|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following
summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville Planning Commission.
An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by Planning
Commission 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 APRIL 1, 2008, 6:30
P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kirk Leitke, Caroline Mahaffey, Mike Newman, Mikelene Loe, Roy Shelton, James Boyd MEMBERS ABSENT: Hunter Howard III CITY STAFF/LEADERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER/OPENING REMARKS: Commission Chair Mike Newman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Dyrhaug held roll call. Mr. Newman presented the items on the agenda and the hearing rules of procedure. Mr. Boyd moved to accept both the March 4, 2008 Planning Commission minutes and the March 12, 2008 Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Shelton seconded the motion. Mr. Leitke made statements pertaining to the Heritage Crest Planned Development Final Development Plan from the March meetings. These matters related to the conflict of interest of one of the Planning Commission members and the superfund status of ParaChem. The motion to approve the March 4, 2008 Planning Commission minutes and the March 12, 2008 Planning Commission minutes passed unanimously, 6-0. The March 4, 2008 Planning Commission minutes and the March 12, 2008 Planning Commission minutes were approved. SP-2008-04, Site Plan Review of Professional Office Building at 421 N. Main Street Mr. Dyrhaug introduced a request to review the site plan for a professional office building on a C-1N zoned property at 421 N. Main Street. The property is just over a ˝ acre. The proposed development is a 6,000-square foot multi-tenant building for use as office and limited retail. Staff recommended conditional approval with the following contingencies:
Mr. Steve Lockridge, the applicant, noted that he plans to do some nice landscaping. Mr. Newman asked about the sewer letter for this project. Mr. Dyrhaug responded that it was on file. Ms. Shannon Cooper, a resident at 112 Scarsdale Street, expressed concerns regarding buffering and inquired as to whether a fence could be erected along the northern property line. Mr. Lockridge replied that he intends to do something to create an effective screen. He has considered doing a nice fence. Ms. Mahaffey moved to conditionally approve SP-2008-04 with the contingencies expressed by staff. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion to conditionally approve SP-2008-04 passed unanimously, 6-0. AXZ-2008-02, Annexation and Rezoning of Two Properties at Neely Ferry Rd. near Stenhouse Rd. Mr. Dyrhaug introduced a petition to annex and rezone two properties along Neely Ferry Road. These properties are currently zoned S-1 and R-S in the County. The request is to rezone these properties to I-1. The S-1 zoned property is presently used for manufacturing of plastic products. The R-S property is presently vacant. Mr. Dyrhaug reviewed the criteria against which rezoning requests are considered. Mr. Dyrhaug noted that by annexing these properties into the City that the City would have the opportunity to work with the applicant in improving some of the conditions that are perceived as problems by the nearby residents. Staff recommended approval of this agenda item. Mr. Leitke asked about the location of this property in reference to the nearby creek in this area. Mr. Dyrhaug answered that the applicant’s facility is to the west of this creek and that the creek borders the property. Mr. Leitke expressed concerns regarding the current truck traffic along Capewood Road which is a no-thru truck zone. Mr. Dominick Morabito, the applicant, expounded on his current operations and explained that trucks presently travel between this facility on Neely Ferry Road and a warehouse facility on Old Stage Road. He is attempting to eliminate the truck traffic between these two facilities. This would be accomplished by building warehouse facilities at his Neely Ferry Road location. Mr. Morabito noted that he has been at this location on Neely Ferry Road for 25 years. Mr. George Hicks, a resident at 22 Boxelder Lane, expressed his opposition to this request for reasons of noise, lack of buffering, and traffic issues. Mr. Martin Smith, a resident at 112 Box Elder Lane, expressed his opposition to this request for reasons of lack of buffering and stormwater management facilities. Furthermore, he noted that the County has denied similar requests by the applicant. Ms. Carolyn Smith, a resident at 112 Box Elder Lane, expressed her opposition to this request because she is wary of expansion. She noted that this facility has already grown and expanded since she moved to her home. Mr. London Davis, a resident at 8 Chinaberry Lane, expressed his opposition to this request citing reasons regarding traffic, road safety, expansion, and noise. Mr. Leitke expressed concerns regarding the future expansion of this facility and what that expansion would entail. Discussion between Mr. Leitke, Mr. Dyrhaug, and Mr. Shelton ensued. Ms. Carolyn Irwin, a resident at 13 Chinaberry Lane, expressed her opposition to this request citing reasons regarding property values. Mr. Shelton, Mr. Dyrhaug, and Ms. Mahaffey ensued in discussion regarding the I-1 zoning district and the City’s regulations and control over I-1 development. Ms. Deborah Jones, a resident at 22 Chinaberry Lane, expressed her opposition to this request citing reasons regarding noise and overall quality of life within the subdivision. Ms. Astrid Truman, a resident at 17 Chinaberry Lane, expressed her opposition to this request citing reasons regarding noise, traffic safety, health concerns, and environmental protection. Ms. Joanne Brillant, a resident at 15 Chinaberry Lane, expressed her opposition to this request citing reasons regarding noise, odor, health, and safety. Mr. Mike Proffitt, a resident at 200 Boxelder Lane, expressed his opposition to this request citing reasons regarding stormwater and environmental concerns. Mr. Amos Irwin, a resident at 13 Chinaberry Lane, expressed his opposition to this request citing reasons regarding traffic and the road conditions. Mr. Leitke inquired as to whether the applicant had applied with the County to rezone this particular vacant property along Neely Ferry Road. Mr. Smith responded that the applicant has not applied with the County to rezone this particular vacant property along Neely Ferry Road. Mr. Dyrhaug read a written statement from Craig and Brenda Smock, residents at 120 Boxelder Lane. In their written statement, Mr. and Mrs. Smock expressed their opposition to this request citing reasons regarding road conditions, traffic, property values, and safety. Mr. Dyrhaug stated that he would like to respond to the questions and issues that were raised during the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Mr. Dyrhaug began by addressing matters pertaining to noise. Mr. Newman interceded with a proposal that the applicant and the residents of the Neely Forest subdivision meet together and to see if some of these concerns and issues could be resolved. Mr. Newman proposed that the applicant meet with these residents to address their concerns. Mr. Shelton moved that they call for the question. Mr. Shelton moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the requested rezoning associated with AXZ-2008-02. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Ms. Mahaffey asked Mr. Shelton why he is recommending denial. Mr. Shelton ensued in discussion regarding the expansion of the industrial zone. Ms. Mahaffey expressed concern that if the City does not approve this request then the City would have no control no r involvement regarding the present operations at this and any future expansion or development at this site. The Planning Commission ensued in debate as to whether the applicant and these residents could hold a productive meeting in which they could resolve some of the differences expressed during this public hearing. The Planning Commission also ensued in discussion as to whether the applicant should be able to address some of the concerns and issues expressed during the public hearing. It was decided that he could not respond. Mr. Newman called for the vote. The motion to recommend to the City Council denial of the requested rezoning associated with AXZ-2008-02 passed by a vote of 4-2, with Ms. Mahaffey and Ms. Loe voting against the motion. TX-2008-02, Text Amendment to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance Mr. Dyrhaug introduced TX-2008-02, a text amendment to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. This a text amendment related to design review and design overlay districts within the City of Simpsonville. He noted the history and the past reviews that this text amendment has undergone. This current draft of this text amendment is a reflection of the discussion at the last workshop meeting for this text amendment as well as discussions between City staff and the City Attorney. The Planning Commission and staff ensued in a discussion as to what would be the most appropriate method to distinguish which redevelopment projects should be exempted from this ordinance and which redevelopment projects should be held to the standards of this ordinance. It was decided that the most appropriate method would be set a threshold at 75 percent of the assessed value. The standards of this ordinance would apply to any redevelopment project in a design overlay district where the costs of the improvements exceed 75 percent of the assessed value of the property. Meanwhile, where the costs of the improvements do not exceed 75 percent of the assessed value of the property, that redevelopment project is exempt from these standards. Mr. Shelton moved to recommend to the City Council approval of TX-2008-02 with the modifications discussed this evening. Ms. Loe seconded the motion. The motion to recommend to the City Council approval of TX-2008-02 passed unanimously, 6-0. No other business was discussed. Ms. Mahaffey moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Leitke seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 4-0. Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|