CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 2016, 6:30 PM City Center, Council Chambers FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA AGENDA

Transcription

1 CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 2016, 6:30 PM City Center, Council Chambers FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting April 12, 2016 Work Session April 25, 2016 III. IV. Public Hearing PC Request to Zone R-1, pending annexation, property located at 2527 Kingston Drive, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel Matter in Position for Action PC Request to Zone R-1, pending annexation, property located at 2527 Kingston Drive, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel V. Adjournment Next meeting: June 14, 2016

2

3 CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 12, :30 PM CITY CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Drew Chaplin, Jennifer Edwards, Betty Gregg, Dorothy Hines, Simon Lee, and Derrick Owens. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Gause, Charles Howard, and Mildred Welch. STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Lookadoo and Clint Moore. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chaplin called the April 12, 2016 regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and thanked everyone for their participation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Chaplin asked Commissioners if there were any changes to the March 8, 2016 regular meeting minutes that needed to be made. Being none, Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the minutes and Mrs. Edwards seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0). PC Request to Zone R-1, pending annexation, property located at 1616 Patton Drive, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 1). Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, Chairman Chaplin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no one present to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Chairman Chaplin called for a motion. Mr. Owens made a motion to approve the request and Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0).

4 PC Request to Zone B-3, pending annexation, properties located along West Evans Street and West Palmetto Street, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcels and Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 2). Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, Chairman Chaplin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. John Jebaily, speaking for the request, took the podium. He stated that he had worked to remove buildings from the property in question because they were eye sores. He mentioned he had a developer ready to submit a proposal for the property and asked Brian O Kane to take the podium. Brian O Kane, with Bohler Engineering, spoke in favor of the request. He handed out a conceptual site plan to the Commissioners describing the intended use of the property. Mr. O Kane said the intended use for the property was a 36,000 sq. ft. grocery store. Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. O Kane. Mrs. Edwards inquired about a traffic study. Mr. O Kane replied that they were still in the conceptual design stage of planning but that he was working with the DOT to get a TIA. Chairman Chaplin addressed Mr. O Kane saying that he noticed in the site plan he had a curb cut at the intersection of Palmetto and Evans Street and asked if people were going to be able to make a left turn coming from Second Loop across Palmetto. Mr. O Kane said that was still to be determined and that was just one of the multiple plan concepts the company was considering and that would be something that would still need to be studied and discussed with the DOT. Chairman Chaplin also asked if there would be any access to David McLeod Blvd from the culde-sac that was present in the site plan. Mr. O Kane replied that currently they weren t proposing that type of access. Being no one else present to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Chairman Chaplin called for a motion. Mr. Owens made a motion to approve the request and Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0).

5 Mr. Jebaily asked Chairman Chaplin when the item would go before the City Council for a second reading to which Chairman Chaplin replied May ninth. PC Request to Zone B-3, pending annexation, property currently zoned B-2 in Florence County and located at 1303 West Darlington Street, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 3). Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo if the property on both the left and right sides of 1303 West Darlington Street were vacant. Mr. Lookadoo replied that the property on the left of address was along with the property on the right-hand side. He replied that some of the property on the right belonged to a heating and air distributor, CC Dickson. Mr. Lookadoo pointed out the vacant lots around the address in question with his cursor. Chairman Chaplin verified with Mr. Lookadoo that the lots on either side of the address were zoned B-2. Chairman Chaplin asked Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Being none, Chairman Chaplin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Detroit Dye took the podium and requested that the property be zoned B-3. Another, unidentified, gentleman spoke saying that in the area there are many automotive shops and Detroit and himself were hoping to open a paint and auto body repair shop. He stated his intentions to purchase the properties on the right and the left side of the property. They would also like to start up a restaurant in the area and bring more jobs to Florence. Chairman Chaplin addressed Mr. Lookadoo asking him if the lot to the left of the address in question was zoned residential. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it is zoned B-3. Chairman Chaplin asked if there was a residence on that lot. Mr. Lookadoo replied that, yes there was. Mr. Dye mentioned he thought it was an old, abandoned trailer. Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Mrs. Edwards asked if an auto body shop was zoned B-2. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it is zoned B-3 and Mrs. Edwards clarified that is the reason the gentlemen are requesting the rezoning. Mrs. Edwards asked if the two men already owned the property to which they replied yes. Chairman Chaplin asked if they had bought the property on the left yet to which they stated no, but they planned to. Chairman

6 Chaplin asked the two gentlemen if they had purchased the property with the intent to have an auto body shop, knowing it wasn t the correct zoning. They responded it had been zoned B-3 but then was changed to B-2 about a month before they bought the property. Chairman Chaplin inquired if a property could really go from a B-3 to a B-2. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it was possible, but since that particular property was in the County, he didn t know the exact history of that specific property. Chairman Chaplin clarified with the gentlemen that the property had changed to B-2 right before they bought it. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Lookadoo that since he property was zoned a B-2, was there any way the applicants could seek a variance and still build their shop? Mr. Lookadoo replied, no, we do not allow use variances in the code. Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo that if they purchase the properties on either side of the property, then won t the entire three lots be combined as a B-3? Mr. Lookadoo replied that if the Planning Commission wishes to do so, they can recommend B-3, which is to the South. Chairman Chaplin asked if that would be considered spot zoning. Mr. Lookadoo replied, no, for it to be considered spot zoning, the use being requested would have to be totally different than the uses of its surroundings. Mr. Owens asked what would happen if the applicants never purchased the property on the left of them. He stated the B-3 in mainly continuous across the street to their property to which Mr. Lookadoo agreed, it ran south of their property. Chairman Chaplin addressed the two applicants telling them that the Commissioners were struggling with the issue because they felt bad about the situation that they had purchased the property as a B-3 then had it changed suddenly to not be appropriate for an auto body shop. Chairman Chaplin then confirmed that the request was also based on being annexed into the City limits. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Lookadoo about a B-1 limited zone. Mr. Lookadoo said that zone applies only to office, institutional, and professional there is no B-2 limited. Mr. Owens said he was just wondering because it didn t seem like there would be a lot of parking spaces required for the auto body shop. Mrs. Hines verified that the current zoning of the applicant s property is B-2 and that the property is in the County. The applicants mentioned three or four other properties on the street were having the same zoning issue. Mrs. Hines then verified with Mr. Lookadoo that they could not do spot zoning. Mr. Lookadoo said spot zoning is only applicable when the use is totally different than the land uses around it. Mrs. Hines mentioned that if the rezoning would allow

7 businesses similar to others in the area, then why can t it be zoned B-3? Mr. Lookadoo replied that he was not saying it couldn t be zoned B-3, but the staff recommended B-2 zoning based on surrounding zoning and the land use plan. However, for all other purposes it met the criteria for B-3 zoning. Chairman Chaplin pointed out that both lots on either side of the property in question were vacant, so if the zoning was changed, no residents lived there to be impacted by the change. Being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for a motion. Mrs. Edwards made a motion to approve the request and Mrs. Hines seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0). Chairman Chaplin informed the applicants that the final decision pending annexation would be made by the City Council on May ninth and they should attend that meeting. PC Request to rezone properties located on Barringer Street, Church Street, and Cohen Street, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcels , , , and Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 4). Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo how this request would relate to R-4 multi-family in a light industrial environment. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it was being rezoned from that. Chairman Chaplin verified that there was currently no multi-family there. Mr. Lookadoo stated that was correct. Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Being none, he opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Dean Lisenby, current board chair for the house of Hope, spoke for the request. He stated he was in support of the emergency shelter and was present to answer any questions people may have. Chairman Chaplin thanked him for being there and stated he appreciated the work House of Hope did and that they re an amazing organization. He asked Commissioners if they had any

8 questions for Dean Lisenby. Being none, Chairman Chaplin called for anyone wanting to speak against the request. Bryan Wazondale, property owner on Church Street, took the podium. He asked Mr. Lisenby what type of people would be staying at the house in question. He asked how Mr. Lisenby planned on protecting current neighborhood residents against break-ins and what kind of security he planned on providing. Chairman Chaplin told Mr. Wazondale that he would need to address his questions to the Commissioners. Mr. Wazondale acknowledged Chairman Chaplin s request and stated he was asking these questions because security was his concern with the House of Hope shelter. Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo how long the shelter had been at the current location and Mr. Lookadoo replied that it had been there for three to five years. Chairman Chaplin then addressed Mr. Wazondale and asked him if he had any issues in the past three to five years that the facility had been there. Mr. Wazondale replied that there hadn t been much traffic through the area, but if this request were to pass, more traffic would be coming through and he just wanted to know what type of protection the neighborhood residents would be offered. Chairman Chaplin thanked Mr. Wazondale for coming forward and asked Lisenby to come forward and address the concerns that had been presented. Mr. Lisenby obliged and stated that they planned to have security on-site at all times. Because people of all types are welcome, he stated that they also plan to have metal detectors. He mentioned the shelter would house men, women, and children and would mainly operate in the evening hours. The shelter would operate from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Lisenby if they would have people living at the shelter to which he replied no, they have other facilities for people who wish to live there as residents the women s home on Darlington Street and the men s home out in Effingham. Mr. Lee then asked him how many meals they would serve a day to which Mr. Lisenby replied one evening hot meal The Manna House will continue to serve breakfast and lunch meals and the House of Hope is working with several different organizations to make sure people are taken care of. He also said Whosoever Church has been assisting people on cold nights as well. Mrs. Hines then asked how many people the shelter would be able to accommodate. Mr. Lisenby replied that the shelter had the potential to hold 60 men, women, and children. He explained that the men, women, and children would all be kept separately. Chairman Chaplin asked if anyone else would like to speak against the request. Mr. Wazondale spoke out from the audience saying he was not necessarily speaking against the request, he just

9 had questions. Chairman Chaplin asked him if his questions had been answered to which he replied yes. Chairman Chaplin then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for a motion. Mrs. Hines made a motion to approve the request and Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the request was unanimous (6-0). PC Proposed text amendment to City of Florence Zoning Ordinance Section regarding requirement of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of trees and/or shrubs of a certain size within the established Florence Downtown Overlay Districts Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 4). Chairman Chaplin verified with Mr. Lookadoo that this amendment does not apply to all of Florence city limits but just the Timrod Park and downtown overlay districts. Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Being none, he opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no one to spoke for or against the request Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for a motion. Mr. Owens made a motion to approve the request and Mr. Hines seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the request was unanimous (6-0). PC Proposed Development Agreement between the City of Florence and the developer of The Grove at Ebenezer, properties being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel , and Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 6). Mr. Lookadoo explained that with this item, there would need to be two public hearings. One was currently being held and another would take place May ninth in the City Council meeting. He explained that he was presenting this item to hold a public hearing but not for the Commissioners to take action on.

10 Chairman Chaplin asked Commissioners if they had any question for staff. Being none, he opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. PC Request to rezone property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel ; and zone properties and , pending annexation; to Planned Development District. Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 5). Chairman Chaplin mentioned how this item, being a possible 20-year buildup, was a lot to digest and take in. He asked if the Commissioners had any questions for staff. Mr. Owens asked about the relationship of what might be found in the development agreement versus what could be found in the plan development district did one document contain all of it versus the other? Mr. Lookadoo answered that the development agreement would address and refer to the development district as would the zoning ordinance. He said, for example, if they took plan development district out of it and this was just a request to rezone a parcel B-3, then the development agreement would state that for the period of time, 10 years, this developer would be able to rely on developing according to B-3 standards. Mr. Lookadoo explained this current item was really no different from that example except that PDD was being inserted which increased the complexity of creating the zoning district. Essentially, this is just an agreement that the developer will annex upon development and addresses the City providing water and sewer and those types of things. Mr. Owens responded by saying he was just curious about some of the wording in the packet. Some of the requirements were referenced in the development agreement and was just asking questions for further clarification. Mr. Lookadoo stated he thought he knew what Mr. Owens was saying but asked him to clarify himself even further. Mr. Owens read the portion he was referencing. Chairman Chaplin asked Commissioners if they had any more questions for staff. Ms. Gregg asked about the developments being in front of Sneed. Mr. Lookadoo said all developments on the proposed properties would still be required to meet the land-development subdivision regulations. Also, the frontages of the properties are on state roads so the

11 encroachment permit process must be followed as well as subdivision requirements. All these control how traffic flows in and out of the area. Being no more questions for staff by Commissioners, Chairman Chaplin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Bob Weaver took the podium speaking for the request. He thanked staff for putting together and presenting the report and stated it s a large development and it s important to have an agreement to protect both sides. Mr. Weaver stated that they are prepared to proceed with phase one and two. Phase one initial has 66 lots which are the plans proposed for residential. All driveway permits were secured in 2007 and Roads and entrances have been designed for a good flow of traffic. Mr. Weaver stated they will continue to work with DOT during the permitting process. The entire piece of property has been laid out except for commercial. Chairman Chaplin thanked Mr. Weaver and stated his appreciation for all the time the Planning Department and he had put into the plans. He then asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Weaver. Mr. Owens stated he was confused about the development agreement and mentioned some items that referred to the development agreement and asked if the plan development was the guiding document or if the development agreement was the guiding document for future development. Mr. Weaver referred Mr. Owen s question to staff and said that the development agreement is between the developer and the City Council and gave some examples. He stated that when the project is over, there will be a mixed use on the property in question. Chairman Chaplin read an item he had a question about and Mr. Weaver stated that Mr. Lookadoo had clarified that portion already when he gave his presentation. If signage needed to be changed, that would be something they would need to come back to the Planning Commission for. Chairman Chaplin told Mr. Weaver that the only job of the Planning Commission was to safeguard the people of Florence from scenarios that are not conducive to their investment and phase one showed an attractive residential development and then the unzoned residential showed an area that could potentially be a scenario where residential backed up to a B-3 commercial use in say, 18 years. As far as Commissioners were concerned, he would like them to spend a bit more time thinking over this item. Being no more questions for Mr. Weaver and being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for a

12 motion. Mr. Owens made a motion to defer the request to a later date and hold a planning session to discussion the issue further. Mrs. Hines seconded the motion to defer. Mr. Lookadoo stated the work sessions meeting would be beneficial to be held before the May ninth City Council meeting. Mrs. Hines asked if there was a specific time when that meeting would take place. Chairman Chaplin replied it was up to the Planning Department to find a time that would work best for Commissioners to hold the work sessions meeting. Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo if they would need to vote at the work sessions meeting to which Mr. Lookadoo explained that the work sessions is a public meeting to which the public can attend. Mr. Owens added to his motion that staff will determine the time and place of the work sessions meeting. Mrs. Hines seconded the motion and Mr. Lookadoo clarified that the work sessions meeting needed to take place before May ninth. Voting in favor of deferment was unanimous (6-0). PC Proposed text amendment to City of Florence Zoning Ordinance Section 2.9 to add Section Expiration of Certificate of Appropriateness to set forth a time restraint on approved Certificates of Appropriateness within the established Florence Downtown Overlay Districts Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 7). Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo prior to this amendment how long a COA had been good for to which Mr. Lookadoo replied indefinitely. Chairman Chaplin asked Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Being none, Chairman Chaplin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Chaplin closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for a motion. Mr. Owens made a motion to approve the request and Mr. Lee seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the request was unanimous (6-0). Other Business:

13 A. PC An ordinance to amend the City of Florence Zoning Ordinance to set forth conditional use regulations for unattended donation receptacles. Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 8). Mr. Lookadoo stated that the Planning Commission was supposed to submit any comments or suggestions they had between the last meeting and the current one. He believed Mrs. Edwards had submitted something, but he had not brought it with him. Mrs. Edwards stated her main point of interest was that the donation receptacles were eye sores and personally she would like the ordinance to have a requirement to have the receptacles be less conspicuous. Chairman Chaplin agreed that he would like to have some of the language in the ordinance changed and all the Commissioners were very conservative on this. Mr. Owens asked if the word inconspicuous in the ordinance could be defined better. Mr. Lookadoo agreed and gave some examples of how the ordinance amendment would change the location where donation receptacles would be allowed. Ms. Gregg stated her concerns about donation receptacles overflowing and asked what a person was supposed to do when they wanted to donate but can t because the bin is overflowing. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it would be enforced just like any other ordinance. By either a complaint made by a passerby or by a codes enforcement officer. The owner would be given a notification to fix the issues, then a notice of violation, and finally a notice of summons to show up in court. Ms. Gregg then asked if all the donation receptacles would have to have the information of the owner on them so they could be contacted. Mr. Lookadoo replied yes, the property owner would be responsible for fixing the issues. She then asked if codes enforcement would go around labeling every bin with the owner s information to which Mr. Lookadoo replied that codes wouldn t they would just to the research to make sure the owner had a business license and was keeping the receptacle up to standard. Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Lookadoo if they needed to have a vote for Mrs. Edward s recommendation to change some of the language in the amendment. Mr. Lookadoo replied that it depended on their intent and whether they wanted to move forward and recommend the item to City Council or if they wanted to defer the item. Chairman Chaplin stated he would like to defer the item until the work sessions meeting. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Lookadoo if it would be possible to Commissioners once the text was revised. Mr. Lookadoo stated an agenda would be sent to the Commissioners for the work sessions meeting. Adjournment:

14 As there was no other business, Chairman Chaplin requested a motion to adjourn. Mr. Owens made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0). Chairman Chaplin adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for May 10, Respectfully submitted, Faith Krepps Office Assistant II

15 CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 25, :30 PM CITY CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS WORK SESSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Drew Chaplin, Jennifer Edwards, Kevin Gause, Betty Gregg, Dorothy Hines, Charles Howard, Simon Lee, Derrick Owens, and Mildred Welch. MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Dudley, Phillip Lookadoo, Clint Moore, and Tripp Ward. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chaplin called the April 25, 2016 work session meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and thanked everyone for their participation. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER: Kevin Gause was introduced to staff and other Commissioners by Chairman Chaplin. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Chaplin informed the Commissioners that the minutes before them were simply a draft to recap what had occurred in the previous meeting. The minutes were currently not up for approval but would be voted on in the next formal Planning Commission meeting. PC Request to rezone property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel ; and zone properties and , pending annexation; to Planned Development District. Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Phillip Lookadoo gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Weaver, the engineer for the project in question, took the podium to explain his plans for the property. He stated his intent is to use mostly single-family. There will be one main road going through residential and commercial. The intent is to separate the residential from commercial with the Progress Energy right-of-way. He pointed to various sections of the map on the exhibit with a cursor and described his plan to Commissioners.

16 Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Weaver if the portion of the map he was discussing was intended to be apartments to which he replied it will be either commercial or apartments. Mr. Weaver pointed to a large canal on the map and said it serves as a buffer between lower residential and upper multi-family. One of the Commissioners asked if the ditch drained to the West or the East to which he replied it drains toward I-95 downhill. Chairman Chaplin asked a question about Church nearby and Kings Academy but Mr. Weaver assured that the site plan would not affect those businesses and continued explaining his plan as displayed on the exhibit in detail. Chairman Chaplin stated that in phase one residential there are some lots next to the railroad buffer but asked if there were any buffers in the rear of the lots. Mr. Weaver replied that those lots are bigger and they also have a ditch draining King s Academy which serves as a buffer. Chairman Chaplin replied that he was referring to the lots near the interstate. Mr. Weaver replied that they didn t have any lots near the interstate and Chairman Chaplin clarified he meant where Mr. Weaver had previously had his cursor on the exhibit. The two lots closest to the right-of-way didn t show a green buffer. Mr. Weaver replied that the buffer there was a ditch and trees could be placed in the backyards of those lots. Chairman Chaplin inquired if the railroad right-of-way was full vegetated. Mr. Weaver replied yes. Chairman Chaplin asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Weaver. Mr. Weaver stated he had the master plan with him. Mr. Owens addressed Mr. Weaver asking him why he didn t submit the master plan if it had more detail to which he replied that when you re a builder, things change so much that to submit such an exact plan, you have to build exactly what you show there s not room for change when you submit a detailed plan like the master plan. Chairman Chaplin asked Mr. Weaver, if, in five years from now and he s in phase four of development, and he decides to change from single to multi-family residence, would he have to go before the Commissioners for approval? Or is he trying to set all the buffers at that current meeting? Mr. Weaver replied that there would not be much multi family. Discussion was held about the different phases and how many lots existed in each phase. Chairman Chaplin asked if when Mr. Weaver goes before the City Council will he be setting the precedent of what they can do in ten years? Mr. Lookadoo addressed Chairman Chaplin saying that what the Commissioners were doing was simply recommending to Council the approval of the minimum standards that he had shown them previously. Any development that would be proposed in the future would be reviewed by those same standards. Mr. Howard asked what happened at the previous Planning Commission meeting that called for the work session meeting. Mr. Lookadoo explained that the Commissioners had needed further

17 clarification on two items (that were interrelated) presented at the April 12, 2016 regular meeting before recommending to Council. The development agreement needs two public hearings- one was held at the April planning Commission meeting and one will be held at the May 9, 2016 Council meeting. Chairman Chaplin addressed Mr. Lookadoo saying that he had forgotten about the working agreement between the developer and the City. He asked if they had to go through a public hearing for that and inquired if they had done that in the April meeting. Mr. Lookadoo replied that they had. He reiterated that there must be a total of two public hearing and one or both can take place in Planning Commission meetings and any comments made by the public are forwarded on to the City Council. This time, City Council will be having the second hearing and it will end up being a contractual agreement between the developer and City Council. Chairman Chaplin mentioned it was his first time doing something like this and also, he had been overwhelmed by all the information presented at the previous meeting and didn t totally understand what the goal was and where they stood in relation to what was best for everybody. Mrs. Hines stated that further down the road from the property in question, there were multifamily residences and she was concerned about Mr. Weaver possibly building triplex, duplexes, and quadraplexes. Mr. Weaver stated that he was just listing what would be allowed with the ordinance and there are a lot of codes and rules that have to be followed when building multfamily. He said he didn t anticipate building multi-family below through railroad but if he did, the proper buffers were in place. Mr. Owens commented that he appreciated all the work Mr. Weaver had put into things but for him, he still had a lot of ambiguity between the development agreement and the plan development district and how it all relates. He asked what the defining document was for all this. He said the plan seemed like new urban development, which he was a fan of, but in this development and not having a defined plan; it could be a good thing. He just didn t understand the whole relationship and asked to see Mr. Weaver s master plan. Mr. Weaver took the podium. He said the development is a sizable investment and the builders are very cautious about what they are developing. Chairman Chaplin asked if staff had an opinion to which Mr. Lookadoo replied they didn t have a specific recommendation. Mr. Weaver said they sought the advice of Jim Peterson, the City attorney, and made changes to the development agreement based on what he had advised. Mr. Weaver displayed and explained the master plan to Mr. Owens and other Commissioners. He answered various questions from Commissioners regarding the plan.

18 Mrs. Edwards mentioned that she really like the development idea. She asked if there would only be one way to get from Ebenezer to the development. Mr. Weaver clarified that would be more than one entrance. Chairman Chaplin called for a motion. Mr. Howard said he was having trouble understanding things. He asked if the questions and concerns that the Commission had previously were resolved at the work session. Mr. Owens said his questions were not satisfied and he wasn t sure that they would be. He said it didn t have to do with any of the present parties but was because of the zoning laws. Mr. Lookadoo said that in regards to Mr. Owen s questions earlier regarding the documents, the map in the exhibit would set forth the standards. Mr. Owens replied that if a request was made to build something and the development, district was applied would the end results look like. Mr. Lookadoo defined various buffers required by the plan development district and Mr. Owens and he discussed what constitutes as internal and exterior buffers. Mr. Lookadoo explained that the plan development district that lists out on the map every regulation that s involved with attachments which are the permitted uses and then there will be the development agreement which references the PDD map and regulations. Chairman Chaplin and Mr. Howard asked if this was a new thing or if other developments had followed the same procedure in the past. Mr. Lookadoo said Somerset development had gone through a similar process. He also said the goal of this process was to have a document to review everything by ten years down the road. More discussion was held between Commissioners and Mr. Lookadoo about what would be allowed in the future under the development agreement. Mr. Weaver took the stand to address a question from Mr. Owens regarding the term, walkability. Mr. Weaver stated the development will be very walkable when it s done and explained all the areas in the development where there would be walkways. Chairman Chaplin called for a motion. Mrs. Edwards made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Mrs. Welch. Voting in favor of the request was unanimous (9-0).

19 PC An ordinance to amend the City of Florence Zoning Ordinance to set forth conditional use regulations for unattended donation receptacles. Chairman Chaplin read the introduction of the item and asked staff for their report. Jerry Dudley gave the staff report as submitted to the Planning Commission. Chairman Chaplin mentioned that many people who have donation receptacles do a percentage of gifting and asked if donation receptacles could get a sticker put on them stating what program they supported and exactly what percentage. Mr. Lookadoo agreed that was a good idea because many people donate thinking they are giving to a non-profit organization where, in some cases, they are actually giving to a full-profit business. Mr. Campbell asked if these possible changes would lend credibility to an organization. Discussion was held about receptacle bins and how they advertise themselves or their lack therefore of. Mr. Owens said he would be in favor of receptacles bins having to be in the rear of properties, behind the front plane. Discussion was held amongst Commissioners about what this would possibly entail. Ms. Gregg expressed concern about changes to the ordinance hindering owners of receptacles from doing goodwill. Chairman Chaplin asked the Commissioners to look at the changes Mr. Dudley had made and write down what they would like to add or change and then at the next Planning Commission meeting, they could vote on what they were willing to accept or not accept. Mr. Owens stated their responsibility was to keep the community clean and attractive and would like to see the donation bins restricted to a side yard and/or removed altogether. Commissioners talked amongst themselves about what they would like to see in the amendment and their feelings on the donation bin ordinance. Chairman Chaplin called for a motion, and Mr. Owens motioned to recommend the ordinance for approval under the circumstances that receptacles be restricted to side yards and Mrs. Edwards seconded the motion. Mr. Dudley clarified exactly what Mr. Owens was proposing. Mr. Owens made a motion to amend his original motion. Then, withdrew his original motion. He motioned to recommend the text amendment with the revision he had just discussed with Mr. Dudley (that donation receptacles only be located in the rear or side yards of the property). Mr. Dudley explained how the amendment by Mr. Owens would change the ordinance. Voting in favor of the motion was (5-3).

20 Adjournment: As there was no other business, Chairman Chaplin requested a motion to adjourn. Mr. Owens made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion was unanimous (8-0). Chairman Chaplin adjourned the meeting at 5:24 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for May 10, Respectfully submitted, Faith Krepps Office Assistant II

21 CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 10, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: PC Request to Zone R-1 pending annexation of property located at 2527 Kingston Drive, said property being specifically designated in the Florence County Tax Records as Tax Map Parcel I. IDENTIFYING DATA Owner Tax Map Number Ray Kelsey II. GENERAL BACKGROUND DATA Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: R-1, Single-Family Residential (County) R-1, Single-Family Residential (City) Single-Family residential Single-Family Residential III. POINTS TO CONSIDER: (1) The property is currently zoned R-1 in the County; the primary use currently permitted per the Florence County Zoning Ordinance would be single-family residential characterized by large sized lots. (2) The proposed zoning, pending annexation, is R-1, Single-Family Residential. The primary use permitted under the proposed zoning is single-family residential characterized by large sized lots. (3) The lot meets the dimensional requirements of the R-1 zoning district per the City of Florence Zoning Ordinance. (4) The only uses that may be developed under the proposed zoning, per the City of Florence Zoning Ordinance, are those permitted in the R-1 zoning district. The properties will be subject to the City of Florence codes and regulations. (5) Adjacent properties are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential or R-2, Single-Family Residential (County) (see Attachment B). (6) Land use of the adjacent property is single-family residential. (7) The Future Land Use designation for the property as well as surrounding property is Neighborhood Conservation (see Attachment C). (8) City water and sewer service is currently available.

22 (9) City staff recommends the parcel be zoned R-1, Single Family Residential as requested, contingent upon annexation into the City of Florence. This recommendation is based on the lots dimensions being consistent with the R-1 zoning district and the character of the existing neighborhood. IV. CURRENT STATUS/PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: This issue is before the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to City Council. It has not been considered, nor has any previous action been taken, by the Planning Commission. V. ATTACHMENTS: A) Location Map B) Current Zoning Map C) Future Land Use Map D) Photograph

23

24

25

26 Attachment D: Photograph Image 1: Property as viewed from Kingston Drive