Planning Commission

TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2018 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Regular Meeting: February 20, 2018 [Pages 2–5] NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Text Amendment: Legacy Zoning Districts [Pages 6–15] An ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fort Mill; Article I, In General; Section 5, Establishment of Districts; so as to establish provisions for legacy districts; and Article II, Requirements by Districts; Section 23, R-5 Residential District; so as to designate the R-5 Residential district as a legacy district; to invoke the pending ordinance doctrine; to provide for a public hearing; and, to provide for other matters relating thereto INFORMATION / DISCUSSION 1. Preliminary Appearance Review: Dobys Bridge Commercial Site 2. UDO Update ADJOURN 1  MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 20, 2018 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM Present: James Traynor, Hynek Lettang, Ben Hudgins, Tom Petty, Jay McMullen, Planning Director Chris Pettit Absent: Zhengzheng Wiley, Chris Wolfe Guests: See attached sign-in sheet CALL TO ORDER Chairman Traynor called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Petty made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 16, 2018, meeting as presented. Mr. Hudgins seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0. OLD BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Commercial Appearance Review – Sunbelt Rentals: Planning Director Pettit provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to revise a previously granted commercial appearance review approval for the proposed Sunbelt Rentals at the corner of South Sutton Road and Sutton Ridge Lane in regards to the fencing surrounding the site. Planning Director Pettit explained that the requested revision was to enclose the front portion of the site with a 6’ ornamental aluminum fence, that section being previously approved on the site plan without the fencing enclosure. Discussions occurred related to the purpose of the fencing and concerns on the aesthetics of the request. Ken Chapman, applicant, noted that the purpose of the fence was primarily related to security and consistency with the remainder of the site which is approved with fencing. Mr. McMullen questioned whether or not the fencing height could be reduced from 6’, to which Mr. Chapman noted that the property owner originally requested 8’ fencing. Mr. McMullen additionally questioned whether or not additional plantings could be installed along the Sutton Road frontage to break up the length of the fence, to which Mr. Chapman had no opposition to installing landscaping as discussed. Discussions occurred related to the evolution of the site plan and the purpose of the previous revisions to the commercial appearance review approval. 2  Mr. McMullen made a motion to approve the requested revision with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping, including 3 types of low growing shrubbery (less than 3’ in height), shall be installed along the Sutton Road frontage to visually break up the fencing. Staff shall have the authority to review and approve the final design of the landscaping. 2. Staff shall have the authority to make minor modifications to the site plan in order to accommodate comments or concerns from other reviewing authorities. Mr. Petty seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-2, with Mr. Lettang and Mr. Hudgins opposed. 3. Commercial Appearance Review – Pendleton Village: Planning Director Pettit provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to revise a previously granted commercial appearance review approval for the proposed outparcel shell commercial building located in the Pendleton Village shopping center. Planning Director Pettit explained that the requested revision was to revise the design of the primary facades. Chairman Traynor questioned what the primary purpose of the requested revision was, to which Lane Norman, applicant, noted that the primary purpose of the request was budgetary in nature. Discussions occurred related to the angled stone columns proposed on the revised plans, to which it was noted that the desire would be to revise the columns to no longer be angled and to instead match those of the previous approval. Further discussions occurred related to the parapet walls along the rear of the building and whether or not the design, as proposed, would appropriately screen rooftop mechanical equipment. Concerns were expressed related to the visibility of the rooftop from adjoining properties and the need for additional screening. There being no further discussions, Chairman Traynor called for a motion. Mr. Hudgins made a motion to approve the requested revision with the following conditions: 1. The stone veneer columns shall be revised to be straight, generally matching those from the original approval and adjacent Pendleton Village building. 2. The rear elevation shall be revised to provide additional screening of the rooftop area and associated equipment. Screening to be designed by the applicant and staff shall have the authority to review and approve the final design. Mr. McMullen seconded the request. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 3 NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review – American Legion: Planning Director Pettit provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to grant commercial appearance review approval for a proposed addition at American Legion Post #42 located at 427 Banks Street. Planning Director Pettit went over the staff report and the proposed design as provided in the agenda packet. Discussions occurred related to the location of the proposed addition, to which it was noted that the addition would be located off the northern side of the building towards the adjacent multi-family property. Mr. Hudgins questioned the use of the fiber-cement siding as the material was not used on the existing structure. Matt Manucy, the general contractor for the applicant, noted that the new siding would match the color of the gables on the existing building and the brick foundation would match the existing building as closely as possible. Discussions occurred related to the evolution of the plan, which started as a deck along the Banks Street frontage and eventually turned into the existing enclosed addition. Mr. Manucy explained that the purpose of the addition was to provide additional space to increase membership and separate internal smoking and non-smoking areas. Mr. McMullen noted that the new plans for an enclosed space removed his initial concern related to adding additional outdoor noise in a relatively residential area. Mr. Hudgins made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval with a condition to allow staff to make minor modifications to the plan in order to address comments or concerns made by the various reviewing authorities. Mr. Lettang seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 2. Text Amendment – COD/COD-N Corridor Overlay District: Planning Director Pettit provided an overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and provide a recommendation to Council for a proposed text amendment to the COD/COD-N Corridor Overlay District. Planning Director Pettit went through the staff report, explaining the purpose of the text amendment and detailing the specific amendments. Discussions occurred related to concerns with amending the parking and pedestrian crosswalk requirements, which as discussed could remove the intent of the overlay district. Planning Director Pettit noted that the amendments were drafted based off discussions on the draft UDO with Council, however ultimately the Planning Commission can recommend a modified version of the ordinance. Further discussions occurred related to the evolution and intent of the overlay district. 4  Mr. Petty made a motion to recommend approval of a modified text amendment that did not include any amendments to the existing language related to off-street parking. Mr. Hudgins seconded the motion. Mr. McMullen moved to amend the currently pending motion so as to also not include any amendments to the existing language related to pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Lettang seconded. The motion to amend the currently pending motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with Mr. Hudgins, Chairman Traynor, and Mr. Petty opposed. There being no further discussion, Chairman Traynor called for a vote on the currently pending motion made by Mr. Petty, which was to recommend approval of a modified text amendment that did not include any amendments to the existing language related to off-street parking. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0, with Chairman Traynor abstaining. Planning Director Pettit stated that there may be a request to hold a special called meeting in the next couple of weeks and that staff would work with the Planning Commission to determine a specific date and time should that be necessary. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Chris Pettit, AICP Planning Director March 13, 2018 5  Meeting Information Meeting Type Planning Commission Meeting Date March 20,2018 Request Summary Action (Old Bus.) X Action (New Bus.) Info/Discussion Request Type Public Hearing Executive Session Other Case Summary Annexation Rezoning X Text Amendment Case Type Subdivision Plat Appearance Review Other Title AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL; ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL; SECTION 5, ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS; SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR LEGACY DISTRICTS; AND ARTICLE II, REQUIREMENTS BY DISTRICTS; SECTION 23, R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AS A LEGACY DISTRICT; TO INVOKE THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE; TO PROVIDE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING; AND, TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO Background Information Background In June 2013, Town Council approved Ord. No. 2013-17 establishing the R- 5 Residential district, the purpose of which was to create a zoning district for medium density single family attached and detached developments. The R-5 Residential district was amended in September 2014, removing single family attached units from the list of permitted uses and instead creating separate zoning classifications for townhome-specific developments (RT-4, RT-8, RT-12). In addition, a density cap on single family residential developments was imposed on the R-5 district, limiting density to three dwelling units per acre by right and allowing for up to five dwelling units per acre with an approved development agreement. Since its establishment, four residential projects have been approved (Oakland Pointe, Pecan Ridge, Springview Meadows, Sutton Mill) and one 6  additional property has been annexed with an R-5 Residential zoning designation (Patterson Property). Through the development of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Town’s new comprehensive plan, various amendments to the Town’s zoning regulations have been discussed, particularly as they relate to medium density residential and the R-5 Residential district. The UDO will ultimately, upon adoption, provide for a much more wholistic revision to the Town’s land development regulations, including those related to medium density residential developments. However, in the interim, there may be opportunities to address some of the concerns that have been discussed through future text amendments. As a precursor to those amendments, Council has requested a text amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance so as to establish the provisions for legacy districts and to designate the R-5 Residential district as a legacy district. Discussion The purpose of a legacy district is to preserve the conforming status of existing or approved developments and to allow for consistency in the future development of areas zoned to a legacy district. This text amendment would establish provisions within the Zoning Ordinance to create legacy districts and, furthermore, designate the R-5 Residential district as a legacy district. As a result, properties currently zoned R-5 Residential would keep their zoning designation and projects being developed under R-5 would remain in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. However, as a legacy district, properties could not be rezoned to R-5 Residential in the future, nor could the existing boundaries of an R- 5 Residential district be expanded. The protections established by creating the legacy district, as described above, would then allow Council to consider future amendments to the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to address concerns related to medium density residential classifications without creating nonconformities or otherwise altering those prior R-5 Residential approvals. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the ordinance 2. Recommend approval of the ordinance with modifications 3. Recommend denial of the ordinance Staff Recommendation Recommendation Staff recommends in favor of approval of the text amendment Name & Title Chris Pettit, Planning Director Department Planning Department 7  Legislative History Planning Commission 03/20/2018: Scheduled First Reading 02/26/2018: Approved with Pending Ordinance Doctrine Public Hearing 03/26/2018: Scheduled Second Reading 03/26/2018: Scheduled Effective Date Upon adoption Attachments • Draft Text Amendment Ordinance 8  STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL ORDINANCE NO. 2018-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL; ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL; SECTION 5, ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS; SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR LEGACY DISTRICTS; AND ARTICLE II, REQUIREMENTS BY DISTRICT; SECTION 23, R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AS A LEGACY DISTRICT; TO INVOKE THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE; TO PROVIDE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING; AND, TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. Pursuant to the authority granted by the Constitution and the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL: SECTION I. The Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fort Mill; Article I, In General; Section 5, Establishment of Districts; is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5. – Establishment of Districts A. For the purpose of this ordinance, the areas under the jurisdiction of the Fort Mill Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Historic Review Board, and the Town Council are hereby divided into 26 districts: R-25 One-family residential R-15 One-family residential R-12 One-family residential R-10 One-family residential GR General residential GR-A General residential-A MHP Mobile home park LC Local commercial HC Highway commercial GI General industrial PCD Planned cluster development SHPD Scenic highway planned development HP Historic preservation PND Planned neighborhood development RC Resource conservation TC Transitional commercial LI Limited industrial MXU Mixed use development MID Municipal improvement THCD Tom Hall Street corridor UD Urban development R-5 Residential COD/COD-N Corridor Overlay District 9  RT-4 Residential district RT-8 Residential district RT-12 Residential district B. Legacy districts: Within the Town of Fort Mill, certain districts shall be referred to as legacy districts. These districts exist in order to preserve the conforming status of existing or approved developments and to allow for consistency in the future development of areas zoned to a legacy district. No new legacy district shall be added to the Official Zoning Map, nor shall any boundary of an existing legacy district be expanded. The following district, as established in Article I, Section 5(A), shall be considered a legacy district: R-5 Residential SECTION II. The Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fort Mill; Article II, Requirements by Districts; Section 23, R-5 Residential District; is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23. - R-5 Residential District. 1. Purpose of district: It is the intent of this section that the R-5 residential zoning district be developed and reserved for medium density single-family residential purposes. The regulations which apply within this district are designed to encourage the formation and continuance of a stable and healthy residential environment, while allowing for flexibility in design standards, a variety in housing options, and enhanced protection for natural and environmental resources. This district shall be subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 5(B), Legacy districts. Therefore, no new R-5 residential zoning district shall be established, nor shall the boundary of any existing R-5 residential zoning district be expanded. 2. Permitted uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the R-5 zoning district: a. Single-family detached residential dwellings b. Publicly owned building, facility, or land; c. Private uses which are customarily associated with residential development, including: 1. Clubhouses and activity centers 2. Pools and poolhouses 3. Off-street parking facilities 4. Other amenities related to recreation and/or resident activities d. Accessory use in compliance with the provisions of article I, section 7, subsection G; 10  e. Customary home occupations established under the regulations in article I, section 7, subsection F; f. Religious institutions. 3. Conditional uses: The following uses shall be permitted in any R-5 zoning district on a conditional basis: a. Public utility substation or subinstallation, including water towers; provided that: 1. Such use is enclosed by a fence or wall at least six feet in height above finish grade, or by some other screening material deemed appropriate as part of the appearance review process. 2. There is neither office nor commercial operation nor storage of vehicles or equipment on the premises, and 3. A landscaped strip not less than ten feet in width is planted and suitably maintained around the facility; b. Temporary use in compliance with the provisions of article VI, section 4; c. Daycare facilities or pre-school nursery, provided that any such facility must be licensed or registered by the appropriate state agency. 4. Other requirements: Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in this ordinance, uses permitted in R-5 districts shall be required to conform to the following standards: a. Maximum density for new residential subdivisions: 1. The maximum gross residential density for new residential subdivisions within the R-5 district shall be three (3) dwelling units per acre. 2. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the town council may authorize a maximum gross residential density of up to five (5) dwelling units per acre by entering into a development agreement with an applicant, based upon terms that are mutually agreeable to both the town and the applicant, consistent with Section 6-31-10 et seq of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, as amended. 3. For the purpose of this section, “gross residential density” shall be defined as the total number of residential units divided by the total acreage of land within the development. 11 b. Minimum lot area: 5,000 square feet; provided, however, that the minimum lot area may be reduced up to 20% for any single-family detached residential lot with rear alley loaded access. c. Minimum lot width, measured at the building line: 50 feet; provided, however, that the minimum lot width may be reduced up to 20% for any single-family detached residential lot with rear alley loaded access. d. Minimum front yard depth, measured from the nearest street right-of-way line: 1. For single-family residential dwellings, the minimum front yard setback shall be 10 feet. 2. For all other permitted uses within the R-5 district, the minimum front yard setback shall be 20 feet. 3. Awnings, steps, porches, balconies and eaves may encroach up to 5' into the required front yard setback area, where provided. 4. For exceptions to this requirement, See article I, section 7, subsection E. 5. Line of sight guidelines shall apply for all corner lots and may result in a larger front yard setback. e. Minimum side yard: 1. For single-family residential dwellings, the minimum side yard setback shall be 5 feet. 2. For all other permitted uses within the R-5 district, the minimum side yard setback shall be 10 feet. 3. For side yard requirements pertaining to corner lots, see article I, section 7, subsection C. 4. Awnings, steps, eaves, concrete or paver patios, and HVAC equipment may encroach up to 50% into the required side yard setback area. 5. Line of sight guidelines shall apply for all corner lots and may result in a larger side yard setback. 6. The minimum side yard setback for all accessory uses within the R-5 zoning district shall be 5 feet. 12 f. Minimum rear yard: 1. For single-family residential dwellings, the minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 feet. 2. For all other permitted uses within the R-5 district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. 3. For rear yard requirements pertaining to dual frontage lots, see article I, section 7, subsection D. For the purpose of this section, a private alley shall not be considered a road frontage. 4. Awnings, steps, eaves, concrete or paver patios, porches, balconies and HVAC equipment may encroach up to 5' into the required rear yard setback area. 5. The minimum rear yard setback for all accessory uses within the R-5 zoning district shall be 5 feet. 6. Line of sight guidelines shall apply for all corner lots and may result in a larger rear yard setback. g. Maximum building height: 1. The maximum building height for all structures within the R-5 zoning district shall be 35 feet. 2. For exceptions to height regulations, see article I, section 7, subsection L. h. Dedicated open space requirements: 1. For all new developments within the R-5 district, a minimum of 20% of the gross land area of the project shall be set aside as dedicated open space. 2. For all new developments that include rear alley loaded access on at least 75% of all residential units, the open space requirement may be reduced by 25%. 3. Dedicated open space shall be provided in accordance with Section 19(4)(H), paragraphs 2-11, of the zoning ordinance. i. Buffer requirements: 13  1. For all new developments within the R-5 district, a landscaped buffer at least 35’ in width shall be required along all project edges abutting existing residential development, excluding road frontage, and shall be measured perpendicular to the property lines that define the project area. This buffer shall be a natural, undisturbed wooded area where possible, and shall count towards the open space requirement. Where an existing natural, undisturbed wooded area does not exist, a planted buffer shall be required. Planted buffers shall contain a minimum of 9 evergreen trees and 20 evergreen shrubs for each 100 linear feet of buffer area. 2. The required width of any project boundary buffer may be reduced by 25%, provided a minimum six-foot opaque wall is constructed along the project boundary. j. Sidewalk requirements: 1. Notwithstanding other provisions of the zoning ordinance or the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Fort Mill, all new developments within the R-5 district shall include sidewalks at least five (5) feet in width along both sides of any new or existing road frontage (excluding alleys). All sidewalks shall be constructed to comply with the standards of the town, South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2. New sidewalks shall be constructed in locations that will promote connectivity with existing sidewalk infrastructure. Where no adjacent sidewalk infrastructure exists, new sidewalks shall be stubbed out to locations identified by the zoning administrator in order to allow for connectivity with future development. These requirements may be waived administratively by the zoning administrator if circumstances exist that make such connections impractical. k. Traffic improvements. 1. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) shall be required for any new development that includes more than one hundred (100) residential units, or for any new development that is expected to generate an average of more than five hundred (500) vehicle trips per weekday. Any traffic improvements recommended by the TIA shall be installed at the developer’s cost. 2. Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the developer shall meet with the zoning administrator and, if warranted, representatives from the SCDOT, prior to project approval for the purpose of reviewing proposed ingress/egress locations and traffic impact. Any traffic improvements recommended by the town and/or SCDOT shall be installed at the developer’s cost. 14  l. Additional requirements: Uses permitted in R-5 zoning districts shall meet all standards set forth in article I, section 7, subsection I, pertaining to off-street parking, loading, and other requirements. m. Signs: Signs permitted in the R-5 zoning district, including the conditions under which they may be located, are set forth in article III. SECTION III. Invocation of Pending Ordinance Doctrine. The pending ordinance doctrine, as defined and applied by the South Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Sherman vs. Reavis 273 S.C. 542, 257 S.E. 2d 735, and as adopted and applied by the state courts in other decisions, is hereby adopted and declared to be in full force and effect following first reading approval of this ordinance. SECTION IV. Severability. If any section, subsection, or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, and clauses shall not be affected thereby. SECTION V. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of adoption. SIGNED AND SEALED this _____ day of ___________________, 2018, having been duly adopted by the Town Council for the Town of Fort Mill on the _____ day of ___________________, 2018. First Reading: February 26, 2018 TOWN OF FORT MILL Public Hearing: March 26, 2018 Second Reading: March 26, 2018 ______________________________ Guynn H. Savage, Mayor LEGAL REVIEW ATTEST ______________________________ ______________________________ Barron B. Mack, Jr, Town Attorney Virginia C. Burgess, Town Clerk 15