Planning Commission

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 17, 2019 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM Present: James Traynor, Tom Petty, Hynek Lettang, Andy Agrawal, Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Planner/Zoning Administrator Nick Cauthen, Development Coordinator Parrish Dunn Absent: Matthew Lucarelli, Ben Hudgins, Chris Wolfe Guests: See Attachment Chairman Traynor called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Mr. Petty made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 20, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Annexation Request: Eternal Inc. Planning Director Karagounis provided a brief overview of the annexation request, the purpose of which was to annex York County Tax Map Number 659-00-00-273 containing approximately .772 +/-acre located at 1640 OHenry Lane. The current zoning is RC-II (York County) and Eternal Inc. (Jacob Collins) would like to annex and rezone to R-15. The property is contiguous to the town limits and is, therefore, eligible for annexation. Mr. Traynor asked the question if the applicant owns the larger parcel next door and if the use is a Church? Wendy Chrisley (representative of Eternal Inc.) stated that the Eternal Inc. does own the parcel and the use is a church. The current plan is for a 24, 500 square foot building and the sanctuary will have 500-550 seats. A previous TIA was prepared with the preceding property annexation. An update to the TIA was revised with the following mitigation requirements: • Gravel portion of Central Avenue to be paved • The remainder of the road and OHenry to be resurfaced after construction the road (specifically the intersection Central Avenue and OHenry) to be striped with pavement markers Mr. Agrawal asked if these mitigation requirements address any of the potential impacts 1  from the development? Planning Director Karagounis answered yes it does. Wendy Chrisley also noted she spoke with Joe Hamilton from York County and he mentioned the County would be using CFUNDS to pave Central Avenue in the next year. The mitigation requirements from the TIA require Central Avenue to be paved. Mr. Petty made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation request and Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. 2. Commercial Appearance Review – Arden M5 LLC: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for 3 buildings located along Fort Mill Parkway at the intersection of Arden Mill Drive. Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The tenants of 2 of the buildings were still yet to be determined. The 3rd building was proposed to be a Montessori Daycare. The Planning Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Chairman Traynor asked for a description of the airnasium at the Montessori building. Greg Smith (applicant) stated the building was made to look like an old renovated mill building and it will provide the children an area to play outside in the shade. Mr. Smith stated Building 1 is being marketed for local restaurant use and Building 2 is being marketed for professional office. Building 3 is currently under pre-lease with Village Montessori. Mr. Smith showed the Commissioners the different brick variations used amongst the 3 buildings. He also stated there will be a 6 ft. brick wall between the commercial development and the Arden Mill subdivision homes. He stated the goal is to incorporate brick details from “old Fort Mill.” Classica Homes has architectural review authority over the project and has approved the proposal that has been submitted for Commercial Appearance Review. Mr. Traynor asked about the roll up doors incorporated into buildings 1 and 2. Mr. Smith stated each building will have rollups built into one side but they can also be reversed for storefront glass if required by future use. Mr. Traynor asked how the unsightly features of the building would be hidden from public view. Mr. Smith stated there would be a thick holly bush tree line, 7-8’ high, hiding the meters from Building 1. Building 2’s equipment will be facing the school side so it will not be visible from the Parkway or the parking lot. Mr. Lettang asked about the fabric awnings. Mr. Smith stated they will be of high quality fabric that is very expensive, the material looks brand new 5 years later at another location with the same material. 2  Mr. Petty asked about the HVAC equipment. The applicant stated buildings 1 and 2 will have parapets to hide the roof top equipment. The school will have a split system hidden by landscaping. Mr. Petty asked about traffic flow in the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated the school was strategically placed in the back of the 5 acres to create more room and also to be the safest for the children. Mr. Petty asked about the retaining walls proposed for the project. Mr. Smith stated the walls will match the retaining walls used in the residential section of Arden Mill. The walls were needed to create additional parking for the potential of a food use. Mr. Petty stated this type of development was the goal of the Overlay District in terms of layout and design, looks very good. Mr. Agrawal made a motion to grant commercial appearance review with the condition giving staff the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Lettang seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. 3. Commercial Appearance Review – Cottages at Deerfield: Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for 2 matching memory care facility buildings. The project is located at 1086 N. Dobys Bridge Road. Assistant Planner Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The Planning Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Chairman Traynor asked if the parking provided complied with the Town’s UDO. Staff responded that it did and only employees and visitors will be using the parking lot. Mr. Agrawal asked what the typical length of stay at the facility would be. The applicant stated it could be for a few months to a few years, it will be for Dementia and Alzheimer’s residents. Mr. Traynor asked for a description of the exterior of the building. The applicant stated it would be brick veneer with heavy wood trim, the goal was a look of residential cottages to blend in with the neighborhood. There will be a max of 3 staff members per building. Mr. Agrawal asked about obtaining an operating license. The applicant stated they had applied for the license. Chairman Traynor asked about the height of the brick, the material of the siding, and the shingle material. The applicant stated the brick would be approximately 4 ft. in height, above would be hardie lap siding, and the structures would have architectural shingles. 3 Chairman Traynor asked about the fence material. The applicant stated the fence would be opaque but the material had not been confirmed yet. Mr. Petty asked if DHEC had fence regulations for the use and the applicant stated that DHEC does have regulations pertaining to memory care facilities but was unsure of the exact requirements at this time pertaining to fences. The applicant stated they will have a 1-way gate in between the buildings which will be the primary entrance for the facility and will be aluminum. The backyard will be contained for the residents. The applicant said they were planning a stockade fence around the perimeter but were unsure about the height. Mr. Traynor noted stockade can be made of many different materials. The applicant stated it will be wooden stockade and there is a large drop-off at the rear of the property limiting its visibility. Mr. Traynor said the concern is over the view from the adjacent property in the rear. The expectation is for the fence to be of quality material and not wooden stockade that will quickly weather over time. Mr. Petty stated the fence may need to come back before the Planning Commission for approval once DHEC regulations were found and material was decided upon. Mr. Traynor agreed and added he thought the proposed use was ideal at this location. The Commission asked the applicant if they were okay with coming back before the Board. The applicant stated that would not be an issue but they would like to get approval for the building at this time if it was suitable. Mr. Petty asked about the PTACs. The applicant stated PTACS will only be seen along the “long sides” of the buildings and will not be seen on the street facing façades. Mr. Petty asked if the side of the structure faces Dobys Bridge Road and the applicant stated that the fronts of each building face each other and the sides do in fact face Dobys Bridge Road. Mr. Traynor asked if there is more landscaping that is not shown on the plan. The applicant said there will be intermittent shrubs, flower beds, and small trees to break up the wall expanse. Mr. Petty asked about the dumpster enclosure. The applicant stated it will have a full brick enclosure on 3 sides with shrubbery. There is an existing sweet gum tree that will be left in place near the dumpster enclosure. Tree mitigation for the site is also required and the replacement trees will be placed up front and spaced strategically to help screen views from the street. Mr. Agrawal made a motion to grant commercial appearance review with the condition for the applicant to come back before Planning Commission to present a final landscaping plan and fencing details. Mr. Agrawal included in his motion the ability for staff to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Lettang seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. 4 INFORMATION / DISCUSSION 1. Preliminary Commercial Appearance Review – Fort Mill Parkway Retail Development: Planning Director Karagounis gave a brief description of the preliminary appearance review. The project includes a Harris Teeter along with outparcel development along Fort Mill Parkway at the intersection of Dobys Bridge Road. Chairman Traynor asked if the protype Harris Teeter is still 53,000 sq. ft. The applicant stated this store will be 64,000 sq. ft. with the option of expansion to add 10,000 sq. ft. The applicant stated they have coordinated extensively with SCDOT regarding traffic mitigation. There are several different outparcels proposed. The piece of property behind the Harris Teeter is proposed for residential but is not being developed as part of this request. The applicant stated the Harris Teeter will be standalone and will face the Parkway. Retail building 1 and 2 will be similar in nature and will be located in front of Harris Teeter with parking in between. Retail building 1 is only being developed at this time. It will be approximately 22,000 sq. ft. The true front of the building will face the parking lot but it will appear as though it has a front from Fort Mill Parkway as well. The retail buildings will be higher than standard because the topography causes them to sit below the Parkway. Mr. Petty asked what the underlying zoning district is. Staff responded that it is Highway Commercial. Mr. Traynor asked if the material of the building will be brick. The applicant stated the buildings will be brick with simulated wood, made of composite materials. The Commissioners asked if there will be a gas station as part of this development. The applicant stated they were unsure, the outparcels were being marketed at this time in order to weigh the options. Mr. Traynor asked about the dumpster enclosures. The applicant stated the enclosures will closely match the façade of the building and the grade will hide much of the structure from the main road. Mr. Petty 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 detail and articulation of the buildings. They appear to achieve what was intended for the Overlay District. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 pm. Respectfully submitted, Penelope G. Karagounis, MA Planning Director October 1, 2019 5 7