Planning Commission
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · April 16, 2019
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 16, 2019
112 Confederate Street
6:30 PM
Present: James Traynor, Tom Petty, Chris Wolfe, Andy Agrawal, Ben Hudgins, Assistant Town
Manager Chris Pettit, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex
Moore, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen
Absent: Hynek Lettang, Matthew Lucarelli
NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Annexation Request – Horse Road Property:
Planning Director Karagounis provided a brief overview of the annexation request, the
purpose of which was to annex York County Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 (portion)
containing approximately 13.15 +/- acres located off Horse Road. The current zoning is
AGC (York County) and Clear Springs Land Company, LLC would like to annex and rezone to
MXU. The property is contiguous to the town limits and is, therefore, eligible for
annexation. The annexation request with a zoning designation of MXU is consistent with
the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, and the applicant’s request is in support
of that end.
Mr. Wolfe had a concern about creating a donut hole with annexing a portion of the Tax
Map. Mr. Pettit explained that the parcel was already surrounded by the Town and that
the request would be making the “donut hole” smaller. Mr. Wolfe wanted to know if the
uses or densities would change with this annexation. Mr. Pettit stated that this request was
not adding or changing the density. Mr. Walters (the applicant) stated that the 13.15 acres
consisted of property that was currently associated with the horse barn and equestrian
facilities that are a part of the greenway and, therefore, the request was to consolidate the
property with the larger greenway property (inside the Town). The applicant noted that
having the same rules and regulations apply across all the property being utilized as a part
of the greenway was of a benefit to them as opposed to having to deal with differing rules
across two jurisdictions (Town and County). The applicant also noted that there were no
plans to utilize the property for anything other than what it is used for today, to serve as a
part of the greenway properties.
Mr. Petty made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request and Mr.
Hudgins seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
2. Development Agreement Request – Horse Road Property:
Planning Director Karagounis provided a brief overview of the third amendment to a
Development Agreement by and between the Town of Fort Mill and Leroy Springs &
Company, Inc; to amend the property subject to the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement; and other matter relating there to. The proposed third
amendment would add a portion of Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 as additional property
subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement, such property being the same as the
property proposed for annexation in New Business Item #1.
Mr. Wolfe did have some concern about understanding the previous amendments of the
development agreement in comparison with this development agreement. Mr. Pettit
stated that this third amendment was only adding the additional property and making it
subject to the already in place rules and regulations of the development agreement. Mr.
Pettit additionally noted that the amendment to the development agreement would not
change the potential uses of the added property or overall property subject to the
development agreement given that the development agreement has limits (maximums) of
what can be developed for the entirety of the property.
Mr. Hudgins made a motion to recommend approval of the third amendment to the
development agreement and Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The motion was approved
5-0.
3. Subdivision Request – 128 East Gregg Street: Senior Planner Moore provided an overview
of the lot variance request from Paul Zowaski and Carolyn Camann to create a subdivision
of York County Tax Map Number 020-04-20-007. The proposed subdivision would result in
a parcel not meeting the minimum lot size for the R-15 Zoning District, which is 15,000
square feet, and therefore the Planning Commission would need to grant a lot variance as
a part of the subdivision approval. The parcel as currently configured is a double-frontage
lot stretching between E. Gregg Street and E. Oak Street in Whiteville Park. The proposed
new lot would front on E. Oak Street and consist of approximately 8,712 square feet. As
detailed in the staff report, Senior Planner Moore noted that staff recommended in favor
of denial based on the minimum lot standards and the hardship requirements for approving
subdivisions below the minimum standards.
Planning Commissioner Agrawal asked when the hand-drawn, post-survey lot was
combined to form the current aggregate parcel. Senior Planner Moore estimated that this
occurred sometime in the 1960s.
Mr. Zowaski, the applicant, explained that the lots were combined administratively for
mortgage purposes over the years. Additionally, he noted that any structure built on the
new lot could meet the required setbacks.
Planning Commissioner Hudgins asked Mr. Zowaski what the main purpose of the
subdivision would be. Mr. Zowaski replied that the shape of the lot, and the location of his
home facing Gregg Street, resulted in this portion of the property not being very usable.
Thus, he wanted to subdivide that portion and sell it. Mr. Zowaski also stated that there
was a home currently under construction on Gregg Street on a nonconforming lot.
Planning Commission Chair Traynor asked Mr. Zowaski if he knew the dimension of this
particular lot on Gregg Street. Mr. Zowaski replied that he did not know the dimensions of
this lot. Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit replied that the lot that Mr. Zowaski was
referring to was 111 E. Gregg Street. Pettit noted that the dimensions of this lot consisted
of approximately 75’ x 150’. Senior Planner Moore noted that this would be a legally
nonconforming lot created prior to the current zoning designation of R-15 for this area.
Planning Commissioner Wolfe asked if this lot would be grandfathered in. Senior Planner
Moore responded affirmatively.
Planning Commissioner Agrawal asked Mr. Zowaski if the property was one lot or two lots
when he acquired the property. Mr. Zowaski replied that the map he was given when he
purchased the lot indicated two lots.
Planning Commissioner Agrawal asked Mr. Zowaski when he acquired the property. Mr.
Zowaski replied that it was a little over two-years previous.
Planning Commission Chair Traynor asked Mr. Zowaski if there was a survey when he
purchased the home. Mr. Zowaski replied that there was not and that he relied on the map
he included within his lot variance application.
Planning Commission Chair Traynor indicated that a lender would typically require a survey
for a first mortgage. Traynor then stated that he believed the principal challenge was that
the proposed lot is 51’ wide with required 10’ side-yard setbacks. If the proposed lot were
platted with such limited dimensions, it would not be in keeping with the existing
neighborhood. Planning Commission Traynor clarified if this was one of the points that
Planning Staff had alluded to in recommending denial of the variance. Senior Planner
Moore responded affirmatively.
Chairman Traynor asked if the Town Council would be required to render a final decision
subsequent to the vote of Planning Commission. Senior Planner Moore stated that the
Planning Commission would provide the final decision and that the request would not go
to Town Council.
Planning Commissioner Hudgins noted that there was a great deal of interest on the part
of property owners and speculators in maximizing every piece of property within Whiteville
Park. Planning Commission Chair Traynor agreed and stated that some proposals would be
appropriate and that others would not be appropriate.
Planning Commissioner Hudgins stated that this proposal did not fit with the neighborhood
because of the smallness of the parcel. He stated that the idea of knowingly creating a
nonconforming lot which would require additional variances to build on was imprudent.
Planning Commissioner Wolfe stated that he was not interested in creating a
nonconforming lot based on the existing zoning standards unless it was part of a
recombination with an adjacent property owner. Planning Commission Traynor noted that
in Mr. Wolfe’s example, a nonconforming lot would not actually be created but that a
conveyance to an existing lot would take place. Planning Commissioner Wolfe agreed.
There being no other questions, Planning Commission Chair Traynor requested a motion.
Planning Commissioner Hudgins made the motion to deny the request. Planning
Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. By a vote of 5-0 in favor of the motion, the
Planning Commission denied the request.
4. Commercial Appearance Review – 116 Massey Street (BowZee WowZee Addition):
Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which
was to review and grant commercial appearance review approval for a building addition to
BowZee WowZee Pet Boarding, located at 116 Massey Street. Assistant Planner Cauthen
provided an amended layout and amended elevation plan to the Commissioners. The
updated plan included an addition with brick veneer that was L-shaped and connected at
an existing door. The new addition was proposed to be 1,028.5 square feet. The Planning
Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able
to approve minor adjustments.
Mr. Traynor asked if the proposed use of the addition was for kennels and the owner
(Donna Firebaugh), stated that yes it would be.
Chris Morrison (on behalf of the applicant) stated the proposed addition will have a lower
roof than the existing building. He continued by saying the existing mechanical units and
dumpster will be hidden within a 12 ft. gap between a portion of the addition and the
existing building.
Mr. Wolfe asked if all sides of the addition will be brick and how many bays the addition
will cover on the existing building. Mr. Morrison responded that all 4 sides will be brick and
the addition will cover one bay that connects to an existing door.
Mr. Traynor asked about the sizing of the 2’ x 2’ windows shown on the plan. The applicant
answered by saying the actual windows will be larger than 2’ x 2’, and most likely will be
4.5’ x 4.5’.
Mr. Wolfe asked if the addition will include overnight care. Ms. Firebaugh stated the
addition will not include overnight care and will primarily be used during peak season and
holidays.
Mr. Wolfe stated that brick is much better than the hardie-plank material that was
originally proposed considering the high number of residences in the area and the
appearance that it will portray from Massey Street. Mr. Wolfe also stated he would prefer
even roof lines to eliminate the appearance of a mixture in rooflines that are frequently
found with older structures.
Mr. Petty stated that he was okay with the variation in height given the new brick veneer
and the nature of problems in construction that matching rooflines can potentially create.
Mr. Petty made a motion to grant commercial appearance review with the condition for
staff to have the ability to approve larger windows in coordination with the Fire Marshal
and Building Department. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion and included language giving
staff the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed.
Mr. Petty agreed to the additional language. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0.
INFORMATION / DISCUSSION
1. Preliminary Appearance Review – CVS Pharmacy: Planning Director Karagounis gave a
brief description of the preliminary appearance review. The project includes a CVS
Pharmacy located at the corner of Springfield Parkway and Highway 21.
The applicant (Bill Moseley) stated the building will be 13,000 square feet with a newer,
modern look. The proposed building materials will consist of a stucco like material called
Lotusan, Stone, and Nichiha which gives the appearance of wood.
Mr. Traynor asked if Nichiha is a cementitious material regarding application. Mr. Petty
stated that he has used it in the past and that it is.
The Commission asked which side of the building will face Springfield Parkway. Diana
Brown (applicant) stated the presented elevations are a prototype to portray the materials
of the building but not the exact orientation for this location. Mr. Moseley added the goal
of this preliminary appearance review was to get thoughts on material types before
spending a substantial amount of money on architectural plans.
Mr. Wolfe stated the Commission generally pushes for brick and stone due to durability
and that he would like for the building to include brick given how prominent the location
of this building will be. It was recommended that brick be used in place of the Nichiha. Mr.
Hudgins and Mr. Traynor generally agreed with the recommendation.
Mr. Hudgins commented to make sure the rear of the building is given attention because
of the potential visibility it will have to future developments.
Mr. Petty stated he is normally high on traditional products such as brick but he has used
Nichiha in the past and it is a good material that he feels fits in very well with the
surrounding area. He continued by saying much of the development around Harris Teeter
incorporates a stone/wood look which this proposal would complement, along with giving
it a modern look.
Mr. Wolfe asked about the location of the drive thru. The applicant stated that it would be
located at the rear corner of the building.
The Commissioners concluded by saying they generally like the variation in color and
architecture of the building but to make sure the next proposal includes how the dumpsters
and mechanical equipment will be screened along with a new sample material board to
give a more descriptive visual of the elevations.
2. Preliminary Appearance Review – Fort Mill Fitness Factory: Planning Director Karagounis
gave a brief description of the preliminary appearance review. The project includes a gym
located at 1086 North Dobys Bridge Road.
The applicant (Alan Moseley) presented a slideshow of the project which included parking
and an approximate 10,000 square foot building. The future owner of the business gave a
description of his vision for the future regarding Fort Mill Fitness Factory.
Mr. Traynor asked where the site is located. The applicant stated that it is directly behind
Walmart where a house previously burned down.
Mr. Traynor asked if they were planning to connect driveways to the existing Walmart
parking lot. Mr. Moseley said they have not contacted Walmart, but they have limited space
to add a driveway considering the size of their lot.
Mr. Wolfe asked about the location of the driveway on Dobys Bridge Road. The applicant
said the driveway was depicted on the north side of the property to eliminate any
interference with the intersection of Doby Court to the south. Staff added the driveway
location will be reviewed through the TIA process in coordination with SCDOT.
Mr. Moseley stated it is an open layout building including a large gym area, locker rooms,
spin room, break room, and an office.
Mr. Traynor asked for a description of the building elevations. Mr. Moseley stated the
exterior includes 3 feet of brick at the bottom with the upper portion being stucco.
Mr. Traynor noted the building is in a residential area and needs to be dressed up to avoid
negatively affecting the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Wolfe followed by noting the rear of
the building is metal and this is not acceptable without dressing up the façade. Large blank
walls with no variation in colors or architecture are not allowed.
Walter McNeil (on behalf of the applicant) presented a pre-engineered metal building in
Concord, NC as an example of an economical pre-engineered building. He stated
articulation and parapets create issues cost-wise.
Mr. Traynor stated the Commission has approved pre-engineered buildings in the past, but
the facades have been dressed up in order to create a better appearance. Mr. Hudgins
mentioned adding metal awnings over the windows.
Mr. Moseley asked if EIFS is an issue and the Planning Commission stated that it is not but
a monolithic building with blank walls is an issue. The Commission added that the Family
Dollar nearby along with the Anytime Fitness building and A-lock-it storage building are all
good examples of pre-engineered buildings that have been approved for Commercial
Appearance Review.
The applicant asked if these appearance requirements are due solely to being in the Tom
Hall Corridor Overlay District. The Commissioners responded that buildings in the Tom Hall
Corridor District area are generally held to a higher standard but the requirement of high-
quality materials with variations in architecture is required town wide.
Mr. Wolfe concluded by saying this a good location for a gym but the building needs major
improvements to the elevations in order to be approved. He also requested a material
sample board for the next meeting. Mr. Traynor agreed and added this is a nice transition
down in building size between Walmart and the surrounding neighborhood.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53.
Respectfully submitted,
Penelope G. Karagounis, MA
Planning Director
May 7, 2019
Agenda
TOWN OF FORT MILL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 16, 2019
112 Confederate Street
6:30 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Regular Meeting: March 19, 2019 [Pages 3-6 ]
NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Annexation Request: Horse Road Property [Pages 7-18]
An ordinance annexing York County Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 (portion) containing
approximately 13.15 +/- acres located off Horse Road
2. Development Agreement Request: Horse Road Property [Pages 19-32]
An ordinance authorizing a Third Amendment to a Development Agreement by and between the
Town of Fort Mill and Leroy Springs & Company, Inc; to amend the property subject to the terms
and conditions of the Development Agreement; and other matter relating thereto
3. Subdivision Request: 128 East Gregg Street [Pages 33-39]
Request from Paul Zowaski and Carolyn Camann for a lot variance to subsequently create a
subdivision of York County Tax Map Number 020-04-20-007 resulting in a parcel not
meeting the minimum lot size for the R-15 Zoning District
4. Commercial Appearance Review: BowZee WowZee [Pages 40-51]
Request from Donna M. Firebaugh to grant commercial appearance review approval for a
proposed building addition to the existing BowZee WowZee building located at 116 Massey
Street
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION
1. Preliminary Commercial Appearance Review: CVS Pharmacy [Pages 52]
2. Preliminary Commercial Appearance Review: Fort Mill Fitness Factory
1
ADJOURN
The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance of the Freedom of Information Act: The
Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall the required
length of time and on the Town website.
The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of Town services and
facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-
2116 if you need assistance.
2
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 15, 2019
112 Confederate Street
6:30 PM
Present: James Traynor, Tom Petty, Chris Wolfe, Zhengzheng Wiley, Hynek Lettang, Matthew
Lucarelli, Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit, Planning Director Penelope
Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Ben Hudgins
Guests: Bill Moseley, Tom Stanford, Alex Quesenberry
Chairman Traynor called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
Commissioner Petty made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2019 meeting
as submitted. Commissioner Lucarelli seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a
vote of 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
• Subdivision Request – 1822 N. Dobys Bridge Road: Senior Planner Moore provided a brief
overview of the CTR REIT of Rock Hill, LLC subdivision plat request, the purpose of which
was to review and approve the subdivision of the existing 4.5 acre tract into two parcels.
The property contains approximately 239 linear feet of road frontage on N. Dobys Bridge
Road and is bisected by Haire Road. The property is currently undeveloped and was
recently annexed into the Town of Fort Mill. Subsequent the approval of the subdivision,
it is the applicant’s intent to develop that portion of the property on the east side of Haire
Road with a child daycare. Tract 2 (1 acre) will be retained by the Town.
Mr. Wolfe questioned how the donated property would be used. Mr. Pettit mentioned
that the Town has no future plans of how it would be used. Mr. Traynor stated the
neighbors supported the idea of the land to be donated to the Town so it could be
undeveloped. Mr. Traynor asked if anyone was here from the neighborhood? One resident
spoke and she stated her concerns with how important this undeveloped tract that the
Town would own was to protect them by buffering the residents from the commercial area.
She wanted this tract to stay a neat, natural area. Mr. Traynor asked who would maintain
this natural area and Mr. Pettit responded that the Town would maintain it. Mr. Traynor
also asked about road improvements and Mr. Pettit stated the traffic study was completed
prior to the annexation request of this property.
The resident asked the question if the subdivision could be approved with conditions about
the tract being undeveloped. Discussions followed with Commissioners and Mr. Pettit
explained the obligation for the developer to donate the land was secured as a part of the
annexation request. Mr. Pettit stated the request is to subdivide the two parcels and no
3
conditions are needed.
Mr. Wolfe asked what the setbacks were for the Highway Commercial District? Mr. Pettit
responded that the front and rear setback is 35 feet and the side setback is 10 feet.
Mr. Lucarelli mentioned for clarification purposes; it was mentioned at the beginning of the
meeting that the daycare was part of Tract 2. However, per the exhibit the daycare is part
of Tract 1 and the undeveloped land donated to the Town is Tract 2.
There being no further questions, Mr. Wolfe made the motion to recommend approval of
the request as submitted. Mr. Lucarelli seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote
of 6-0.
• Subdivision Request – 419 and 421 Banks Street: Senior Planner Moore provided a brief
overview of the NC RE investments LLC subdivision plat request, the purpose of which was
to subdivide Tax Map 020-05-04-010 consisting of 1.694 acres of land, into two parcels.
This property contains two multi-family apartment buildings, 419 and 421 Banks Street.
The proposed division of the property would occur at the centerline of the existing
driveway which serves these buildings. There is a draft driveway agreement to be recorded
with the plat.
Mr. Traynor asked the question if each of those buildings were duplexes. Mr. Moore said
it appears that is more than a duplex but he was not certain. Discussions occurred relating
to the existing uses in the R-15 zoning district, to which Mr. Moore noted that they were
legally non-conforming.
Discussion occurred regarding the shared driveway agreement because Commissioners had
concerns with similar situations in the past. The Commissioners discussed that it would be
beneficial for attorney to review the document. Mr. Moore stated he just received the
driveway agreement and that we could have the Town attorney review it.
Mr. Pettit mentioned from a legal perspective if the lot is subdivided, then legal access must
be provided and SCDOT would need to give a driveway cut. However, with a shared access
agreement, it would be a tool for SCDOT to not give them two separate driveways.
Mrs. Wiley asked if there was a maintenance agreement in the document. Mr. Moore
stated he just received the draft document tonight and has not reviewed it. He also stated
that this document has not been recorded but would need to be when the plat is approved.
Mr. Lucarelli does point out at the last paragraph of the draft document is language about
maintenance of the driveway.
Mr. Pettit mentions to the Commission, if you are in favor of the general idea, perhaps you
can make a motion to approve contingent upon the Town’s attorney review and approval
of the driveway document and recordation of the driveway agreement.
There being no further questions, Mr. Petty made the motion to recommend approval of
subdivision plat contingent upon the attorney’s review, approves and recordation of the
4
shared driveway agreement. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 6-0.
• Rezoning Request: Rutledge MXU Project: Assistant Town Manager Pettit provided a brief
overview of the amendment of the ordinance for the Mixed Use Concept Plan and
Development Conditions for the Rutledge MXU project, consisting of York County Tax Map
Numbers 020-21-330, 020-21-01-331, and 020-21-01-332 containing approximately 49.298
+/- acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Springfield Parkway and
U.S. Highway 21 Bypass. The concept plan and development conditions were approved in
2017 and allowed for the development of 245 dwelling units with a gross residential density
of 5 units per acre and a minimum of 50,000 square feet and a maximum of 175,000 square
feet of building space designated for commercial use. The principal amendments to the
development conditions and concept plan would be the following: amend the maximum
number of dwelling units from 245 (any type) to 200 (single family attached or detached)
with a residential density of 4.1 units per acre; amend the overall minimum square footage
from 50,000 to 20,000 for commercial and the overall maximum square footage from
175,000 to 50,000; amend the language related to the vehicular access and road
improvements to include a TIA prior to construction activities; amend the language related
to landscaping to include a tree survey showing trees 32” in caliber or greater; amend the
language related to streets to ensure sidewalks are installed along the project’s frontages
of U.S. Highway 21 Bypass and Springfield Parkway; amend the language to acknowledge
that portions of the development are subject to the Town’s TCP Transportation Corridor
Preservation Overlay District; amend the language related to floodplain areas subject to
the Town’s ordinances related to floodplains and development within floodplain areas.
Mr. Wolfe asked the question if the commercial on the corner was still included because it
stated +/- 6.59 acres (not included) on the concept plan. Mr. Pettit said that the
commercial corner was reduced and that the 6.59 acres for future commercial outparcels
was correct and did not know why it stated they were not included.
Mr. Traynor talked about the way the density is calculated with gross vs. net density. Mr.
Pettit replied that historically the density has been calculated by the total acreage of the
site.
Mr. Wolfe discussed the importance to have useable open space and Mr. Pettit stated the
concept plan proposes 8.54 acres of open space for the development.
There was discussion among the Commissioners about if this development was a true
mixed-use development because the commercial was being decreased. The applicant, Mr.
Moseley stated because the property was further away from the interstate and adjacent to
the Cato development, they did not need the higher square footage of commercial. He
stated that the retail development is not seeing a lot of growth and they were proposing
the corner lot to be a CVS pharmacy and the remainder 3 acres would be marketed for
commercial.
The Commission also asked the question if consideration was being made with the
5
widening of Highway 21? Mr. Pettit stated that portions of the development are subject to
the Town’s Transportation Corridor Preservation Overlay District. There is also a new TIA
currently underway and the new study will reflect the new required changes for the road
improvement. The access locations would be determined and approved by the TIA.
Mr. Lucarelli asked the question if this request was approving the site plan. Mr. Pettit
stated that this is a rezoning changing the text and concept plan to the prior Rutledge MXU
project. Mr. Pettit noted that the applicant’s concept plan was initially a site plan, but it
was converted to be a concept / bubble plan. Discussions occurred related to the concept
plan and the extraneous information that was included on the plan that was leftover from
when the plan was a site plan.
Mrs. Wiley asked the question if they could build 2-3 stories for the commercial. Mr. Pettit
stated it would depend if they could meet the parking regulations, but the max height limit
would be 60 feet. There was discussion about a parking deck and Mr. Moseley stated that
no structural parking deck was in the plans.
Mr. Lettang stated the amendment was reducing the commercial density by 60% in an area
where investment is going on to support development. He understood his cohorts were
fixated about the reduction of the residential density was a positive note but he felt the
original concept plan was more balanced.
Mr. Lucarelli asked if a market study was conducted? Mr. Moseley stated that no market
study was done and that he could only speak in regards to the commercial development
tract since he was not developing the residential development.
Mr. Lucarelli also questioned the floodplain note on the concept plan that there could be a
potential pedestrian pathway. He did not know if we could add a condition to require the
pedestrian pathway or should we strike the note on the plan. Mr. Moseley said that he
could not comment about the potential pedestrian pathway since it was next to the
residential and he had no jurisdiction since he was only developing the commercial
component. Mr. Pettit stated that the notes included on the concept plan were leftover
from when the plan was used as a site plan and therefore were not directly related to the
applicant’s current request.
There being no further questions, Mr. Lucarelli made the motion to recommend approval
of the amendment with the condition that Exhibit B titled the Rutledge MXU concept plan
be modified to only show the information applicable related to “bubble diagram” as
referenced by staff. Ms. Wiley seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18.
Respectfully submitted,
Penelope G. Karagounis, MA
Planning Director
April 8, 2019
6
Meeting Information
Meeting Type Planning Commission
Meeting Date April 16th, 2019
Request Summary
Action (Old Bus.) X Action (New Bus.) Info/Discussion
Request Type
Public Hearing Executive Session Other
Case Summary
X Annexation Rezoning Text Amendment
Case Type
Subdivision Plat Appearance Review Other
Property Information
Applicant Darrell Walters (on behalf of Leroy Springs & Company, Inc)
Property Owner Clear Springs Land Company, LLC
Property Location Horse Road
Tax Map Number Currently or formerly know as 710-00-00-002 (portion)
Acreage 13.15 +/- acres
Current Zoning AGC (York County)
Proposed Zoning MXU
Existing Use Vacant/Wooded
Title
An ordinance annexing York County Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 (portion) containing
approximately 13.15 +/- acres located off Horse Road
Background Information
Site Characteristics The subject property currently contains various outbuildings associated
with the ASC Greenway; the majority of the of the property is largely
undeveloped. Surrounding properties include equestrian / agricultural uses
related to the ASC Greenway.
Neighboring Uses Direction Zoning Existing Use
North MXU Wooded / ASC Greenway
South RD-I (YC), Single-Family Residential
R-15
East R-15 Single-Family Residential
West MXU Wooded / ASC Greenway
7
Zoning Summary The subject property is currently zoned AGC Agricultural Conservation
District. The county’s AGC district is intended to protect and preserve areas
under cultivation and prime agricultural soils.
The applicant has requested a zoning designation of MXU Mixed Use upon
annexation into the Town of Fort Mill. The property owner intends to
amend the Leroy Springs Development Agreement to include this parcel,
which is included as a separate agenda item within your packet.
The MXU district is intended to encourage flexibility in the development of
land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design,
character and quality of new development; to facilitate the provision of
infrastructure; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open
areas. This district is intended for the appropriate integration of a wide
range of residential and non-residential uses. The district is intended for
use in connection with developments where the town has determined that
the quality of a proposed new development there under will be enhanced
by flexibility in the planning process. Any use proposed by an applicant and
considered by the town council as compatible with the surrounding area
may be permitted within the project area.
Comprehensive Plan The property is located within an area that has been designated as
“Medium Density Residential” on the Town of Fort Mill’s Future Land Use
Map last updated in May 2016. The comprehensive plan generally defined
“medium density” as three to five dwelling units per acre.
8
The Leroy Springs Development Agreement allows for a variety of uses,
including some standalone senior residential uses and other residential
uses specifically related to supporting the ASC Greenway.
Traffic Impact At this time, the applicant does not intend to change the use of the subject
property and intends to continue to utilize the site for accessory facilities
related to the ASC Greenway. Should the applicant wish to change the use
in the future or increase the intensity of any of the uses on the property, a
traffic impact analysis (TIA) would be required. The review of the proposed
development and TIA would be coordinated with SCDOT and may require
the completion off-site transportation improvements to mitigate the
development’s impact to the transportation network. The construction of
any improvements deemed necessary through the TIA would be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Fire Impact The property is located approximately 1.3 miles (5 minutes) ordinary
driving distance from the town’s main fire station on Tom Hall Street.
Utility Impact The subject property is located within the town’s service area and would
be served by the town’s water and sewer system. As with all other projects,
any upgrades necessary to provide utility service to the site would be the
responsibility of the applicant.
School Impact The applicant intends to amend the Leroy Springs Development Agreement
to include the subject property. Although some residential uses are
allowed, it is not the applicant’s current intent to utilize the property for
residential. Furthermore, as noted previously, the residential uses allowed
per the Development Agreement are specific to senior housing and/or
housing that is purely accessory to the agricultural uses of the ASC
Greenway. Therefore, there is no anticipated impact to the Fort Mill School
District with the applicant’s request.
Discussion The property is contiguous to the town limits and is, therefore, eligible for
annexation.
In staff’s opinion, the annexation request with a zoning designation of MXU
is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan and
with the designation of nearby properties. The vitality of the ASC
Greenway is an essential component of the Town’s comprehensive plan,
and the applicant’s request is in support of that end. Therefore, staff
recommends in favor of approval of the annexation request with a
designation of MXU Mixed-Use.
Nothing in this report shall be deemed a guarantee that water and/or
sewer service/capacity will be available at the time of development. As
noted, any future development may also be subject to a TIA prior to any
9
construction approvals. Any improvements deemed necessary as a result
of the TIA would be the responsibility of the owner/developer.
Alternatives
1. Recommend approval of the annexation ordinance with a zoning designation of MXU
2. Recommend approval of the annexation ordinance with an alternate zoning designation
3. Recommend denial of the annexation request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends in favor of APPROVAL for the annexation with a zoning
Recommendation
designation of MXU.
Name & Title Penelope Karagounis, Planning Director
Department Planning Department
Date of Request April 16th, 2019
Legislative History
Planning Commission 04/16/2019: Scheduled
First Reading TBD
Public Hearing TBD
Second Reading TBD
Effective Date Upon adoption
10
Attachments
• Annexation Application and Map
• Aerial Image
• Zoning Map
• Draft Ordinance
11
Aerial Image
12
Zoning Map
13
14
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-___
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY OR FORMELY KNOWN AS YORK
COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER 710-00-00-002 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 13.15 +/- ACRES LOCATED
AT HORSE ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper petition was submitted to the Fort Mill Town Council on March 26, 2019,
by Darrell Walters on the behalf of Clear Springs Land Company, LLC (the “Property Owner”),
requesting that a portion of the property currently or formerly known as York County Tax Map
Number 710-00-00-002 be annexed to and included within the corporate limits of the Town of Fort
Mill under the provisions of S.C. Code Section 5-3-150(3); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Fort Mill, in a duly called meeting on April
16, 2019, reviewed the request and forwarded their recommendation to Town Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on May 13th, 2019, during a duly called
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Fort Mill; and
WHEREAS, Section 5-3-150(3) of the Code of Laws of the State of South Carolina, as amended,
provides that any area or property which is contiguous to a municipality may be annexed to the
municipality by filing with the municipal governing body a petition signed by all persons owning real
estate in the area requesting annexation. Upon the agreement of the governing body to accept the
petition and annex the area, and the enactment of an ordinance declaring the area annexed to the
municipality, the annexation is complete; and
WHEREAS, using the definition of “contiguous” as outlined in S.C. Code Section 5-3-305, the
Town Council has determined that the above referenced property is contiguous to property that was
previously annexed into the corporate limits of the Town of Fort Mill; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that annexation would be in the best interest
of both the property owner and the Town of Fort Mill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Fort Mill in Council
assembled:
SECTION I. Annexation. It is hereby declared by the Town Council of the Town of Fort Mill,
in Council assembled, that the incorporated limits of the Town of Fort Mill shall be extended so as to
include, annex and make a part of said Town, the described area of territory above referred to, being
more or less 13.15 +/- acres, the same being fully described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, and
contiguous to land already within the Town of Fort Mill. Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 5-3-110, this
annexation shall include the whole or any part of any street, roadway, or highway abutting the above
referenced property, not exceeding the width thereof, provided such street, roadway or highway has
been accepted for and is under permanent public maintenance by the Town of Fort Mill, York County,
or the South Carolina Department of Transportation.
15
SECTION II. Zoning Classification of Annexed Property. The above-described property, upon
annexation into the corporate limits of the Town of Fort Mill, shall be zoned, as follows: MXU Mixed
Use.
SECTION III. Voting District. For the purpose of municipal elections, the above-described
property, upon annexation into the incorporated limits of the Town of Fort Mill, shall be assigned to
and made a part of Ward Two (2).
SECTION IV. Notification. Notice of the annexation of the above-described area and the
inclusion thereof within the incorporated limits of the Town of Fort Mill shall forthwith be filed with
the Secretary of State of South Carolina (SCSOS), the South Carolina Department of Public Safety
(SCDPS), and the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), pursuant to S.C. Code § 5-3-
90(E).
SECTION V. 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 VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of
adoption.
SIGNED AND SEALED this _____ day of ___________________, 2019, having been duly
adopted by the Town Council for the Town of Fort Mill on the _____ day of ___________________,
2019.
First Reading: TOWN OF FORT MILL
Public Hearing:
Second Reading: ______________________________
Guynn H. Savage, Mayor
LEGAL REVIEW ATTEST
______________________________ ______________________________
Barron B. Mack, Jr, Town Attorney Virginia Burgess, Town Clerk
16
EXHIBIT A
Property Description
All those certain pieces, parcels or tracts of land lying, being and situate in Fort Mill Township, County
of York, State of South Carolina, containing 13.15 acres, more or less, containing a portion of the
property shown in the map attached as Exhibit B, and being more particularly described as a portion
of York County Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002.
Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 5-3-110, this annexation shall include the whole or any part of any
street, roadway, or highway abutting the above referenced property, not exceeding the width
thereof, provided such street, roadway or highway has been accepted for and is under permanent
public maintenance by the Town of Fort Mill, York County, or the South Carolina Department of
Transportation.
17
EXHIBIT B
Property Map
York County Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 - PORTION
18
Meeting Information
Meeting Type Planning Commission
Meeting Date April 16th, 2019
Request Summary
Action (Old Bus.) X Action (New Bus.) Info/Discussion
Request Type
Public Hearing Executive Session Other
Case Summary
Annexation Rezoning Text Amendment
Case Type
Subdivision Plat Appearance Review X Other
Property Information
Applicant Darrell Walters (on behalf of Leroy Springs & Company, Inc)
Property Owner Clear Springs Land Company, LLC
Property Location Horse Road
Tax Map Number Currently or formerly know as 710-00-00-002 (portion)
Acreage 13.15 +/- acres
Current Zoning AGC (York County)
Proposed Zoning MXU
Existing Use Vacant/Wooded
Title
An ordinance authorizing a Third Amendment to a Development Agreement by and between the
Town of Fort Mill and Leroy Springs & Company, Inc; to amend the property subject to the terms
and conditions of the Development Agreement; and other matter relating thereto
Background Information
Discussion The attached development agreement amendment is being offered by the
applicant as a companion to the annexation request for York County Tax
Map Number 710-00-00-002 (Portion), containing 13.15 +/- acres located
in the northwestern quadrant of the intersection of White Street (Highway
160) and Old Nation Road (Highway 21) along Horse Road.
The proposed third amendment would include the following changes into
the existing development agreement:
• Add a portion of Tax Map Number 710-00-00-002 as additional
property subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
19
Alternatives
1. Recommend approval of the ordinance authorizing the third amendment to the
development agreement, as submitted
2. Recommend approval of the ordinance authorizing the third amendment to the
development agreement, with modifications
3. Recommend denial of the ordinance authorizing the third amendment to the development
agreement
Staff Recommendation
Because staff recommended in favor of APPROVAL for the corresponding
Recommendation annexation request, we further recommend in favor of APPROVAL for the
third amendment to the development agreement.
Name & Title Penelope Karagounis, Planning Director
Department Planning Department
Date of Request April 16th, 2019
Legislative History
Planning Commission 04/16/2019: Scheduled
First Reading TBD
Public Hearing TBD
Second Reading TBD
Effective Date Upon adoption
Attachments
• Ordinance Authorizing the 3rd Amendment to the Development Agreement
• 3rd Amendment to the Development Agreement
20
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF FORT MILL
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-___
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FORT MILL AND LEROY SPRINGS & COMPANY, INC; TO AMEND THE
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; AND
OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
Pursuant to the authority granted by the Constitution of the State of South Carolina and the
General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF FORT MILL IN MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED:
ARTICLE I
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 1.1 Findings of Fact. As an incident to the adoption of this Ordinance, the Town
Council of the Town of Fort Mill (the “Town Council”), the governing body of the Town of Fort Mill,
South Carolina (the “Town”), finds that the facts set forth in this Article exist, and the statements
made with respect thereto are true and correct:
(A) The Town is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina Local
Government Development Agreement Act, codified as Sections 6-31-10 through 6-31-160, inclusive,
of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended (herein and as codified, the “Act”), to enter
into and amend development agreements with developers (as defined in the Act) to promote
comprehensive and capital facilities planning, ensure the provision of adequate public facilities for
development, encourage the efficient use of resources and reduce the economic cost of
development.
(B) Pursuant to Sections 6-31-10 through 6-31-160 of the Act, the Town and Leroy
Springs & Company, Inc. (the “Developer”) entered into that certain Development Agreement dated
as of July 31, 2008, and recorded August 1, 2008, in Record Book 10222, Page 1 et seq., in the Office
of the Register of Deeds for York County, South Carolina (the “2008 Agreement”);
(C) Pursuant to the Act, the Town and the Original Developer entered into a First
Amendment to Development Agreement dated as of March 2, 2017, and recorded March 2, 2017, in
Record Book 16261, Page 257 et seq., in the Office of the Register of Deeds for York County, South
Carolina (the “First Amendment”, and with the 2008 Agreement, the “Development Agreement”);
and the Second Amendment to Development Agreement dated as of March 7, 2017, and recorded
March 7, 2017, in Record Book 16266, Page 376, in the Office of the Register of Deeds for York County,
South Carolina (Collectively, the “Development Agreement”);
21
(D) The Town and the Developer desire to amend the terms of the Development
Agreement by way of the proposed Third Amended Development Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit A (the “Third Amendment”).
(E) After due investigation, the Town Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the Town to approve the Third Amendment and authorize its execution and delivery.
(F) The Town Council finds that the changes contained in the Third Amendment will
better ensure the health, safety and public welfare of its citizens.
(G) The Town Council finds that the development of the Property as provided by the
Development Agreement as modified by the Third Amendment is consistent with the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations in effect as of the date hereof.
(H) The Town Council has determined that all conditions precedent to the execution
and delivery of the Third Amendment shall, upon the final reading of this Ordinance (herein,
“Ordinance”), have been met. A public hearing, as required by Section 6-31-60(B) of the Act, has been
duly noticed and held.
(I) The Town Council is adopting this Ordinance in order to:
a. approve the entry by the Town into the Third Amendment; and
b. authorize the execution and delivery of the Third Amendment on behalf of
the Town.
ARTICLE II
THE AGREEMENT
Section 2.1 Authorization of Third Amendment. The Town Council hereby authorizes the
entry by the Town into the Third Amendment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2.2 Execution and Delivery of Third Amendment. The Town Council authorizes the
Mayor of the Town to execute and deliver the Amendment to the Developer. The Town Clerk is
authorized to affix, emboss, or otherwise reproduce the seal of the Town to the Third Amendment
and attest the same.
Section 2.3 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of
adoption.
Section 2.4 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
SIGNED AND SEALED this _____ day of ___________________, 2019, having been duly
adopted by the Town Council for the Town of Fort Mill on the _____ day of ___________________,
2019.
22
First Reading: TOWN OF FORT MILL
Public Hearing:
Second Reading: ______________________________
Guynn H. Savage, Mayor
LEGAL REVIEW ATTEST
______________________________ ______________________________
Barron B. Mack, Jr, Town Attorney Virginia Burgess, Town Clerk
23
EXHIBIT A
Third Amendment to Development Agreement
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Planning Commission Meeting
April 16th, 2019
New Business Item
Lot Variance Request: E. Oak Street
Request from Paul Zowaski and Carolyn Camann for a lot variance to subsequently create a subdivision of
York County Tax Map Number 020-04-20-007 resulting in a parcel not meeting the minimum lot size for
the R-15 Zoning District. The minimum lot size for the R-15 Zoning District is 15,000 square feet.
Background / Discussion
The Planning Commission is asked to consider a request from Paul Zowaski and Carolyn Camann of 128
E. Gregg Street to approve a lot variance for York County Tax Map Number 020-04-20-007. This is a
double-frontage lot consisting of .65 acre located in Whiteville Park with approximately 125-feet of
frontage on E. Gregg Street and approximately 50-feet of frontage on E. Oak Street. The existing parcel is
highlighted in blue in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1
33
Thus, the applicant is proposing to create a lot consisting of the approximate dimensions of 50’ x 175’ with
a resulting area of ± 8,712 square feet or .20 of an acre. The subject lot as currently configured consists of
± 28,314 square feet (.65 acre). The subtraction of approximately 8,712 square feet from the lot would result
in the parent parcel remaining legally conforming at 19,602 square feet. However, at ± 8,712 square feet,
the proposed lot on E. Oak Street would be 42% smaller than the required 15,000 square foot minimum for
the R-15 District. See the approximate area below highlighted in green in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2
34
The proposed lot would not meet the minimum lot width of 125 feet for R-15. The required setbacks for
the R-15 Zoning District include the following:
• Front-yard setback: 35 feet
• Side-yard setbacks: 10 feet
• Rear-yard setback: 35 feet
The applicant bases his request for the subdivision variance on a historic plat created in the 1950s which
included this property. The subject parcels are outlined in pink in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3
35
At some point subsequent to the creation of the above plat, Lot 4 was divided, and that portion of Lot 4
outlined in pink was combined with Lot 5 to create the subject parcel consisting of .65 acre.
The Whiteville Park subdivision is a well-established neighborhood with the zoning designation of R-15.
Legal lots of record do exist within Whiteville Park which are smaller than the minimum lot size of 15,000
square feet. Many of these lots likely predate the original zoning and subdivision ordinances of the Town
of Fort Mill. Specifically, the applicant’s proposed lot size of ± .20 acre would be equal to or smaller than
all but approximately two other parcels within Whiteville Park. Those existing lots of record are illustrated
below in Figure 4:
Figure 4
In order to grant a variance from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, the following parameters
must be considered:
Sec. 32-11. Variance. Whenever the tract to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is
surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of the
requirements contained in the chapter would result in substantial hardship or inequity, the planning
commission may vary or modify, except as otherwise indicated, requirements of design, but not of
procedure or improvements, so that the subdivider may develop his property in a reasonable
manner, but so, at the same time, the public welfare is protected and the general intent and spirit of
this chapter is preserved. Such modification may be granted upon written request of the subdivider
stating the reasons for each modification and may be waived by an affirmative vote of two-thirds
of the membership of the planning commission.
36
Sec. 32-12. Conditions of Modification. In granting variations and modifications, the planning
commission may require such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objectives
of the standards or requirements so varied or modified.
Recommendation
The fundamental purpose of the R-15 District is to discourage encroachment of uses that may adversely
affect the residential character of the district. Figure 2 illustrates that the creation of this lot would not be
in conformance with the existing residential character of the immediate area.
In staff’s opinion, the applicant faces no substantial hardship or inequity in being required to adhere to the
current zoning designation.
Therefore, Staff recommends that this application for a lot variance be denied. However, this request is
ultimately at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
April 9th, 2019
37
38
39
Meeting Information
Meeting Type Planning Commission
Meeting Date April 16, 2019
Request Summary
Action (Old Bus.) X Action (New Bus.) Info/Discussion
Request Type
Public Hearing Executive Session Other
Case Summary
Annexation Rezoning Text Amendment
Case Type
Subdivision Plat X Appearance Review Other
Property Information
Applicant Donna M. Firebaugh
Property Owner Donna M. Firebaugh
Property Location 116 Massey Street
Tax Map Numbers 020-01-23-021
Acreage 0.85 +/- acres
Current Zoning HC Highway Commercial
Existing Use BowZee WowZee Pet Daycare
Title
Request from Donna M. Firebaugh to grant commercial appearance review approval for a
proposed building addition to the existing BowZee WowZee building located at 116 Massey Street.
Background Information
Site Characteristics The property is located at 116 Massey Street. The property contains
approximately 136 linear feet of road frontage on Massey Street. The
property is currently developed, containing BowZee WowZee and their
associated parking. A previous expansion was approved administratively
back in June of 2012, which expanded the use into the entirety of the
building.
40
Neighboring Uses Direction Zoning Existing Use
North R-10 Single Family Residential
South HC Sisk Memorial Baptist Church
East GI Parking Lot (UC Synergetic)
West HC Fort Mill Funeral Home
Zoning Summary The site is currently zoned HC Highway Commercial.
Maximum Building Height: 35’
Minimum lot area: 10,000 square feet
Minimum lot width: 75’ at building line
Minimum front yard setback: 35’
Minimum side yard setback: 10’
Minimum rear yard setback: 35’
Applicant Proposal The applicant has proposed a 15’ x 60’ addition to the existing structure.
The applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed layout of the
project. The addition will be located on the west side of the building, 33
feet from the adjacent property line.
The proposed building elevations have been provided (attached), which
feature hardie siding to match the existing building.
Staff The site plan is pending review and approval by the town’s Fire Marshal
Recommendation and Building Official. Should the Planning Commission wish to grant
commercial appearance review approval, staff would request including
language in the approval motion to allow for minor modifications to be
made to the site plan to accommodate comments or concerns made by
the Fire Marshal and/or Building Official.
The site plan meets all zoning requirements. The proposed building
elevations meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and feature
high quality building materials.
Staff recommends in favor of approval, with a condition allowing staff to
approve minor adjustments to the site plan, landscape plan, signage plan,
and lighting plan to satisfy the comments and requirements of the town’s
Fire Marshal, SCDOT, and/or the town’s Utilities and Planning
Departments.
41
Alternatives
1. Grant commercial appearance review approval with conditions.
2. Grant commercial appearance review approval.
3. Deny commercial appearance review approval.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends in favor of APPROVAL for the request, conditioned
upon allowing staff to administratively approve minor adjustments to the
Recommendation site plan, landscape plan, signage plan, and lighting plan to satisfy the
comments and requirements of the town’s Fire Marshal, SCDOT, and/or
the town’s Utilities and Planning Departments.
Name & Title Nick Cauthen, Assistant Planner
Department Planning Department
Date of Request April 16, 2019
Legislative History
Planning Commission Scheduled – 4/16/2019
Attachments
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Photo of Existing Building
• Proposed Plans and Building Elevations
42
Zoning Map
R-10
Aerial Map
43
Photo of Existing Building
\
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE
8 1 EX3 19 9 2 Material: Mark Material: Manufacturer Material: Description
XC2 EX4 XC3 EX4 XC3
EX1 NICHIHA STACKED STONE KURASTONE, COLOR: DESERT, FINISH:
TEXTURED, SIZE: 6"H X 25-5/8"L
EX2 NICHIHA / BENJAMIN ILLUMINATION SERIES, SHOP PAINTED: BENJAMIN MOORE
MOORE NORTH CREEK BROWN 1001, FINISH: SMOOTH, SIZE: 18"H X 10'L
CUT EDGES PAINTED IN FIELD TO MATCH
EX3 NICHIHA VINTAGE WOOD, COLOR: CEDAR, SIZE: 18"H X 10'L, CUT EDGES
EX1
PAINTED IN FIELD TO MATCH
EX4 STO STO LOTUSAN SYSTEM, 191 STOLIT, LOUTUSAN 1.5, COLOR, 9433
80 STO WHITE
EX5 RE: SPECIFICATIONS ALUMINUM WITH CLEAR ANODIZED COATING
28' - 10 5/8"
XC1 PAC-CLAD PREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPING COLOR: DARK BRONZE
XC2 PAC-CLAD PREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPING COLOR: SIERRA TAN
25' - 5 1/2"
XC3 PAC-CLAD PREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPING COLOR: BONE WHITE
XP1 BENJAMIN MOORE PAINT, BM 1001 (4B) NORTH CREEK BROWN, FINISH: SATIN
XP2 PPG PAINT, PPG CARAVEL BROWN 420-06 FINISH: SATIN
13K_LR BUMPOUT DRIVE-THRU PROTOTYPE - STANDARD
EX5 XP3 BENJAMIN MOORE PAINT, BM AC-40 GLACIER WHITE, FINISH: SATIN
XP4 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT, SW 7731 SAN ANTONIO SAGE, FINISH: SATIN
EX1 XP12 BENJAMIN MOORE PAINT, HC-190 BLACK, FINISH: SATIN
10' - 0"
7' - 4"
FIN. FL.
0' - 0" EXTERIOR KEYED NOTES
Notes
1 ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE CENTERED VERTICALLY IN
EX1 4 3 EX2 6 24
1 EX1 CANOPY
FRONT SIDE ELEVATION
2
D1 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 SMOOTH "GREY" CMU BLOCK TO BE USED BEHIND
EXTERIOR FINISHES
4 SPACE SMOOTH PANEL JOINTS AS SHOWN IN
EX5 ELEVATION TO MINIMIZE MATERIAL WASTE, REFER
TO WALL SECTIONS FOR VERTICAL PANEL JOINT
19 1 DETAIL, TYP.
EX4 XC3 EX2 XC1 EX3 XC2 EX4 XC3 5 SIAMESE CONNECTION
2 6 FIBER CEMENTITIOUS FACTORY CORNER BY
MANUFACTURER
7 RETURN MATERIAL @ ENDS OF PARAPETS, TYP.
8 PARAPET BEYOND
9 ROOF LINE
EX1 10 LIGHT FIXTURE, RE: ELEC
11 STORE HOURS PLAQUE
12 KNOX BOX - WHERE REQUIRED BY JURISDICTION,
18 2 18
PURCHASED FROM LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.
28' - 10 5/8"
MOUNT PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS ON
26' - 9 1/2"
EX5 WALL ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE
13 MIN. 6" HIGH ADDRESS SIGN ON CONTRASTING
BACKGROUND (CONFIRM HEIGHT, LOCATION AND
25 QUANTITY WITH LOCAL FIRE MARSHAL)
6 14 DOWNSPOUT & GUARD, RE: DOWNSPOUT GUARD
AND C.O. DETAIL
15 OVERFLOW SCUPPER
16 DOWNSPOUT NOZZLE
17 DRIVE THRU DOWNSPOUT
FIN. FL. 18 EXTERIOR WALL PACK LIGHT, RE: ELEC
EX1
0' - 0" 19 LINE OF RTU BEYOND
20 COMPACTOR ENCLOSURE
21 ELECTRIC METERING CABINET, RE: ELEC
24 22 GAS METER LOCATION, RE: PLUMBING
EX1 27 XP4 XP4 EX1 5 EX2 3 4 EX2 16 EX1
23 COMPACTOR CHUTE DOOR - COORDINATE WITH
COMPACTOR MANUFACTURER
2 SIDE ELEVATION 24 BOLLARD RE: SPECIFICATIONS
D1 1/8" = 1'-0" 25 RAIN HOOD
26 PHARMACY ADVERTISING DISPLAY BOARD, GC TO
PURCHASE AND INSTALL RE: ELEC
27 HOSE BIB
7 8 EX3 XC2 9 EX2 XC1 19 EX4 XC3
18 18
EX4 XC3
18
28' - 10 5/8"
24' - 9 1/2"
10' - 0"
6
FIN. FL.
0' - 0"
EX4 XP3 EX4 3 4 21 22 23 20 24 16
3 REAR SIDE ELEVATION EX1
D1 1/8" = 1'-0"
15 14 8 15 14 19 15 14 8 7
EX4 XC3 EX2 XC1 EX4 XC3 EX3 XC2 EX4 XC3
18
25' - 5 1/2" 24' - 9 1/2"
10' - 0"
6
FIN. FL.
0' - 0"
EX1 27 XP1 EX3 3 XP1 XP1 4 XP2 EX2 16 26 XP1 EX4 24
4 SIDE ELEVATION
D1 1/8" = 1'-0"
10.10.2017
52
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.