PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF TEGA CAY, SOUTH CAROLINA. August 9, 2010

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF TEGA CAY, SOUTH CAROLINA August 9, 2010 The regular monthly meeting of the Tega Cay Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Tega Cay Community Room, Tega Cay, South Carolina, Chairman Tom Weir presiding. PRESENT: Chairman Tom Weir, Vice-Chairman Kathy Masters, Commissioner Doug Burns, Commissioner Jerry Church, Commissioner Reggie Hayes, Commissioner Ken Huber, Secretary Tom Goebel and Liaison John Dervay ABSENT: Commissioner Bob Cullen #1. Call Meeting to Order: This is our regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, August 9, For the record we do have a quorum. We re missing Bob Cullen. #2. Approval of Minutes- May 3, 2010: First item up is approval of minutes. Has everybody had a chance to look at the May 3, 2010, minutes? Is there a motion? I d like to make a motion we approve the minutes of the May 3, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting. Second. Kathy made the motion, seconded by Ken. Any discussion? I m not looking to change it but I did notice in here that it said that Grant was at the meeting and it was Charlie. Charlie got confused for Grant. Any further discussion? All in favor of approval of the minutes say AYE, AYE. None opposed. That is unanimous. -1-

2 #2. Consider Approval of Amendments to Ordinance #77 (Signs & Enforcement): As we left this we made a couple of changes on the enforcement side that Council wanted us to look at. We were also looking for legal to do a review. I actually attended an executive session with Council and as you know you can t talk about what you do in executive session, but the bottom line is there were no suggested changes to what we have through legal s review. With that said we can go forward as is and to do that in Ordinance #77 whenever we do a text amendment to the ordinance then we follow our procedures for that. I m in Article 15- Amendments and the original document; I m on Page 122 but actually going forward to Page 124. If you don t have that with you, no problem, I ll tell you what we need to do. I m in Section Recommendation and I ll just read very quickly. After the public hearing has been declared closed the Planning Commission shall consider the matters to determine. #1-the need for the proposed amendment; #2-if the proposed amendment pertains to a change in the district classification of property the affect of the change on the property and the surrounding properties; #3-the relationship of the proposed amendment with an affect upon the comprehensive plan and general planning programs of the City. Those are the three (3) items that we should be looking at the revisions to see how they apply to this and if we can see that it fits these then we can so vote and move this forward. With that said let s go back and consider the first one. The need for the proposed amendment, I ll open it up. I would say one other thing that if we ever do any rezoning to get familiar with these three (3) questions because with this Council we may not see as many of these but with the previous Council we were doing this about every other month or so. If I could interject something there, Mr. Chairman, just for your benefit. I ve done a staff report template and there will be rezoning coming forward to you. We re going to be meeting tomorrow to review the staff report that I ve done. The first thing we will do will give a summary of the request and its impact of surrounding properties. You ll also have a table and compare it with what is currently zoned and what the zoning proposal will allow. Then it takes these same questions that s in your ordinance and actually spells those out as your declaration of policy and answers those questions for you in the summary. All that will be done for you in the future. Excellent. We re moving light speed forward, so thank you. But with this one I guess we re left to our own. -2-

3 Tom Goebel: Well, I sort of came in at the end of this. Kathy, you re usually pretty good at this. You want to start us off with the need for the amendment? I d like for you to take this one. It seems like we re doing it a little different than we normally do. We were asked for the change. That s where I d have need for. I like the old way. I guess some of the needs for the proposed amendment was as we got into this we found out that probably some conflicts between us and state maintained roads so we ve eliminated that conflict and with the building code items we ve definitely had a conflict with the City s building code what s the document, Tom? the International Building Codes which we adopted as our standard I guess That s correct. There were some conflicts or the need to put it only in one (1) place so that was the need for the revisions. If I can address one thing for you to kind of clarify when you re talking about need and in particular as it pertains to this ordinance, when you have a series of variances that may be going before the Zoning Board of Appeals that s one thing that tells you your Zoning Ordinance needs to be reviewed for those variances to allow those. When you have a series of code enforcement complaints such as signs in the right of way that tells you that there is an issue with your Zoning Ordinance and the clarity of that ordinance in that language so that it can be expressed to the public. There is one of the needs right there. If you ve had a series of variances and code enforcement complaints that compels you to look back at this ordinance as it was written in order to clarify those regulations and adapt to the changing tenure of the times. Thank you. So what we ve done is we did try to re-write it and put things in the right order so that hopefully our residents will be able to follow and know exactly what the requirements are. Still open to this group for the need for any insight, Jerry? Did you get my today? Did it not make sense to you? -3-

4 I did not see an from you today. What time did you send it? I got one that you sent actually, this morning. Your question, Mr. Church, pertained to the language in permanent signs not requiring a zoning compliance and the language says that the following types of sign are exempt from the provisions of a zoning compliance provided (a) if conditions attached thereto are met or (b) the signs not located within a state-supported highway right of way except as amended by South Carolina State Code Title 57, Chapter 25, a City designs and installs in accordance with the structure and safety requirements of the Building Code; and (d) a building permit is obtained as applicable. The concern here and let me know if I m summarizing your concerns exactly is the fact that we ve referenced Section 57, Chapter 25 of the State Code but that pertains to the federal highways, roads and right of ways. The only one in this area that is designated as such is 160. Hwy. #98 which is Tega Cay Dr. is not classified. Having this language in here though can be a good thing because it shows that you ve actually gone through it and looked at all those requirements and you actually have them referenced should there ever by any changes. To clarify what I was trying to get across was for example if a guy wanted to put a sign up and he saw this reference to and he goes to DOT and says what do I need to do. They look up his road and they say that it doesn t apply to you. He might be confused as to what he can do so there s a simple fix. It s just that we need to put the definitions that the City and you re pretty good at melting it down, but we ve chosen to use as our standard as what we will enforce on state supported roads in Tega Cay. If you do that then it s clear that it doesn t matter what state road you re on and even if it doesn t apply to it we will enforce those rules. That s what I was trying to say and that s not clear as far as I m concerned with 77 as it stands. I didn t see the . I m sorry. Was I on there? I can give you a copy. I printed it out thinking you would probably want to address it. How much of an issue would it be if at this point we wanted to add a definition to the document? Well that s why I wanted to catch it now before we go through the recommendations. It would be a very small fix. It shouldn t be a substantial change so if it s not that then you don t have to have another public hearing required because you re not going to be changing anything that pertains to regulations. I m just trying to -4-

5 imply that again that s the standard that was used. I can foresee if they call SCDOT to find out what they do because they see the State Code and they tell them it doesn t apply. If it doesn t apply does that mean that they re exempt now because it s under the exempt portion? If we put it in the definition then it tells them exactly that we will enforce that code. So what s the suggested change? The definition. We got for the purpose of sign regulations..in state and maintained highway, we just need to drop in somewhere that the City enforces however you want to word it, but the City enforces the restrictions of for all state maintained roads within Tega Cay. It s just a few words but I think that plugs a little hole that could be there. Is there any particular down side to putting that in there that might cause us other issues, unintended consequences? I think the intention was on all state maintained to enforce 57-25, wasn t it? Well, no not really. The intent was to match it with our own set of guidelines with knowledge of what was in the State Code. I think there are certain times when you ve got to pull the State Code if you re going to do certain things but as a general rule if you re looking at what you..i wanted our ordinance to speak and carry its own weight or whatever and there are only a few times that you ll be delving into what s happening with the State Code and if you re dealing with the State Code I think you need to deal with the State folks. That was the intent. I don t want to do their enforcement. I just want our enforcement to look almost exactly like theirs. Okay, then do we need to pull any reference to out of ours to eliminate the confusion on that side. There is always the possibility could change at the State level and would we automatically want to accept whatever their change is? I think that s the potential down side of. Well, that can happen and I thought about that too. Yes, I think that we would always want to follow and the only time it may give us a problem is if they re-do their numbering. Could we say per State Code and leave the specific section and paragraph out? Would that answer your concern, Jerry? -5-

6 No, Jerry is thinking we need to say to enforce per it. I m saying if they call up DOT and find out it doesn t apply then they may be confused as to where or even if they can put a sign up because if it s not in the federal highway then the rules change a little bit, if it s not in If we just say that this is what we will enforce in the definition then even if it doesn t apply it s defined that we will enforce this. It s not defined as of yet. That scenario seems like if you re to put a sign up are you only going to call the State or are you going to call Tom Goebel and ask him if your sign is allowed? Well, if I see on here then I m going to try to reference that to find out and if I pick up the phone to call DOT and they ask me where I live and they say that it doesn t apply to it. If I could just step in here, the language as it states says except as exempted by that. The fact that there is actually no road with that particular designation within your course of limits, it says that basically you re going to be following the local ordinance because there are no exemptions under that State Code because it exempts only those that fall under that designation. Like churches and organizations like that and that s what made me think of the Lions Club sign. If we wanted to put one on Dam Rd. would we still have to follow the same rules of if it doesn t apply, I don t know. Would you be exempt under 57-25? Under 57-25, yes, but I don t know about other roads. That pertains to only those state roads. Just the state roads in Tega Cay. My apologies because I m a newcomer to this but do we stand the chance, is as far as the State is concerned unless they renumber everything, is it always going to be something that refers to this particular issue? Signs. It is only signs. Advertisement, yes. -6-

7 Tom Goebel: Commissioner Hayes: If they change their numbers.. If they change their numbers or if that all of a sudden becomes something like who knows, we re referencing something in our code to a document that we don t control. We do that already. Well, we re getting ready to do it with the building. Well we d have reference saying a particular edition. It just said the building code. Every three (3) years we have a new one. I guess with this we re not going into the individual section. I think we may be in pretty good shape because we just reference Title 57 which is pretty broad and then Chapter 25 which in and of itself is pretty broad. So for them to go and change a title or chapter within that, I think we ll see it coming from a mile or two away. I m sorry, so then are we better off including the reference and the definition or leaving the reference to out? I m not sure. I think you need the reference. I would like to point people towards that chapter. That would be my thoughts. It could save them a whole lot of looking like we did. Well then does it make sense to the Commission that we should follow the advice and add something to that definition to clarify that? Well, I guess that may get you past b, but then you ve got to come down to c - the sign is installed in accordance with the structural and safety requirements of the building code and then also a building permit is obtained if applicable. In both of those cases I think you ll be talking to the City of Tega Cay zoning and permit people and at that point and time I think they re going to clue you in on whatever you need to be clued in on. To me, I don t know how you can get out there and get so far along and follow the ordinance without hitting a stumbling block and having to talk to the City. That s just my opinion. Well, you ve got to talk to the City regardless. Well, then I guess the question in my mind is will the City understand that this is what we re saying so that there s no question in anybody s mind that would necessitate having to have a definition in this ordinance? -7-

8 Tom Goebel: Tom Goebel: Tom Goebel: Tom Goebel: I think the rest of the section is clear enough where it shouldn t be confusing. Okay, so the first time something comes up you ll come back and let us know that should put a definition the ordinance, right? Mr. Huber, I think you just hit on the point there. At this juncture in time does it benefit you by having any question on a possible delay by adding a new definition or keeping the reference as it is and determining once this is in enforcement and is actually being enforced if indeed that does occur. If it does occur then there s a minor amendment process that you can go through that would take less time to amend it because it, again, or do you want to open up a question to keep this debate going forever or do you want to call the debate and actually take a recommendation because you ve already gone through the public hearing steps. You ve gone through it before City Council one time and you ve gone through a legal review. You have to weigh whether or not the benefits that might cause it to have to go back for any further review. Okay, Tom, is it your people or you that s enforcing this? Both. Two (2) of us will be enforcing this. From your standpoint do you have enough definition from the Commission that you re comfortable that at this point you don t need it but if at some point and time in the future it becomes a question you ll come back to the Commission. Then I ll come back to the Commission. Well, then that being the case then I would suggest that we not amend it at this point. Okay, if it s going to potentially cause delays. I thought that maybe it would be a quick one. Just having been a party to some of the discussions previously on this ordinance, that s why I just wanted you to carefully weigh whether or not it would open up a new a dialog that would continue it beyond your recommendation. One additional point if I could interject, remember Council has not reviewed this and we have not heard what Council thinks. True, then I hear the sense is to move on at this point. Rest assured we -8-

9 Commissioner Burns: did not get it right. There will be something. Its signs. Signs don t go away so the next time through we ll try to If you got it right it would be a miracle. That s rare. It doesn t happen. Yes, we ll be back at it again. I hate to say that. To finish off our need for the proposed amendment. We re back to the second question. The proposed amendment pertains to a change in the district classification of property. The affect of the change on the property and the surrounding properties. From the building code we did, I guess these are not real specific. They re big and broad and then again, were meant to help with understanding and remove some conflicts. With building codes the affect is that we re in compliance with the law and with the signs the affect of the change is clarification for our citizens. Well, actually you are taking a little bit away from them because you can only put political signs after thirty (30) days now and the first time someone puts it out before then it s going to be interesting. But our ordinance clarifies the rules. Yes, but it is a change to the properties because they cannot put the sign out on their property for more than thirty (30) days now where currently you can put it on your property for, as far as political signs, it s unlimited right now. On private property? On private property, so you are changing the..so that s just something that everybody needs to be aware of. It only says that you have to consider. It doesn t have to.. I know but that s what we re talking about, how it pertains to changes and classifications and property and that s one (l) change. You know we weighed some plusses and minuses of this so as we went along I think we did make that consideration. It s changing the use of the property not the classification of the property. -9-

10 #4. Discussion Regarding Final Plat Approval Process: So the ones that will let us know it s an issue are the political candidates? Perhaps, we ll see. Moving on to the third one relationship of the proposed amendment with an affect upon the comprehensive plan and general planning programs of the City. Again, I think we were working with some of the general planning programs of the City s, in this case, was weighing aesthetics versus business needs in a lot of cases. The amendment creates a balance of those items. For some the balance may be a little bit skewed but it creates a balance and at one point and time this group gave it a favorable go-ahead so I m saying we ve got somewhat the right balance. Other comments? I think it goes along with comprehensive planning as the current one did. There s nothing directly in conflict with the comprehensive plan as it exists right now, right, or as we ve submitted it for approval? I hear the sense of this group is that we ve considered the three (3) items per Ordinance #77 and based on that I would like to make a recommendation that City Council revise Ordinance #77 per our recommendation. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say AYE, AYE. None opposed. That is unanimous. We ve got some changes in plat review personnel now so just a bit of the history I ll just say that in one person s opinion, mine, plat approval got handled a lot by a Planning Commission and we knew all along that was not proper and that staff should be doing plat approvals and it just wasn t happening, so we carried that torch for awhile. We ve got some changes in staff now and from me from Planning Commission; I think that correct balance is going back to staff doing a lot of the reviews and less put on the Planning Commission to do such. Susan, you brought out some good points. We re just volunteers. We don t do this as a day job. We re not professionals in this, but we did have to pretty much carry it there for awhile. With that said, from my standpoint, I guess for the first couple, I think we need to do some kind of meet us in the middle type thing is perhaps not just give us a short version of it. Maybe show us how you ve done the work and then let s work from there and then we can probably shorten this process down -10-

11 even further. I know we ve traded some s and part of that was to show you this checklist that we ve been working with and how we as a Planning Commission tried to help staff know what they needed to do instead of the other way around. I wanted to share that with you and I guess we re probably looking for that checklist. Those would be thoughts. Let s see how you do the checklist. It might help to just say what we ve been trying to do. I ve taken this checklist that you had put together and this is indeed a checklist that I thought was very beneficial because it tells us what the Planning Commission is going to be looking for. There was a checklist in the files that I found, was a final plat checklist that verifies that an application is complete. That all these things are on that plat. Some of it is reflected again on this. I propose to take what Planning Commission s final approval checklist is and really this is more to my mind not just a checklist, but it s a checklist and comment sheet. You should be able to have the comments on here. I d try to combine this somewhat to make it a little easier for you. We re actually using this in the review process. Just to give you a little update about what we ve done so far with the two (2) plats that will be coming forward to you in September, I consider myself like a teacher. I like sharing knowledge and growing together and working together as a team, helping folks understand what processes are and their professional legal ramifications. We sat down as a team that included the City Engineer, Public Works, Dan, Tom and myself, and we re calling it a technical staff review. On a final plat, perceivably it should be fairly simple because of the fact that on your construction documents accompany your preliminary plat. You have all those construction documents with your preliminary plat, for the most part the infrastructure is in, it s already been received as permit to operate generally overall from DHEC, everything but the topcoat on the road, so in the final plat process you just want to verify that you actually have copies of that license to operate. That you actually have copies of all the encroachment permits. We sat down together and did it from a technical review standpoint, discussed it openly together so everyone could learn. It cut down the timeframe considerably. Tom acted as Secretary and did an excellent job in capturing our comments. Tom and I will be talking to the engineer tomorrow and sharing these comments with them. Then they will provide us a revised set of plans including addressing these comments which we will again review before it ever gets to you so we can make sure most of these things should address. By the time it gets to you, you may have questions pertaining to your list but you ll have answers to all these already. It would have gone through a staff approval first. That s generally the way the process should go. It shouldn t even reach your desk for a recommendation until it s gone through several reviews by staff so that -11-

12 it is complete. So you re not wasting time actually doing what professional staff should have been doing. I think this is going to be a really good streamline version for you, but we re not throwing the checklist out because we re going to use it in accommodations. I have done a one-sheet summary so that you don t have to look on the plan to see how many acres of open space are addressed. You don t have to look down through your checklist to find it. It could be under your overview. It s going to tell you how many acres it is, how many units, what s the density, what s the minimum square footage of the lots, those basic questions as an overview. Then comments would be attached to it and this is the technical review staff comment that we ve done. For your purposes we ll probably use your comment sheet and checklist so that it will be addressed so you ll know that those things are being done. That came in handy, for instance, if we wanted to make sure that we had the cost estimate for the bonding. Hopefully by the time it gets to you it won t be a complicated process. You would have all the information and it would ve been sent to you in enough time for you to review it and if you have questions, that s when you ask the applicant those questions. It keeps you from having to make approvals based on contingencies. There shouldn t be any contingencies when it gets to you. Going back to that, there were a few contingencies that the developers felt they needed or wanted to do. One of them was applying actual seal. They wanted to do that after they knew that the Planning Commission had done an approval, so we would do some contingencies based on that. How do you see those? The first review is one that you re probably not going to need that many copies. If it s okay, but generally there s going to be a revision because you don t get everything perfect the first time. When they resubmit that revision then that should have everything addressed. It should have all the proper stamps on it. It should have everything. When they leave from me they should have a document ready to be recorded. Perfect. Can t wait to see an action. We ve been patiently, maybe not so patiently waiting for this day, so thank you very much. That s exactly the way in my opinion that it needs to happen and if there s anything that s controversial then you ll let us know. That s the way it should work. -12-

13 There will be times and it may not be this time but there will be times where staff will say that you need to do it this way. The applicant will say no, I don t think so, I m going to the Planning Commission with it as it is and staff s comments will be that we think it needs to be this way because this is the standard in the field or this is at pertains to the ordinance, however the applicant wants to address the Planning Commission. There will be those instances that will come forward to you for that hopefully, not this time, I don t think so. These are PDD s we ve done preliminary plats so it s like you said; it s just a final plat. I hate to trivialize it by saying just because it will be the document that will be recorded but it should be a lot easier to review because you don t need to look at all those construction details. For Ken and Reggie, let me back up real quick, the final plat comment sheet is probably a better way to say it instead of a checklist. It may take me a little bit to stop saying that. We ve developed one of these for final plat, one for preliminary plat, one for sketch plan and that s what we ve been using in the past. If you follow the numbering in this it should match exactly to the ordinance. As I ve probably said before this is not to be used in lieu of the ordinance. It was a way for us to keep up with all the things that you need to have accomplished. When you see these things that s where we re coming from. and this should be completed before you ever see it. I did want to make one quick comment. Section is on your comment sheet and that s in your ordinance as pertaining to the final plat is to be submitted no more than twelve (12) months after date of when the preliminary plat was approved. The State Legislature just recently passed this. It was enacted in May that there is an extension on all plat approvals. Anything, and the time period goes from January l, 2008, to basically January 1, 2012, so any vesting that you had in there. If you have twelve (12) months and at the end of twelve (12) months you haven t submitted your final plat you have to start over, that s been waived at this time so those permits will carry forward. So it s retroactive? That s correct. Retroactive January 1, It s an effort to address the recession. It supersedes any local ordinances? It will. -13-

14 Tom Goebel: Well, do we need to fix that or is it going back to something? I will probably address that when these plats come before you. I will highlight that and give you the language from the bill. Ordinance #50 is in for an ordinance change right now. Should we be fixing Ord. #50 or leave it as is? No sir, I would not at that point because that is your local ordinance and this has a sunset on it. It s a state ordinance with a sunset. It expires the end of December, It was only to address the problems people were having during the recession. All right, if it s going to have a sunset and potentially this will come into play for some of our developments. They may not have a final to us by that timeframe. Should we continue to work with them and get them to comply? Correct. All they have to do is ask for an extension which is a letter. Should we keep working with them to do that? You can still try to do that with them, but let s say for some reason they missed the deadline, they give us that extension letter. Yes, we did have someone do that, I believe. We did. and they didn t have to start over because this was enacted in May. Were they aware of it? I think Tom called them and told them. Riverlake, yes, the developer knows. The only ones that I know of are all, that very confusing sheet of paper Tom that I copied for you was the best that I was able to keep up with it and it s my penciled copy. You might look at it and see if the Drake folks want to provide a letter. I think that timeframe comes up in September, so they need to get on with it if they re going to do it. Is that only for final plat? -14-

15 No, it s any permit approval. It s preliminary, it s final, and it s a building permit. Okay, wow! I ll give you a copy. I ll it to you, a copy of the bill. I printed one off for Tom and Hedy and they ve got it. (CHANGED TAPE 1 FROM SIDE A TO SIDE B) #5. Workshop Regarding Principles of Future Land Use Map & Plan: Tom Goebel: Tom did a really good job of a calendar for you and a spreadsheet. This is great and I really like it. Do we need to record the workshop? Let s do. I had sent to all of you some information to try to get you up to speed on some of our discussions. I have an outline of what we re going through tonight. I think I sent that to you. I also sent some key terms. I think we need to have an agreement that these are relatively good definitions for terms that will be used when it comes to planning for future land uses. Sustainability has always been a question and trying to find a definition of what is sustainable because lately it seems like everybody is on this sustainability bandwagon and you hear it all the time. What does it mean? What does it mean to you and what does it mean to Tega Cay? Sustainability actually has three (3) pillars that it goes through for sustainable development. There is a difference between the term sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability basically means that it s an organization that allows opportunities for evolution and I think that s key for you to understand. Sustainable development means basically that you ve got development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This requires the reconciliation of what s called the three (3) pillars. I sent you a graphic on this. This is a black and white version. In looking at land uses in particular and development you look at the social aspect of it, the environment and the economic. Where these circles coincide is bearable, equitable, viable where they all coincide is sustainability. So you can t talk about sustainable development and development patterns without recognizing the fact that you have to be fiscally prudent. It has -15-

16 be able to sustain itself. It has to be able to evolve. I wanted to touch base with you again today making sure that we re using the same terms and the same language before we go into meeting jointly with Fort Mill. I ve looked through their land use plan and some of the same key terms are reflected over and over. Their definitions are somewhat similar because I ve been meeting with Joe Cronan and going through those so I wanted to make sure we are talking the same language before we meet. The City of Tega Cay went through a strategic visioning process in I sent you a copy of the resolutions and the plan as it was adopted in I also sent you the first draft which had some additional language that was all condensed down to the final vision document. Now this vision document was adopted after you began your comprehensive planning process but it involved a great deal of the same participants. It involved a great deal of the same elements: cultural resources, housing and transportation. The vision that was adopted says that Tega Cay will distinguish itself as a lakeside residential community rich in recreational opportunities where residents enjoy the good life for nurturing families, friends and neighbors. I wanted to make sure first is that vision still applicable? This was a very recently adopted document and if that vision is still applicable then when it comes to future land uses we have to talk about things that are going to be capable with this vision. Ultimately overall this vision says it s a residential community. What supports a residential community though? Taxes. Correct. So where are the economic realities to make this sustainable? A residential community in and of itself is not sustainable, so we already have a conflict. That s something I think we need to keep in mind as we go forward. That s why I had this question how does the land use planning figure into achieving this vision? #1, now we have to resolve the conflict. The conflict that the vision says it s a residential community. It s rich in recreational opportunities. People enjoy the good life. What about the infrastructure and the economic realities to make that possible? If you re looking at as I said earlier, residential community is not, in and of itself, is not sustainable, but if you have a recreational community that has commercial and economic opportunities within its boundaries then it gives you an opportunity to evolve. Does that make sense to everybody? So, we need to look at the sustainability of the built and the natural environment. Those are some key principles. We need to look at fiscal prudence, the cost to serve. We need to look at coordination with other jurisdictions. We need to talk about what is a desirable development pattern. What about a housing choice and diversity? Economic opportunities? One of the things I noticed in reading through that vision document is it said that -16-

17 primarily Tega Cay will be a residential community of single family homes with some mixed densities in residential but no high density apartments. Economic opportunity is usually driven by rooftops. We also have to understand Tega Cay is a peninsula. Where do you expand and how do you grow? It is a peninsula and it does have certain geographic limitations. We should talk about diversity in housing stock or in their places where the land development pattern should indeed have a higher density of residential uses in order to create those economic opportunities. This is your study area. This red line, this is the study area, it goes down I-77 here, follows it around through here. This one is your current boundaries. You see this long,,,,and this long,,, was that very fiscally prudent? Those are some things to look at. I brought this over for you because this is probably an older version. We found this over here of the County s Hwy. #160, their land use plan, which calls for this mix of uses node here. It calls for higher intensity here and that s that area right there. One of the things to recognize.anybody know what s happening there? School Exactly. What happens when a school comes into play? Well, you re limited on what businesses can go around it and how close they can be to it. What does it do to this road? Traffic. Was that the best choice for our school? That would be debatable. That s some questions to ask. Now you ve got residential around it here. I think what is important for everyone is to try to understand that all these things all these things interlink. They re all together. What I meant by growth management planning with other jurisdictions isn t just the County or isn t just Fort Mill, it s the school district too. That s the big gorilla in the room. In working with the school districts you have a school here that s going to be accessed off this section of Gold Hill is an arterial road and Tega Cay Dr., down here is a collector street. That s why I put some of that also in your key definition so that you understand. Down here it just collects from the local streets, collects traffic, moves it through, hits the arterial and moves it through the major arterial which is Hwy. #160. What happens when you get to this end and its 3:00? -17-

18 You re stuck. That s right; you re going to have really a backflow through here, but one of the things I understand is that alignment of Hubert Graham Pkwy. That s future things to look through. That will help you save that bottleneck there. You noticed again and some of you I gave the glossy Fort Mill. They also have this. Their planning area comes here across #77, but this is a big development opportunity. There is not a lot of vacant land but there is an opportunity for re-development. That s how it s addressed in the County and I think that s how it should be addressed here. Do you have a question? Well you may have just answered it. I was going to ask where our area intersects with what Fort Mill has. And that s it. It overlaps - several points. Is the pink part of Fort Mill? Remember this is a county map. This is Tega Cay over here. That s Baxter over there. This is an older map but I just thought for reference purposes it would be good. I m sorry. I m just not that familiar with where the boundaries are. This map, I think gives you a good idea what their planning boundary is. It doesn t show you their geographic boundaries. Our comp. plan actually does if you re looking at some of the maps in the Tega Cay Comp. Plan, by default you can figure out where Fort Mill city limits are. That s a way to figure it out. We chose for our planning area to bump up right against the city limits. Right, along Interstate #77. But now they ve jumped over and got Lowes. Did they actually get Lowes? Yes, so as a for instance you will see, I m looking at Figure 1, Study Area Land Use Map, you will see this little bump right here is probably Lowes. Oh, that Lowes. I was thinking Lowes Foods. -18-

19 No, Lowes Home Improvement. Yes, there is some overlap there. Then also around Sutton Rd. as it enters #77 down closer to the bridge going to Rock Hill, there are some Fort Mill city limits on the West side of #77 there as well. Those two (2) areas, that helps to know what Fort Mill is. I think one key point to make is that this is the perfect opportunity for you to look at and to talk about future land use and land use patterns because of the fact that with the recession you re being pro-active rather than reactionary. But with that being said this area of the County is still growing, it s just not growing at the rate that it was growing in It is growing. When you look at development activity over the County as a whole, the permitting and action is happening here. The only commercial development happening in the County right now is basically along #160. There is not a great deal being permitted in other areas. When you re saying commercial, you re saying buildings like Aldi s, etc.? Right. Commercial development is taxed at a higher rate than residential, so that s one of the things that you consider is the rates of the tax instructor. Commercial development usually subsidizes residential, but commercial only comes if there s residential. Can we back track for just a second? Back at the beginning when you were talking about the vision statement, at what point do we then need to sit down and take a look at that to be able to say based on the point that you ve made that this vision statement may have been great 2, 3, 5 or 20 years ago but it clearly is not It was adopted in Yes, I know, but it may not be appropriate going forward. I think it was adopted without a true understanding of the fact that by limiting yourself to residential you don t have the opportunities to evolve. It s not sustainable. Residential communities in and of themselves usually collapse. That s why you have growth rings around cities. I heard your point and that s why I m saying is that something we need -19-

20 to be Commissioner Burns: and I m following Ken with this. That was a vision statement put together by the old Council. We have a new Council and the question would be is this still accurate for your beliefs because a lot of things that happened under old Council are not the new Council s direction. That s a good point. I think somebody needs to really sit and talk with them and show the same pictures and say the sustainability of a residential community isn t a reality. You ve got to have some commercial and the reasons for it because we can plan all day long but if they say that s not what they want to do This is purely my opinion. I think that the vision statement was purely adopted by Council and they re probably going to fire me for me this and I could care less after 35 years of doing this, they did that because politically they thought it was the right thing to do after the fact that that Council and the previous Councils and there was nothing wrong with what they did, went along with annexation and developed all these things. The new Council actually is on a platform for that document. In my opinion, the first Council did it as a political move. The second Council believes that is the way Tega Cay is and that is simply not the way it is. Well you just showed us that what we ve been talking about for sixteen (16) years that I ve been sitting on this thing is exactly what has now come to reality. It s going to happen around us whether we control or not. Our tax base, Tega Cay failed the first time because it was a planned unit development. You re exactly right. You can only pay so much to have your lawn cut before you got to have other things happening. You have to have these other pieces. Our boundaries now we annexed in, in essence, are commercially strict. It s in our City but is it really? Therefore I think that what we re about to do is to what is that boundary and what should that boundary be? I love the idea in a way that we re having the economic impact we are right now with devaluation of property, etc., because people are going to have to be more realistic about what their land is worth. If these were the high times and we put a map out or a plan out the property values out along #160 and Gold Hill would just be off the Richter scale. That s not reality anymore. There are not buyers anymore for that kind of stuff. I think reality is that it is a perfect time to do this. Well, let me back up just to frame up what we re looking at from Council s vision. I don t believe it was their intent and I know who was on that Council. They were very much in favor of commercial. They said show us annexation that s good for Tega Cay and we re -20-

21 interested. The previous Council who adopted this vision. This was done in 2008 and It was adopted in January, Early 2009, they did the major part of the work in 2008 and we brought it right over to help us to do the lack of anything else with out comprehensive plan which late last year we adopted the comprehensive plan. At the time all of us on this Planning Board were not real happy with what we d done which is exactly why we re going back in and push forward with it, get Council to do some type of adoption of it knowing that they ve got some revisions coming right back at them as soon as we can work through it with the right kind of help this time. Back when they were doing that, that statement sounds like a nice motherhood and apple pie kind of thing but it s not a necessarily practical thing from this standpoint of where this City Let me give you my interpretation of what that meant is that they were trying to get a feel for the City. If you look at some of the bullets that come after it, things like small town feelings and strong neighborhoods. There weren t exclusively, I don t believe it was ever their intent to say we want to be exclusively residential and we ll kick anything commercial out. I know it says that. I see the words, but I don t think that was ever, ever their intent. You just hit on what usually happens when you have a vision statement. The vision is usually the pie in the sky type of thing. That s why I said how land uses figure into this. Taking that residential vision, knowing that it s not totally residential. There has to be commercial and economic development opportunities to support that residential for people who want to live here and possibly work here and play here. Then what types of development patterns do you do. If you want, does it neighborhood scale? That leads us right into the rest of the discussion I wanted to try to, and tonight is an educational thing to get you thinking and put you all on the same playing field. What kinds of development patterns do you want? If you re going to look at the fact that ultimately the over-arching vision is that this is a quality place for people to live, but you want to have those opportunities for them to work. You want to have the neighborhood scale commercial to support the residential. So do you want to look at nodal development types which is what Fort Mill does. They look at and this is what a nodal development is, this is a large mixed used center. You have community nodes and you have neighborhood nodes. Where along here and this is kind of busy, but where do you see opportunities for neighborhood nodes? For instance, -21-

22 where we are right now is zoned BD1. In your Zoning Ordinance BD1 is neighborhood scale. It s for drug stores. It s for groceries. It s for those things that support the residential development around you. Where are there other opportunities? Where do you think there are other opportunities in Tega Cay to have neighborhood scale or a community node, and indeed is that what you want to look at? Whoever zoned this BD1 is not a good place to zone a BD1. Because terminus, one way in, one way out, it terminates and as a neighborhood scale it doesn t make any sense to develop. Commissioner Burns: Commissioner Burns: In defense of that when my wife first moved here in 1980 the only grocery store was in Fort Mill so this was the center of town. This was it. It was a convenient store. If not you were out miles going to the A&P, that s what it was in Fort Mill. There was no Food Lion. There was nothing down there. Bob can certainly attest to this. So the time that it was done, it made sense that this was when I look at Kiawah and some of those places the way they did it, Isle of Palms at Wild Dunes, there is one little place in the middle so you don t have to go outside because this was a recreation environment. But it s in the middle and this is not in the middle. Well, it was and also the marina and But that s why you talk about sustainability being the ability to evolve so where on one of these maps does it make sense for you to do more nodes, such as where do you have your administrative office, your police department, etc. Are there opportunities there? Would there be opportunities to do something there that would be more of a neighborhood scale commercial? Well the one that Doug and I have been talking about is at the intersection of Tega Cay Dr. or Gold Hill Rd. and where Hubert Graham is going to come in. Right and I wish I had that alignment up here but I don t. Are you talking about for a town center? Well, it s a node. Let s just call it a node at this point. I think that s coming in right here near where the school is. Just to give you my full thoughts on that are that I think you d want to continue it and get into North Carolina and tie it in at some point that you d seek traffic coming from Palisades. -22-

23 Commissioner Burns: Commissioner Burns: Let me just say in defense of what Susan is saying, I think you re leaning towards. Where should the geographic center of the town be? Exactly. I ve said this publicly. The heck with the fact that there s a $350,000 house sitting there. Where should it actually be and looking at topography and looking at geographically where it should be. By the way what you were just talking about used to be zoned business until Newland changed it. It always upset me that they stood there and said there was no market for a commercial development that s why we re going to change what s behind the police department and build those little houses back in there and we did change it. We rezoned it. That was actually a business zoning at one time. Not that this was the best spot but I think that s what you re leaning towards. Exactly, that s because again, your lacked a future land use plan. If you could have looked at it in that future land use plan, you d say no, no, no, we need to retain some of that commercial zoning because this is a logical location to have more of a mix of uses that includes civic and governmental as well as some basic neighborhood, commercial and residential. I still have to go back. We get excited. We see this and we d love to do this and it s a lot of fun and we get our hopes up and then Council says no you can t do that. Are we going to get buy-in because before I get real excited about doing this again, I d like to know that you ve had this conversation with Council? Excitement is contagious and it shouldn t be me having the conversation with Council. It should be you. We ve tried. Having maybe a joint workshop like this with Council members where you talk about the basic principles and you say let s think about this from a common sense perspective, where are the utilities existing? Where is the road infrastructure? Where is there build-able property? Okay, we agree. This is where this is. Why then should we plan for that area? They obviously went through why they needed a vision. They went through and they talked about several things that are going to be in a land use plan. For instance they talked about aggressive annexation. That s not who is there today. -23-