Planning Commission

MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 2020 6:30 PM Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 5:00 pm on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 to Penelope G. Karagounis, Planning Director at pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov Public Access by Phone: Dial (toll free) 1-877-309-2073 and use access code 286-040-237 Agenda Present: James Traynor, Dan Stout, Andy Agrawal, Hynek Lettang, Matthew Lucarelli, Chris Wolfe, Ben Hudgins, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Planner II Nick Cauthen Guest: Chris Leonard, Ken Chapman, Mark McAuley, Steve Wiley, Kevin Harney, Al Bronner, Kim Pulliam, Rodney Fowler, and Stella Moreno Chairman Traynor called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Chairman Traynor gave opportunity to the Planning Commission to review and comment on the November 17, 2020 meeting minutes as presented within the meeting packet. Commissioner Wolfe made a motion to approve the minutes. Dan Stout seconded the motion. By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission approved the November 17, 2020 meeting minutes (*Note Hynek Lettang was not logged in to the meeting at the time of the roll call for the November 17, 2020 approval of the minutes). NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review – Love’s Truck Stop: Mr. Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for a building addition at Love’s Truck Stop located at 135 Sutton Ridge Lane. Mr. Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The proposal included a 691 sq. ft. addition for a new cooler, prep room, and laundry room. Staff noted the building materials match the materials of the existing structure. The Planning Department recommended approval of 1  the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Staff noted the applicant was absent from the meeting. Mr. Traynor suggested that instead of the blank wall submitted, 2 faux windows be added to match with the existing façade. Staff agreed. Mr. Stout asked if the store planned to keep advertising signs over the windows as they currently do. Staff said they were not sure of their future intentions regarding advertisements. Mr. Wolfe agreed with Chairman Traynor regarding the faux windows to match the existing façade. He also stated he would like for them to add a pediment to make the addition match the opposite corner of the building where the subway was located. The Commissioners asked for staff’s opinion regarding a vote considering the applicant was not present. Staff recommended the Board proceed with a decision and that any changes would come back to the Board for reconsideration if need be. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Wolfe made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval with the conditions that the applicant add faux windows on the new section to be symmetrical with the existing building and add a pediment to match the opposite end of the building to better conform to the existing standards, along with 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 7-0. 2. Commercial Appearance Review – MPV Properties: Mr. Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for a new medical office building located at the corner of Fort Mill Parkway and Holbrook Road. Mr. Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The proposal included a 2 story, 20,204 sq. ft. building and 108 parking spaces. Staff noted the brick will match the existing brick color in the development which included the storage, commercial, and 7-Eleven structures. The Planning Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments and that sidewalks must be added to the plan prior to site plan approval. Mr. Traynor asked for an explanation of the darkened glass between the 2 stories. The applicant stated it will be glass but you will not be able to see through the darkened parts in between stories. Mr. Wolfe asked if this building was entirely brick because the other buildings in the 2 development contained much more EIFS. The applicant answered it will be entirely brick with EIFS accents along the roofline. Mr. Wolfe asked if the materials would match the adjacent buildings since it is a planned development. Staff stated they matched, and this will be confirmed prior to the granting of any permits. Mr. Stout commented that there were only 3 doors shown for the structure. The applicant stated they are working with a single tenant that is planning to occupy the entire building. Mr. Lettang asked if the entry area was planning to be a large open area. The applicant stated it was an open area but would be limited to the first story. Mr. Lucarelli asked for a description of the parapet height and mechanical equipment placement. The applicant responded that the mechanical equipment will be placed in the center of the roof and the parapet will be 3-4 ft. in order to screen any roof equipment. Mr. Lucarelli stated that was a concern considering the lack of articulation along the roof but that he did like architecture of the building. Mr. Wolfe asked about the buffering on the outside of the structure. The applicant stated there would be streetscapes planted along both frontages. Mr. Wolfe said he wanted to make sure the existing residential area is buffered in an effective manner. Mr. Traynor asked if there was a landscape plan for the other side of the drive to the rear. The applicant responded that there was a landscape plan and the buffering to the rear would match the buffering provided along the rear of each of the existing adjacent parcels. Mr. Traynor stated the Commission would need to rely on staff to verify the landscaping met the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Wolfe stated he believed a berm was required as part of a previous approval to the rear of this property to protect the residence behind. The applicant stated that was correct and he is continually in contact with the adjacent residence. Part of the berm has already been constructed and in lieu of the rest of the berm there has been agreement with the property owner to keep the existing natural vegetation in place instead of removing it. There will also be additional plantings provided in the general area. Mr. Traynor asked if the sidewalks could also be verified prior to approval and staff responded yes. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Wolfe made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval with the conditions for staff to verify the sidewalks and buffers as required by the Overlay District and for staff to be able to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Hudgins seconded the motion. Mr. Traynor requested an amendment to 3  include language for the AC/mechanical units to be properly screened from public view. Mr. Wolfe amended his motion to include this language. Mr. Hudgins seconded the amended motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. 3. Commercial Appearance Review – Eternal Church: Mr. Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for a new church located at the end of O’Henry Road. Mr. Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The proposal included a 24,000 sq. ft. building and 215 parking spaces. Staff noted the Planning Commission voted to defer an earlier submittal by the church back in 2019 due to metal siding being proposed on multiple sides. The Planning Department recommended approval of the new updated request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Mr. Wolfe stated he generally liked the look of the building but would like to see some samples and wondered how the siding would hold up. Mr. Traynor agreed that samples will be needed in order to consider an approval. The applicant said the siding had been used around the U.S. for many years. The goal of the church was to give it a “woodsy” feel. It would be a beige color to compliment the stone veneer at the base. The building materials proposed cost a significant amount of money and the church is not trying to cut any corners. Mr. Traynor said he would also like a shingle and stone sample as well. The applicant stated that those can be provided. Chairman Traynor asked if the roads would be improved. Staff responded that a TIA was prepared previously and there were mitigation requirements for the project including striping and resurfacing. Mr. Wolfe asked if there was a parapet wall on the rear elevation. The applicant stated yes. Mr. Wolfe said the renderings provided show it open in rear. The applicant said the units would be located in the center of the roof and the renderings will be updated to match the architectural plans showing a rear parapet. Mr. Lettang asked about the location of the building signage. The applicant stated the signage would be on the property and the church would also like to have signage along Sutton Road. Staff countered by saying off premise signage would not be allowed. Mr. Stout stated he liked the appearance of the building and asked if it would have a daycare associated with it. The applicant said there would be no daycare. Mr. Traynor said he believed the consensus was for the official action to be a deferral. Mr. Wolfe asked if there were any sidewalk requirements or dumpster enclosures to 4  consider. The applicant stated there would also be a water storage tank for fire protection located next to the building. Staff noted it will need to be enclosed by quality materials in order to not detract from the appearance of the church. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Lucarelli made a motion to defer commercial appearance review with the condition for the applicant to provide material samples for review prior to the next meeting. Mr. Agrawal seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. 4. Commercial Appearance Review – Tenet Healthcare: Mr. Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for a hospital located at 1000 Wellness Way. Mr. Cauthen provided a site plan and elevations to the Commissioners as part of the staff report. The proposal included a 100 bed/200,000 sq. ft. building with parking and a helipad. Staff noted there was a preliminary approval letter included in the packet from Springs/Kingsley Commercial Association. The Planning Department recommended approval of the request with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor adjustments. Mr. Lettang spoke about a previous suggestion regarding enlarging the windows. The architect said they did go back and look at window pricing with the contractor and the width of the glass size was increased compared to earlier versions of the plan. Mr. Hudgins stated the long straight rooflines appeared to be the same as previous submittals and asked if more roof articulation was considered. The architect said he did speak with the team and Springs about the roof and it is such a large building that the cost was too much. A few other very large buildings in the general area such as LPL have similar rooflines. Mr. Hudgins stated the Commission spent a lot of time with numerous other proposals in Town about avoiding straight rooflines and with this being a focal point in town, at a prominent location, he was disappointed this feature remained due to cost trimming. Mr. Wolfe asked where any future expansion would potentially be built. The architect stated there would be no vertical expansion to the 3 story bed tower and any expansion would be placed at the rear of structure. Mr. Traynor said the scale and distance from the road would help soften the general constant roofline, and the tower in front also helps alleviate the concern. Mr. Lettang said he had the same concern with the CEENTA building on Sutton Road and the superb lighting plan for that building offset those concerns and hopefully the hospital can take advantage of a similar approach. The architect added the lighting plan would be developed at a later date but those suggestions would certainly be taken into account particularly along the front. 5  Mr. Wolfe stated the structure certainly looks like a hospital but using all masonry and 2 tone brick does set a good precedent and should be applauded. Mr. Stout asked the applicant to address the large canopy type cover near the E.R. area. The applicant said the size of the covered area will decrease but the structure will remain to help shield cars and patients from the elements when entering the hospital. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Lucarelli made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval with the condition for staff to be able to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1. Mr. Hudgins opposed. Information/Discussion 1. 2021 Meeting Schedule: Planning Director Karagounis presented the Planning Commissioners the upcoming 2021 Planning Commission meeting schedule. The monthly Planning Commission will meet on the third Tuesday of each month at 6:30 pm. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic we will continue to meet virtually until further notice from staff. 2. Potential Ordinance Revision: Planning Director Karagounis discussed how our current ordinance does not allow small wireless facilities. However, the state has provided local governments a model ordinance for small wireless facilities. Karagounis stated next month we will review a copy of the state model ordinance and the adopted City of Tega Cay ordinance for the small wireless facilities. There being no other business, Chairman Traynor adjourned the meeting at 8:10 PM. Respectfully submitted Penelope G. Karagounis, MA Planning Director January 4, 2021 6