Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 2017 MINUTES Present: Howard Chapman, Chair, Alys Campaigne, DeAudre Gregg, John McNeill, Joseph Wren, Kathy Smith, Rodly Millet, Roy Neal, Tripp Cuttino. Staff: Lee Cave, David Pagliarini, Kent Prause, Eddie Bernard, Kevin Mitchell, Shaina Salomon, Michele Canon, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from April 19, 2017 Meeting Mr. Neal moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Update on Planning Commission recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked about Mr. Spear’s property and if the request for annexation and rezoning was approved. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill asked if the Commission recommended approval of the Solana. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative, but noted that Town Council denied first reading of the request. 3. Correspondence and Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Chapman continued with the agenda. 4. Requests A. Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations Section 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision on Peaceful Way of three SF residential Lots zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 1862 Peaceful Way. TMS No.: 556-00-00-280; 556-00-00-490 Mr. McNeill recused himself due to a conflict of interest.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Ms. Smith asked if the trust is currently undeveloped. Mr. Mitchell answered that the information provided shows it is not developed. Ms. Smith asked if it could be developed. Mr. Mitchell answered that it is a lot of record and could be developed. Ms. Campaigne asked about staff comment #8 and the planting plan and how enforcement would be handled. Mr. Mitchell answered that the Town would hold off on recording until the requirements were met. He stated that prior to the lots being established, all requirements would have to be met. Mr. Neal asked if this would need to be a conditional approval. Mr. Pagliarini answered that conditions could be placed on the approval if desired by the Commission. Mr. Kevin Berry, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that all encroachments into the critical line buffer would be removed. Mr. Chapman asked about the main driveway and suggested that care should be taken when shifting the location of the driveway in order to better preserve the significant tree. Mr. Berry agreed. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 7 to 1 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Wren, Mr. Millet, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Smith opposed and Mr. McNeill abstaining. B. Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 SF residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district, located at 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road. TMS No.: 560-06-00-025; 560-06-00-001 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2).  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Neal asked if the fact that the tree survey is more than a year old would render the submittal incomplete. Mr. Bernard answered that the tree survey should not be more than one year old, but this project has been in progress for some time. Mr. Neal asked if the request should be deferred. Mr. Bernard answered that given the minimal time that has passed, the tree size would not be significantly different. Ms. Campaigne asked if any of the 30 trees requested for removal would be of concern. Mr. Bernard answered that many of the trees not shown on the preliminary plat were shown on the sketch plan. Additionally, he stated that some of the building footprints have been changed from the sketch plan as well. He suggested that it appears that some of the trees requested for removal could be retained. Mr. McNeill asked if staff has met with the applicant regarding the discrepancies. Mr. Bernard answered in the negative. Mr. Millet asked if a SCDOT encroachment permit was approved. Mr. Bernard answered that the application indicates that SCDOT approval was received in August 2016. Mr. Wren asked about tree mitigation. Mr. Bernard answered that there are several options including payment into the tree bank, a tree bond, planting in the HOA area, retention of trees, etc. Mr. Chapman asked about sidewalks and why the sidewalks in Shell Landing were not extended. Mr. Bernard answered that the sidewalk would be retained with the exception of where the proposed access would be located. He stated that there would be a sidewalk on Rifle Range Road that connects to this development. Mr. Matt Cline, Cline Engineering, reviewed the request with the Commission. Ms. Smith asked the reason for the discrepancy between the sketch plan and the preliminary plat in regard to trees. Mr. Cline answered that there was a change in the requirements between the sketch plan approval and preliminary  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 4 of 9 plat request. He stated that additionally, it was determined that based on the grading and drainage plan, some additional trees would need to be removed. Mr. Neal expressed concern with the number of trees being requested for removal that were not previously indicated with the sketch plan approval. Mr. Neal expressed additional concern with the number of trees being requested for removal within the proposed right-of-way. He suggested that the lots could be reconfigured in order to preserve additional trees. Ms. Campaigne expressed concern with trees #22, #18, #33, #97, #103, and #92 and asked the reason for being removed. Mr. Cline answered that some of the trees are not protected, while others were in poor condition and reviewed these with the Commission. Mr. Millet concurred with Ms. Campaigne’s concerns regarding the number of trees requested for removal. He asked about tree #17 and #32. Mr. Cline answered that #17 would be within the building footprint and would be below the roadway grade once the grading was completed. He stated that tree #32 is in good condition but requested for removal because of the amount of grading that would have to occur for that lot. Mr. Millet asked about tree #38. Mr. Cline answered that it is between two houses in a swale. Mr. Neal suggested that a number of significant trees in good condition are proposed for removal and asked if this could be reviewed to determine if more trees could be preserved. Mr. Cline answered that the applicant has worked extensively with staff and asked that a decision be made on the request. Ms. Gregg asked for clarification on what would be accomplished with “working with staff on the tree survey”. Mr. Cline answered that he was not a part of the project at the beginning and stated that he would like to have an opportunity to work with staff. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. Mr. Wren asked the difference between a deferral and denial of a preliminary plat. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the denial of the preliminary plat would mean the applicant would have to bring back a different project layout for approval.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Neal suggested that a deferral might be more appropriate in order for the applicant to have an opportunity to bring a different plan back for approval. Ms. Campaigne suggested that there are a number of protected trees that are of concern and suggested that the concerns should be addressed before a decision is made. Ms. Smith and Mr. Wren agreed. Mr. McNeill suggested that one reason for an updated tree survey is to provide information to address some of the concerns raised by the Commission. He suggested that the application should not have been brought to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Chapman stated that the Commission has purview over the protection of trees. He stated that this is a concern and the Commission is sensitive to this issue. He suggested that having an opportunity restudy the plan and work with staff to better preserve the existing trees would be beneficial. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren left at this time (5:46 pm). C. Request approval of Sketch Plan for Bessemer Road Townhomes, 21 townhouse units zoned PD, Planned Development District, located at Location: Bessemer Road. TMS No.: 583-03-00-172; 583-03-00-177 Ms. Salomon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Chapman asked the reason that there was no interconnectivity proposed between this project and Covington via Wagner Road. He suggested that if this could be accomplished, it could mean one less curb cut on Bessemer Road. Mr. Mitchell answered that interconnectivity from Covington to this project was not accounted for when Covington was approved for development. He suggested that eliminating the curb cut on Bessemer Road would not accomplish diverting traffic; having both the access on Bessemer and through Covington would be preferred.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Ms. Sarah Hamblin, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Chapman suggested that the mail kiosk should be relocated to prevent a traffic hazard at the ingress/egress. Ms. Hamblin answered that this could be reviewed. Mr. Neal thanked the applicant for the addition of the sidewalk. He asked the reason for removal of tree #30. Ms. Hamblin answered that it is in poor condition and in a drainage easement. Mr. Neal asked about tree #32. Ms. Hamblin answered that it is in poor condition and would be affected by drainage. Mr. Neal asked if the tree was located in the buffer. Ms. Hamblin answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal suggested that it should be preserved. Ms. Hamblin answered that this could be considered. Mr. Neal asked about tree #18. Ms. Hamblin answered that it is in a utility easement. Mr. Neal suggested that this could be preserved as well. Mr. Kevin Steelman answered that #32 could be preserved with restudy of tree #30. Mr. McNeill asked how the trees would be mitigated given the significant number of mitigation inches required. Mr. Steelman answered that there is adjacent HOA property where a significant number of trees could be planted. Mr. McNeill expressed concern with the typical “clear cutting of property” for development and suggested that as many trees should be preserved as possible. Mr. Steelman agreed and stated that there are increased drainage requirements from the state that requires more and more grading to be accomplished which further impacts development and preservation of trees. He stated that this in turn causes more clear cutting of property. Mr. Steelman stated that they would like to tie into the sidewalk already approved and planned for the adjacent development in order to not duplicate sidewalks on Bessemer Road. Mr. Chapman suggested that the sidewalk should be extended to the other side of the pond. Mr. Steelman answered that this could be accomplished and would provide a destination to the pond. He suggested that a crossover could then be provided to connect to the sidewalk on the other side of Bessemer Road.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Gregg asked if a pathway could be provided for the remaining portion of the property where the HOA property and tree mitigation is proposed. Mr. Steelman answered that there are buffers between properties, so a path might not be possible. Ms. Gregg asked how some of the mitigation would be achieved. Mr. Steelman answered that some of the trees within the buffers could count toward the mitigation required. Mr. Bernard clarified how the tree mitigation is determined and that the mitigation required is based only on the project acreage. Ms. Campaigne expressed concern with not extending the sidewalk along Bessemer Road. She suggested that the amount of traffic could be a pedestrian safety issue. Mr. Steelman answered that this could be considered and potentially completed by the HOA. Ms. Campaigne suggested that a pervious pathway or bike path should be considered. Mr. Steelman answered that this could be considered. Ms. Smith expressed concern with not having traditional sidewalks. She suggested that the sidewalk should be required to connect to Larch Lane. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments, excluding staff’s comment to extend the sidewalk to the lake with following conditions:  Save trees #30 and #32;  move kiosk deeper into the subdivision and coordinate with staff on an appropriate location;  sidewalk should connect from Covington to the lake as suggested by applicant. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that he would rather have a natural path for the remaining area from the lake to Larch Lane given the topography of the area. He suggested that an asphalt or gravel pathway would not be appropriate. Mr. McNeill moved to amend the motion to add a crosswalk from the end of the proposed sidewalk to connect with the sidewalk on the other side of Bessemer Road. Mr. Neal seconded the motion.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Mitchell stated that the Transportation Department approves the location of crosswalks and stated that given the location of the intersection, a crosswalk would likely not be approved at this location. Mr. McNeill withdrew his amendment. Mr. Neal withdrew his second. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the applicant leverage their influence to request the extension and improvements for a sidewalk from the proposed sidewalk to Larch Lane. Mr. Mitchell clarified that the sidewalk would be in the right-of- way. Ms. Campaigne moved to amend the motion to direct the applicant discuss with the HOA the option of applying for an encroachment permit and funding the additional sidewalk portion as suggested by Mr. Steelman. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the Commission cannot condition the approval based on the action of a third party. Ms. Campaigne withdrew her motion. Ms. Smith expressed concern with the project, the removal of trees and tree mitigation that would be required. She stated that based on this, she would not be supporting this project. Ms. Gregg asked for clarification on what purview the Commission would have regarding the sidewalks. Mr. Chapman answered that during the recent changes to the Dunes West/Park West PDs, a portion of this property was deeded to the HOA. He stated that the Commission cannot bind the HOA as a third party entity to complete the sidewalks as the HOA is not the applicant. Mr. McNeill suggested that Mr. Steelman has controlling interest of the HOA. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the HOA is a separate entity and cannot be subjected to conditions regarding this request. Mr. Millet moved to convene into executive session for legal advice. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission May 24, 2017 Page 9 of 9 The Commission convened into executive session at 6:26 pm and reconvened at 6:30 pm. No decisions made during executive session. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 2 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Mr. Chapman, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Millet, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Gregg and Ms. Smith opposed. D. Request approval of street names for streets located in Covington Phase 2. Street names include: Checker Court and Hopkins Lane. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the street names as presented. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:32 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn05242017  Attachment 1: May 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1862 PEACEFUL WAY STAFF REPORT (SKETCH PLAN & LDR WAIVER) MAY 24, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations Section 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision on Peaceful Request: Way of three SF residential Lots zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Location: 1862 Peaceful Way Type of Request: Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required. Applicant: Kevin Berry, PE – Earthsource Engineering Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21860 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 556-00-00-280 Property Owner: Cynthia Albrecht Approximate Acreage: 4.80 Acres Plat Book & Page: EH 890 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R1 – Low Density Residential District TMS No. 556-00-00-490 Property Owner: The DeWolff Grandchildren’s Trust Approximate Acreage: 0.90 Acres Plat Book & Page: EH 890 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R1 – Low Density Residential District Total Acreage: 5.70 Acres ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of Planning Commission 05/24/2017 request. Planning & Development n/a n/a Committee of Council Town Council n/a n/a Staff Report – 1862 Peaceful Way, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 1 of 3 PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any 12/08/1986 Annexation Boundary Line Adjustment plat 04/27/2005 of TMS# 556-00-00-280 and 281; creation of TMS# 556-00-00-490 STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is the lot line adjustment and subdivision creating three lots, in addition to a waiver request from the Land Development Regulations for lot width to depth ratio. 2. Proposed lots are zoned R-1 and meet all applicable development standards. 3. Lots 3 and 4 exceed the width to depth standards in Chapter 155. The depth of these lots are greater than 2.5 their width. Planning Commission has the authority to grant waivers relating to hardships from extenuating circumstances. Applicant provided a waiver request addressing the four criteria outlined in Chapter 155 for consideration. 4. There will be shared driveway access. This is a private agreement necessary to access Lot 4. Access is to be recorded and secured prior to or concurrently with recording the subdivision. 5. The critical line buffer is to have a minimum of 20 feet. There are areas where this may not be met. Dimensional information has been requested from the applicant to confirm measurement from critical line. 6. There is no request for tree removal at this time. Staff Report – 1862 Peaceful Way, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 2 of 3 7. Transportation Department is requesting coordination for any future driveway improvements within Peaceful Way. 8. A planting plan with quantity calculations is needed to return the critical line buffer areas to as close a natural state as possible as the buffer has been disturbed in varying degrees. Much of it is currently turf which is not allowed in the critical line buffer. New plantings will need to be provided so that, outside of the vision corridor, the buffer is properly vegetated. 9. Several portions of existing concrete walks and drives, asphalt drives and greenhouses encroach into the 30’ impervious surface setback and critical line buffer, which will need to be removed. Staff Report – 1862 Peaceful Way, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 3 of 3  SHELL LANDING STAFF REPORT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) MAY 24, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 SF Request: residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district. Location: 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road Type of Request: Preliminary Plat Public Hearing: Not required. Applicant: Matthew Cline; Cline Engineering, Inc. Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21861 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 560-06-00-001 Property Owner: 1492 Rifle Range LLC Approximate Acreage: 4.00 acres (3.97 acres according to Charleston County records) Plat Book & Page: DA 154 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R2 – Low Density Residential District TMS No. 560-06-00-025 Property Owner: 1492 Rifle Range LLC Approximate Acreage: 2.55 acres (2.51 acres according to County records) Plat Book & Page: AD 090 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R2 – Low Density Residential District Total Acreage: 6.55 acres (6.48 acres according to County records) ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of Planning Commission 5/24/2017 request. Planning & Development n/a n/a Committee of Council Town Council n/a n/a Staff Report – Shell Landing, Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 3 PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any 10/13/2015 Annexation of both parcels 11/2015 Sketch plan denied 3/2016 Sketch plan denied 08/24/2016 Sketch plan approved With staff comments SCDOT encroachment permit 08/24/2016 approved Staff Report – Shell Landing, Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 3 STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is a request for approval of Preliminary Plat for 16 single family residential lots. 2. Proposed subdivision is zoned R-2 and meets all applicable development standards. 3. Sketch Plan comments have been addressed. 4. While the design provides adequate and accessible open space and accounts for a number of large protected trees, there are more than 30 trees shown for removal which were shown as retained on the approved Sketch Plan. Also not shown on the proposed Preliminary Plat that was on the approved Sketch Plan was the canopy of trees of interest like the live oak splitting lot 13 and 14. 5. The tree survey is now out of date and will need to be updated. The survey should be no more than a year old for submittal. 6. The buffer along Rifle Range Road is self-imposed and not a requirement in the Land Development Regulations or Zoning Code. 7. Site data showing acreage break downs do not list all items on the checklist. Right of way acreage, open space and lot acreage is not shown. 8. The grading plan shows fill conditions on trees on lots 10-16, 6-8 and 3 and a cut condition on HOA area C. All need to be avoided and are not possible if the barricades remain in place as they should. Grading will need to be adjusted accordingly. Staff Report – Shell Landing, Preliminary Plat Page 3 of 3  BESSEMER ROAD TOWNHOMES STAFF REPORT (SKETCH PLAN) MAY 24, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval of Sketch Plan for Bessemer Road Townhomes, 21 Request: townhouse units zoned PD, Planned Development District. Location: Bessemer Road Type of Request: Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required Applicant: Eric Shulz, Mae Properties, LLC Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21862 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 583-03-00-172 Property Owner: Mae Properties, LLC Approximate Acreage: 4.00 acres Plat Book & Page: Book EJ, Page 194 Comprehensive Plan Future Commercial Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: PD, Planned Development District TMS No. 583-03-00-177 Property Owner: Little Holdings, LLC Approximate Acreage: 1.03 acres Plat Book & Page: Book EJ, Page 194 Comprehensive Plan Future Commercial Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: PD, Planned Development District 2.93 acres without drainage pond (4.03 acres with drainage pond Total Acreage: included) ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of Planning Commission 5/24/2017 request. Planning & Development n/a n/a Committee of Council Town Council n/a n/a Staff Report – Bessemer Road Townhomes, Sketch Plan Page 1 of 3 PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any 09/04/1990 Annexation Dunes West Planned 03/14/2017 Development Amendment STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is a request for approval of Sketch Plan for 21 townhouse units. 2. A pre-application meeting was held with the engineer representing the applicant. At that time it was requested that the sidewalk be extended along Bessemer to the outer most reaching boundaries to provide a future pedestrian link with other sidewalk installed and to be installed. Their response is below: The Dunes West PD does not require sidewalk installation. The sidewalks shown are at the discretion of the owner. We are providing a logical connection to the sidewalk to the north of the property and a logical terminus at the proposed driveway on Lot 1. Staff Report – Bessemer Road Townhomes, Sketch Plan Page 2 of 3 3. Staff also requested a hard surface or sidewalk connection with the mail kiosk. Engineer representing the applicant response is below: The Dunes West PD does not require sidewalk installation. The sidewalks shown are at the discretion of the owner. We are providing a logical connection to the sidewalk to the north of the property and a logical terminus at the proposed driveway on Lot 1. 4. There are existing portions of sidewalk already constructed (see image of Larch Lane below) with the intention of having a comprehensive sidewalk network that will benefit of existing and future residents. 5. Applicant is requesting removal of three trees deemed in good condition and six trees deemed in fair condition by their arborist. It is within the Planning Commission’s authority to deny the request for removal of trees that are greater than 16 inches in diameter at breast height. 6. All easements need to be shown on the plat. Notes refer to easements not graphically shown. The existing power lines running between Bessemer Rd and units 1 and 21 need to be shown so that the buffer there can be reviewed and the units confirmed to be out of it. 7. Only 75” of trees are being retained, thus requiring 392” to be planted with canopy tree species which will be difficult on this project and its limited space outside of easements. Note 2 on sheet 2 needs to be corrected to read that only retained trees and planted canopy species can be used to fulfill the 160”/acre. Mitigation trees are not able to be counted towards this requirement. Staff Report – Bessemer Road Townhomes, Sketch Plan Page 3 of 3  Attachment 2: May 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION 24 May 2017  5.a. PEACEFUL WAY SUBDIVISION Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations Section Request: 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision on Peaceful Way of three SF residential Lots zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Location: 1862 Peaceful Way Parcel ID (TMS No.): 556-00-00-280; 556-00-00-490 Type of Request: LDR Waiver and Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 5.70 acres Plat Recording Info: Book EH, Page 890 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21860 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21966 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or denies the request.  5.b. SHELL LANDING SUBDIVISION Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 SF Request: residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district. Location: 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 560-06-00-025; 560-06-00-001 Type of Request: Preliminary Plat Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 6.50 acres Plat Recording Info: Book DA, Page 154 and Book AD, Page 090 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21861 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21967 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or denies the request. Approved Sketch Plan – August 2016 Proposed Preliminary Plat 5.c. BESSEMER ROAD TOWNHOMES Request approval of Sketch Plan for Bessemer Road Request: Townhomes, 21 townhouse units zoned PD, Planned Development District. Location: Bessemer Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 583-03-00-172; 583-03-00-177 Type of Request: Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 2.92 acres Plat Recording Info: Book EJ, Page 194 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21862 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21968 Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or Action to be Taken: denies the request. 5.d. COVINGTON STREET NAMES Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Central Mount Request: Pleasant Hamlet Tract, 48 SF residential Lots zoned PD, Planned Development District. Location: Intersection of Founders Way and Rifle Range Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 560-00-00-030 Type of Request: Preliminary Plat Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 14.24 acres Plat Recording Info: Book L16, Page 0537 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21563 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21660 Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or Action to be Taken: denies the request. PLANNING COMMISSION 24 May 2017