family residential phase. These revisions primarily pertain to the commercial phase, which will be known as Jasmine Commons. This commercial phase will consist of up to 120,000 square feet and the applicant proposes to divide this phase into 5 separate lots. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had proposed four new access points along Harrison Bridge Road with full ingress/egress at all four points. The applicant has since has since re-submitted plans in which two of these access points have been converted to “right-in, right-out only” points of ingress/egress. This second alternative is better than the first. Staff recommends that the “right-in, right-out only” should be designed be redesigned with more restrictive turning motions such as to more effectively obstruct left-hand turning motions. In addition, staff notes that SCDOT recommends that curb cuts along Harrison Bridge Road be spaced a minimum of 250 feet apart. The current separation distance between each proposed curb cut does not meet this requirement. Overall, staff recommends conditional approval with the following contingences:
Mr. Oni Maxey, authorized representative with CCAD Engineering, requested clarification regarding the timing between final development plan review for each individual lot and the ability for the applicant to be able to construct some infrastructure prior to the final development plan review. The applicant would like to construct some of the drives/roads and trunk lines for sewer and stormwater prior to final development plan review.
Mr. Dyrhaug indicated that staff has no problem with the applicant constructing some infrastructure at this site prior to final development plan review. He noted to the applicant that it may be easier to design the site and make adjustments to site design if the infrastructure is not yet constructed. But he was aware of no other reason that should prohibit the applicant from constructing some of the infrastructure in an effort to market the land.
Ms. Mahaffey asked if potential contracts were in place that required some of the infrastructure to be constructed.
Mr. Maxey replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Witkowski asked if that is the only objection the applicant has to the contingencies.
Mr. Maxey replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kevin Robinson indicated that County Staff largely agrees with City Staff regarding the contingencies City Staff has proposed. He also noted that County Staff opines that the four new curb cuts proposed along Harrison Bridge Road are excessive. He cited an example of a Planned Development at the corner of Fairview Road and Harrison Bridge Road where fewer curb cuts were constructed along a greater length of street frontage. County Staff recommends that the maximum number of new curb cuts along Harrison Bridge Road be limited in number to two new curbs cuts.
Mr. Maxey stated that the applicant feels strongly about needing four new curb cuts in order to make the individual lots more attractive to potential buyers and developers. The most recent revised preliminary development plan has been submitted to SCDOT for their review. His recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the request for four new curb cuts contingent on SCDOT approval.
Ms. Mahaffey indicated that other developments exist where curb cuts are not constructed at each individual outparcel of a commercial development.
Mr. Robinson referred to the Super Bi-Lo shopping center at Highway 14 as an example of Ms. Mahaffey’s statement.
Mr. Newman asked why the applicant wants the “right-in, right-out only” access points in the locations they are proposed.
Mr. Maxey indicated that the “right-in, right-out only” access points have been located such that they would be shared between the properties on both sides of the corresponding access point. This provides more convenient access to each site. This is especially desirable for businesses such as fast-food restaurants.
Mr. Newman asked that since there will be interconnectivity throughout this commercial phase, could the same objective not be met by only having two new curb cuts as if there were four new curbs cuts along Harrison Bridge Road?
Mr. Maxey indicated that access would be limited by limiting the number of curb cuts. Travel times would be extended by limiting curb cuts.
Mr. Witkowski asked if the applicant is opposed to the County’s recommendation.
Mr. Maxey replied in the affirmative. The County’s recommendations infringe upon the applicants ability to market and sell these properties to individual owners.
Mr. Witkowski identified comments earlier in tonight’s meeting where individuals were wary of Fairview Road-type development being replicated in other parts of the City. He does not want the same mistake of too many curb cuts along Fairview Road being repeated along Harrison Bridge Road . He indicated that other developments have been very successful in developing with interconnectivity and limiting the number of curb cuts.
Mr. Maxey indicated that he had some backing from City Staff and that the purpose of the “right-in, right-out only” access points was to eliminate conflict points generated by left-hand turning motions.
Mr. Shelton motioned to conditionally approve the revised preliminary development plan for SP-07-02 with all of the contingencies recommended by City staff in addition to the following contingency: The number of new curb cuts proposed along Harrison Bridge Road will be limited in number to two.
Ms. Mahaffey seconded the motion.
The motion to conditionally approve the revised preliminary development plan for SP-07-02 passed unanimously, 7-0.
TX-2007-03, A Text Amendment to Require Specified Survey and Final Plat Standards
Mr. Dyrhaug presented this proposed text amendment to the Land Development Regulations. The GIS Division of Greenville County has asked the City to consider updating our survey requirements for final plats. Our present requirements are out-of-date and not consistent with the general practices of most surveyors today. This text amendment would require surveys and plats to reference geodetic control monuments using the South Carolina State Plan Coordinate System. In addition, submission of a digital copy of the final plat would be required. This text amendment will improve the accuracy of geographic data within the County and City and also streamline the process by which the County inputs geographic data making it available to the City and public sooner. These same standards have been adopted by Greenville County and Fountain Inn. Mauldin and Traveler’s Rest are in the process of adopting these same standards. Staff recommends adoption of this proposed text amendment.
Mr. Shelton motioned to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment, TX-2007-03.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion to recommend approval of the text amendment TX-2007-03 passed unanimously, 7-0.
TX-2007-04. A Text Amendment to Regulate Outdoor Storage Containers and Storage Areas
Mr. Dyrhaug presented this proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. At previous meetings, the Planning Commission discussed the need to address outdoor storage containers and outdoor storage areas in the City. In researching this issue, City staff studied recent ordinances of cities throughout the country that pertain particularly to PODS-type containers located on residential properties. All of the ordinances studied imposed time limitations for these containers, ranging from 5 days to 90 days. The most common time limitation is between 14 days and 30 days. Many, but not all, of the ordinances studied also have regulations on where these containers are allowed to be placed on a residential property. At their September 25 workshop meeting, City Council provided some feedback regarding the drafted text amendment. Staff recommends that these containers be prohibited on streets. They should be set back a minimum of 5 feet from any property line. And the container shall only be permitted in front of a building for up to 14 days.
Mr. Dyrhaug also noted that while working on the text amendment for outdoor storage containers, staff felt impressed to fine tune the City’s regulations for outdoor storage on non-residential properties. Staff sees a need for consistent and tangible standards. Within the ordinance, the term “unenclosed materials storage areas” should be replaced with “outdoor storage areas.” In addition, a consistent standard of 6-foot tall screens should be applied. Staff recommends the adoption of this text amendment with the modifications suggested by staff.
Mr. Shelton expressed concern about a temporary storage container be parked on a driveway indefinitely. He also indicated that most people do not park them on their lawns out of concern that their grass will die.
Mr. Dyrhaug indicated that the issue raised at the City Council workshop there may be instances where someone is doing renovations and remodeling to their home that may necessitate a container being located at their property for a longer period of time.
Ms. Mahaffey asked if that was exempted in this proposed text amendment.
Mr. Dyrhaug indicated that the proposed text amendment does authorize the Planning Director to grant a time exemption in extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Shelton noted that the normal practice of these companies that rent out temporary storage containers is to pick up the container after it has been loaded and to take it away to their own facility where it is stored. However, there are examples where this is not happening and the container is stored on someone’s residential property.
Mr. Newman expressed his understanding that in some situations these containers would be used for storage in association with renovation and remodeling projects. However, there is no reason that once the container is loaded that it could not be taken away to a storage site/facility where the container would be kept while the remodeling is ongoing.
Mr. Robinson asked if there should be a specified time period associated with the time extension one could apply for.
Mr. Newman indicated that he felt one week would be an adequate extension to the time limitation.
Mr. Witkowski stated that the whole purpose of this ordinance is to regulate situations where a container sits out for weeks and months. He does not understand any objection to this proposed text amendment.
Mr. Dyrhaug asked what the Commission feels would be the most appropriate time limitation to place on how long a container could sit out at one’s property.
Mr. Newman expressed his opinion that 30 days should be the absolute limit. However, he also understands that events may arise where there is reasonable circumstance to extend the limit beyond 30 days.
Mr. Leitke indicated that there are some instances such as in the example of a fire where there is need to be able to have a container at one’s property for a longer period of time.
Mr. Dyrhaug asked if the Commission felt these containers should be restricted to the driveway only or if they should be permitted anywhere on the property.
Mr. Newman expressed concern that if they are set in the yard parallel to the street then they become a violation of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Shelton stated that we should simply draft requirements pertaining to temporary containers and allow them to be placed on their property temporarily. If it begins to become permanent then it would need to meet the requirements that we have in place for permanent sheds.
Mr. Newman stated his preference that these containers should be permitted only in the driveway.
Ms. Mahaffey stated her preference that these containers only be allowed for a maximum of 14 days on the property.
Ms. Mahaffey motioned to table discussion of this agenda item.
Mr. Shelton seconded the motion.
The motion to table discussion of text amendment TX-2007-04 passed unanimously, 7-0.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Dyrhaug introduced a potential annexation petition for a property located along West Georgia Road near the Westwood subdivision. A lady representing the owner of this property has expressed interest in annexing into the City with the request to rezone to C-2. In addition, she has indicated a desire to rezone the property behind hers which is already within the City’s boundaries to C-2 as well and then join the properties together so that she will have a developable piece of land. The reason this is being discussed tonight is she would like an indicator of what way the Planning Commission would lean regarding her request.
Mr. Leitke indicated that if this is an attempt to get commercial zoning he would be against such a request largely because it is going into the backdoor of the Westwood subdivision.
Mr. Robinson expressed his opinion that C-1N would be the most appropriate commercial zone at her property.
Mr. Witkowski indicated that the C-1N zone may be the most palatable.
Mr. Newman provided advice that she should just make her formal request and that would enable the Planning Commission to make a formal decision.
Mr. Witkowski echoed Mr. Newman’s advice.
Mr. Newman identified an article in the Greenville News that suggested that municipalities should be taking over stormwater management review and maintenance. He stated that this was being dictated by the Clean Water Act. This would relieve DHEC from their responsibilities pertaining to stormwater issues.
Mr. Robinson indicated that he would look into this issue.
Mr. Newman motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously, 7-0.
Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m. |
|
|
| 118 N E Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681 |
|