Planning Commission

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 21, 2019 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM Present: James Traynor, Hynek Lettang, Matthew Lucarelli, Ben Hudgins, Chris Wolfe, Andy Agrawal, Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Assistant Planner Nick Cauthen, Development Coordinator Parrish Dunn Absent: Tom Petty Chairman Traynor called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Mr. Wolfe made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 16, 2019. Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review – 7-Eleven: Chairman Traynor explained the purpose of the commercial appearance review is primarily to review architecture and not to approve the use. Barry Drucker (citizen) spoke against the 7-Eleven. He was upset with the Town for allowing gas tanks in such close proximity to Dobys Bridge Elementary School. Chairman Traynor reiterated that commercial appearance review cannot be denied because of the use. The use is not in PC’s purview and gas stations are a use by right within the Highway Commercial zoning district. The audience voiced concerns about environmental regulations in reference to gas fumes and underground tanks next to a school. Chairman Traynor responded by saying that EPA regulations fall outside the scope of PC. The audience voice concerns regarding the safety of the structure and claimed that it does not fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Lettang responded that PC is not the body to make decisions about how a use fits in with the surrounding area. PC’s job is to look at the subject structure and review how it looks architecturally. He continued by saying that involvement and discussion are welcomed but the process does not allow for denial or tabling solely due to the use. 1 Staff added that during research no outside agencies were found to have any separation requirements regarding gas stations and schools. This included the EPA, SC DHEC, the state Office of School Facilities. The audience rebutted that the EPA website requires 1,000 ft. of separation between gas stations and schools. Staff reiterated that through their due diligence in speaking with representatives from the EPA and SC DHEC, among others, that no entity had regulations regarding separation between a school and a gas station. Mr. Wolfe thanked the audience for their enthusiasm and explained that the project would go through the proper agency reviews before any permits are granted. The audience asked how the approval process works and asked if any additional public hearings would be held. Staff responded that the approval process after commercial appearance review approval is an administrative process and there are various agencies that review different aspects of the project at different stages and issue a variety of permits throughout. The amount of time it may take for a building permit to be granted can vary greatly depending on the length of time it takes for plan reviews to be completed. Following the discussion with members of the audience, Chairman Traynor asked staff to provide their report. Assistant Planner Cauthen gave a brief overview of the staff report and request, the purpose of which was to grant commercial appearance review for a proposed 7-Eleven. The project includes a 3,484 sq. ft. building and 36’ x 119’ gas canopy located at the corner of Fort Mill Parkway and S. Dobys Bridge Road. Mr. Wolfe asked which way the front elevation faced. Staff responded that the front elevation faces the gas pumps and away from Fort Mill Parkway. Mr. Traynor noted the rear elevation would face the Parkway and asked about the nature of the windows. Pat Budronis (representing the applicant) noted the windows facing the Parkway will be faux glass. He also added that deliveries will be made at the side entrance. Mr. Traynor asked for a description of the building materials. The applicant stated that they consist of Nichiha panel and brick veneer to match the proposed adjacent buildings in the development. Mr. Hudgins asked if the location of the air conditioning units would be on the roof. The applicant stated that yes, they would be roof mounted and fully screened. Mr. Lucarelli asked if individual developers have coordinated relating to building materials throughout the development, most notably the color of the brick. The applicant stated they have, and the brick colors will match. 2 The applicant added the project will have a 25’ landscape buffer and 6’ fence along the rear of the property closest to Dobys Bridge Elementary School. Mr. Traynor asked about plant materials of the buffer. Staff responded that language in the overlay district ordinance denotes the specific plantings required and will match what is provided for the retail/restaurant and storage projects adjacent to this property. Mr. Traynor stated that all brick is typically required for elevations fronting the corridor. Mr. Wolfe liked the brick columns for the canopy and dumpster enclosure material, his key concern was the durability of the EIFS and how it will look in the future. Mr. Traynor noted the height of the canopy (17’) would help with the spillover of light in his opinion. The applicant noted that a photometric plan was submitted. Mr. Wolfe added that increased requirements for walkways are required within the nodes to differentiate them from the typical pavement. Staff noted the distinguished crosswalks are only required with sites that have direct access to the Parkway and this site does not. Mr. Traynor noted a concern regarding how far the perimeter sidewalk is from the actual street intersection. Staff said there is currently no sidewalk to accept pedestrians on the west side of Dobys Bridge Road or the north side of the Parkway to connect to at this time. At a later date, when there is a connecting sidewalk, a connection will be made from the property to the intersection by the appropriate party. Mr. Traynor asked about the signage. The applicant stated they will have a monument sign to match the materials of the building. Mr. Wolfe asked if the wall signage depicted in the packet was allowed in the COD-N. Staff noted the calculations would be computed but there are no additional requirements for wall signage in the COD-N. Mr. Wolfe asked about the elevation difference between the 7-Eleven site and Dobys Bridge Elementary School. The applicant state there is about a 10-12 ft. grade change. The applicant also added there will be a 6 ft. fence on top of the hill along with a landscape buffer between the project and the school. The Planning Commission discussed having brick primarily on all 4 sides with an exception for bump-outs and trim. Mr. Lucarelli reiterated that the glass cannot be mirrored and to make sure the materials match with the surrounding development. Mr. Hudgins made a motion to grant commercial appearance review with the conditions that all 4 sides must be brick while giving staff the ability to approve accents, prohibiting the use of reflective glass, requiring 8ft. connecting sidewalks from the edge of the property line to the internal sidewalks, and for staff to have the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations as needed. Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. 3 2. Commercial Appearance Review – CVS Pharmacy: Assistant Planner Cauthen gave a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to grant commercial appearance review for a proposed CVS Pharmacy. The project includes a 13,111 sq. ft. building and 61 parking spaces located at the corner of Springfield Parkway and U.S. Highway 21 Bypass. Staff recommended in favor of the request with the condition of sidewalks to be provided along both street frontages. Diana Brown (applicant) gave a description of the request and noted that the building had been updated based upon Planning Commission’s comments from the preliminary appearance review meeting, most notably the addition of brick in the preferred areas. She continued by explaining the material board provided. Mr. Wolfe noted that he likes brick and stone because it will hold up over the years as compared to other materials. The Commission asked about the dumpster area and the applicant responded that the compacter and dumpster would be located in 2 separate areas as shown on the site plan. Mr. Wolfe asked if dumpster enclosures are included in the Commercial Appearance Review process and staff responded that yes they can be. Mr. Traynor asked about the erosion control measures regarding this site. The applicant stated there will be a shared retention pond located off site. Mr. Wolfe asked where the shipments will be delivered. The applicant stated that deliveries will be in the back and there will be a standard door and roll up door on the west side of the building. The Commission asked about signage. The applicant stated that it will be permitted separately and currently a monument sign at the corner is shown. The Commission asked about sidewalks. Staff responded that sidewalks are required along both street frontages per the Rutledge MXU Standards. Mr. Lucarelli asked about the fenced off area along the back of the building. The applicant stated that the depiction on the elevations would not be a part of this building. Mr. Lucarelli made a motion to grant commercial appearance review with the conditions for staff to have the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed, sidewalks must be provided along each road frontage, and the dumpster and compactor enclosure area must match the architecture of the principal building. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. 3. Master Road Name List – Elizabeth: Planning Director Karagounis gave a brief description of the request from ESP Associates, on behalf of Lennar Carolinas, LLC, to approve a master road name list for the Elizabeth 4 subdivision. As a result, Planning Commission approval is required to authorize new road names within the subdivision. The developer has provided the following list of proposed names for approval. All names have been approved and are being reserved by York County Addressing. Street Names Morning Gap PKWY Hillside Roll Rd Virginia Trail Ct Monument Point Cir Potter Wheel Dr Skyboat Cir Cobbled Way Otter Perch Ln Polk Path Ln Copper Path Dr Bowie Stone Ct Lookout Shoals Dr Shiplap Ln Turkey Roost Rd Runner Stone Ln Magnolia Bloom Tr Clifton Hill Tr Cardinal Nook Aly Crane Pond Aly Fish Crow Aly Hawk Pass Aly Ibis Cove Aly Jay Hollow Aly Wagon Train Rd Settlers Ridge Rd Railroad Hill Dr William Thomas Rd Augusta View Ln Land Song St Point Pleasant Rd Boundary St Bank Quarry St Abbey Hill Dr Trader Hill Ln Fords End Dr Cabin Bridge Ln New Mountain Cir Box Turtle Dr Lantern Hook Ln Red Head Aly 5  Rock Pigeon Aly Bitternut Aly Black Ash Aly Jake Call Aly Kettle Falls Aly Ellisforde Aly Bossburg Aly Dockers Way Aly Camplin Aly Chester Town Aly Canton Mill Aly Harrison Trace Aly Swan Pond Aly Sparrow Nest Aly Kite Run Aly Muscadine Aly Lusterleaf Aly Bottlebrush Aly New Cross Aly Mr. Wolfe made a motion to approve the road names for the Elizabeth subdivision and Mr. Lettang seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. INFORMATION / DISCUSSION 1. 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) gave a brief summary of the location and the business. The future owner of the business gave a description of his vision for the future regarding Fort Mill Fitness Factory which included the ultimate goal of purchasing the adjacent property to provide a turf field for children in the area. The applicant stated the building would have an open layout and the goal is to make sure the building is going in the right direction in order to begin the pricing process. The applicant explained the front façade has 5 different planes with articulation and insets. The Planning Commission asked about each elevation and where the main entrance will be located. The applicant explained the actual entrance would be on the north side. The back of the building will have 3 faux windows in the middle where the lockers room will be, and the rest of the windows are regular windows. The Commission asked about the roof. The applicant stated it has been changed to a single 6 slope going from Dobys Bridge Road to the rear parking lot. The goal was to bring down the scale of the building to better transition from Walmart to the neighboring residential area. Mr. Traynor asked for the height of the building. The applicant stated it would be approximately 18 ft. in height. That height is needed for the functionality of the building. The applicant stated the brick goes up to about 3 ft. high on the building on 3 sides and then changes to EIFS based upon Planning Commission’s prior comments. Mr. Traynor noted the building does not remotely resemble a residential structure considering it is 18’ high and 100’ long. He added the offsets are nice, but the windows look partially out of scale. The applicant stated the doors are currently 7’ in height and the windows shown are 5’x5’. The applicant added that canopies along with other articulation can be added. Their purpose in the meeting is to get a solid starting point for the building. Mr. Lettang asked for the addition of more brick to the front of the building (west elevation). Mr. Lucarelli recommended for the step backs and back ins to have varying color schemes with the possibility of industrial type canopies to break up the monotony of the building. Mr. Wolfe stated the building still contains a lot of EIFS and he would recommend using some mill-themed designs like Kingsley to fit in more with the nature of the Town. He said the building appears to be moving in the right direction but is not quite there. The applicant asked if EIFS was okay in moderation and the Board responded that yes it is. Mr. Lucarelli noted that the building needs to blend in with the area, but it does not have to be overly residential. Mr. Traynor added that the transition is very important to not negatively affect the neighboring residences. The applicant added that an EIFS material which appears to be a dimensional stone product can be utilized to get more patterning and less monotony. Mr. Lucarelli noted he would like to see brick at the bottom of the building on all 4 sides. Mr. Wolfe said the building is going in the right direction and the Commission is not asking for all brick but a differentiation in colors, textures, and window features is needed. Mr. Hudgins added that A-Lock-It Storage is a good example of breaking up long expanses of blank walls. Mr. Lucarelli commented that moving the building further back from the road may help it appear less imposing than currently proposed. The applicant asked if the 10 ft. requirement was a setback or build to line and staff responded that it is a setback requirement. 7 The applicant stated there would be greenery in front of the building as well as a sidewalk. The Commission agreed that would soften the look of the building. Mr. Traynor asked about renderings and the applicant said they will get to that point in the future. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 pm. Respectfully submitted, Penelope G. Karagounis, MA Planning Director June 12, 2019 8