Planning Commission

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 19, 2019 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM Present: James Traynor, Tom Petty, Andy Agrawal, Hynek Lettang, Matthew Lucarelli, Chris Wolfe, Ben Hudgins, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Planner II Nick Cauthen Absent: N/A 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 October 15, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review – Harris Teeter Properties LLC. c/o Durban Development: Mr. 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 S. Dobys Bridge Road. Mr. Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The proposal included a Harris Teeter grocery store along with two retail buildings with tenants yet to be determined. The Planning Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Staff did note the retail buildings fell slightly below the 20 ft. minimum height requirement at certain sections and the buffer requirements would have to be met along the Nims Village property line. Chairman Traynor asked which buildings fell under the 20 ft. COD-N height requirement. Staff responded that it was only sections of the 2 retail buildings and not Harris Teeter. Mr. Petty asked if the minimum height was 20 ft. or if 20 ft. was an average height requirement. Mr. Traynor and staff responded they interpreted the ordinance as requiring 20 ft. to be the minimum. Mr. Traynor asked for staff’s recommendation regarding heights below 20 ft. at certain roof sections. Mr. Wolfe stated concern over creating a precedent for the first buildings on the site to fall below the 20 ft. requirement. Mr. Traynor asked the applicant if it would be an issue to raise the buildings to meet the requirement. The applicant responded that it would not be an issue. He interpreted the ordinance as requiring a 20 ft. average. 1 Mr. Petty asked if panel 1 was nichiha. The applicant stated a few different options were being considered. Mr. Petty asked if there were roll up doors on the sides of the retail buildings. The applicant stated they are storefront doors that mimic roll up doors. Mr. Lucarelli asked which side was considered the front elevation. The applicant stated the front elevation faces the parking lot and the back faces the Parkway. The applicant continued by clarifying there would be a combination of roll up and storefront doors to the patio access on the sides of each of the retail buildings. Mr. Traynor asked if the doors would be used for restaurant use. The applicant responded, yes. Mr. Traynor asked if the future residential is the remaining acreage behind the Harris Teeter. The applicant responded that the 7.5 acres behind is the future residential portion. Mr. Wolfe asked if the rear of the Harris Teeter would be visible from the future neighborhood because the Commission always tries to be sensitive to what may come and how it will appear to the future residents. The applicant stated there is a large drop-off behind the proposed Harris Teeter and the intent is to not clear around the creek which also serves as the dividing property line between the commercial and residential portions of the property. Mr. Lucarelli asked the applicant how they planned to screen the roof top units from view considering retail buildings 1 & 2 sit about 8 ft. lower than the road. The applicant responded by saying the views that were included in the renderings are models from street level accounting for the elevation difference. The rear of the buildings are designed to be slightly higher in order to better screen the equipment. Mr. Lucarelli stated that was helpful and he felt the rears of the buildings looked nicer than faces of rear buildings that he has seen in the past. The applicant stated he has dealt with that in the past and he tries to keep the same articulation on both sides. Mr. Wolfe stated the doors on Page 31 looked like doors for a tire repair shop garage. The applicant stated that was the popular style and they will lead to a 30’-40’ patio outside. Mr. Traynor asked about the dumpsters. The applicant said there will be one dumpster backed into a hill with a roof over it so it will not be visible from street level as drivers are entering the development. Phase 2 of the development will require a second dumpster. Mr. Lettang stated the materials looked superior. He had a minor comment on retail building 1, left elevation. He stated it may look better with glass panel above the pull up doors in order to create a nice transition as shown on other sides of the building. Mr. Wolfe asked what the black panels over the doors were made of on page 35. The applicant stated they were metal awnings. Mr. Wolfe asked if the development met the UDO’s parking requirements. Staff responded that it did. 2  Mr. Wolfe stated he liked the product but was concerned about the visibility of the rear of Harris Teeter, but if it is buffered then it should be okay. The applicant stated that he does not think it will be an issue. Mr. Lucarelli stated the 50’ buffer should be shown on the Civil Plans between the different uses. The applicant stated a 45’ natural vegetation would be kept in place on each side of the creek for the stream buffer which would create a total width of 90’ between the two properties. Mr. Lucarelli asked for confirmation that the stream runs along the property line and the applicant stated that it does. Mr. Hudgins noted that according to the site plan provided it appears a sidewalk connects into the adjacent subdivision. The applicant stated there is a greenway trail at the back of that subdivision following the creek that the sidewalk will connect into. Mr. Hudgins also noted there appeared to be a stub between outparcels 1 and 2. The applicant stated they will connect into the stub which will provide an access for the subdivision. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Hudgins made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval with the condition giving staff the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. Mr. Petty amended the motion to add language requiring all buildings to meet the 20’ height minimum requirement. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. 2. Road Name List: Arden Mill Commercial Planning Director Karagounis gave a brief description of the request from Arden M5 LLC, to approve the road names for Arden Mill Commercial. As a result, Planning Commission approval is required to authorize new road names within the subdivision. The developer has provided the proposed name (Smithfield Way) for approval. The name has been approved and are being reserved by York County Addressing. Mr. Lettang made a motion to approve the road name for Arden Mill Commercial. Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The road name Smithfield Way was approved by a vote of (7-0) 3. Information/Discussion: 2020 Meeting Schedule Planning Director Karagounis stated the dates for the Planning Commission meeting for 2020 will continue to be scheduled for the third Tuesday of each month. Attached is the 2020 Meeting Schedule. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:08 PM. Respectfully submitted, Penelope G. Karagounis, MA Planning Director November 26, 2019 3