MEMORANDUM
TO:
Rock Hill Planning Commission
FROM:
Eric S. Hawkins, AICP, Planner III
RE:
Meeting Agenda
DATE:
April 27, 2016
The Rock Hill Planning Commission will hold its regularly scheduled monthly meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2016, 7:00 PM, City Hall Council Chambers, 155 Johnston Street. The
public hearing portion of the meeting can be viewed online at
http://cityofrockhill.com/departments/office-of-management-budget/more/office-ofmanagement-budget-omb-/city-channel/live-stream. Please feel free to call me at
329.8763 regarding any item on the following agenda. Thank you.
AGENDA
Rock Hill Planning Commission
May 3, 2016
Pledge of Allegiance
1.
Approval of minutes of April 5, 2016, meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M2016-12 by Rock Hill School District 3 to rezone approximately 6.39 acres at 306,
312, & 332 Park Avenue; 224, 228, & 242 Ebenezer Avenue; and 261 Oakland
Avenue and adjacent right-of-way from Multi-Family Residential-15 (MF-15) and
Neighborhood Office (NO) to Office & Institutional (OI). Tax parcels 627-22-02-004
to -008, -032, & portion of -011.*
NEW BUSINESS
3.
Consideration of a request by Keck & Wood, Inc. for Major Site Plan approval for
Rock Hill Commerce Park, Paddock Parkway Site. (Plan #20150405)**
4.
Consideration of a request by Hucks and Associates PC for Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for Finley View Subdivision, Phase 3. (Plan #20150651)**
T:\PLANNING\DEVSVC\WORKING FILES\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\P C\2016\2016_PC05-ELECT OFFICERS\20160503_PCAGENDA.DOC
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
155 JOHNSTON STREET, P.O. BOX 11706
ROCK HILL, SC 29731-1706, 803/329-7080
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
May 3, 2016
5.
Consider a recommendation to City Council on the update to the City of Rock Hill
Capital Improvements Plan and adoption of an Impact Fee Ordinance.*
6.
Other Business.
Election of Officers
7.
Adjourn.
* The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council on these items.
Recommendations made at this meeting are tentatively scheduled for consideration by
City Council at their May 23rd meeting. City Council agendas are posted on the City
website (www.cityofrockhill.com) on the Friday prior to each meeting. Please contact Eric
Hawkins at 803.329.8763 or eric.hawkins@cityofrockhill.com with any questions.
** The Planning Commission makes the final decision on these items.
Planning Commission Agenda Items
Ho o k
rk
§
¨
¦
77
India
Old Yo
Hw
Mt Gallant
y 21
Sutton
City of Rock Hill, SC
Planning Commission
May 3, 2016
Celanese
er
Ch
Herlong
Ma
in
ry
I-77
Heckle
York
lls
k
ec
le
n
rso
n
.H
Mt
y
oll
a
lud
Sa
¯
3
t
e
And
de
Og
h
rig
Alb
I-77
ne
H
n
Co
c
M
2
rs
Ande
4
Ma
in
on
Dave Lyle
Legend
River
City Limits
Map Not Drawn To Scale
#
Agenda
Item
ESH 04/27/16
Planning Commission
City of Rock Hill, South Carolina
April 5, 2016
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held Tuesday, April 5, at 7PM in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Roper, Randy Graham, Duane Christopher, Gladys Robinson, Georgia
Thomas, Sherry Easley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Justin Smith
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Hawkins, Leah Youngblood, David Lawrence, Erin Musiol, Bill Meyer,
Janice Miller
1.
Approval of minutes of the March 1, 2016, meeting.
Mrs. Thomas made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2016, meeting. Mr. Christopher
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2016-05 by
Riverside Development, LLC, to rezone approximately 32.19 acres at 3040, 3045, 3049, 3056 &
3057 Cherry Road, and 1080, 1082 & 1084 Riverside Drive and adjacent right-of-way from Urban
Development (UD) and Planned Development (PD) to Master Planned-Commercial (MP-C). The
subject property is proposed to be annexed into the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 661-00-00-005,
-016 to -018, 022, & 023.
Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report.
Mrs. Easley asked the status of the citation issued by the county and what the citation was for. Ms.
Youngblood stated that it was currently active and that it included the removal of several dilapidated
structures and debris, as well as necessary clean-up.
Mr. Christopher asked for specifics on the issue regarding the Dunkins Ferry/Riverside Drive access.
Ms. Youngblood stated that an agreement between the applicant and the Greens of Rock Hill regarding
the use of the access.
Mr. Roper asked if there would be a driveway connection for shared use. Ms. Youngblood stated that
this was included within the long term plan for the area.
Mr. Roper asked if the drive would be public or private. Mr. Meyer stated that this had not yet been
determined.
Mr. Roper asked if the minor deviations would require a public hearing. Ms. Youngblood stated that it
would not.
Mr. Roper asked if a major site plan would require a public hearing and City Council approval. Ms.
Youngblood stated that it would.
Mr. Roper asked about standards for preventing erosion during the construction process. Ms.
Youngblood stated that this project required a substantial undisturbed buffer to the Catawba River, that
the floodplain area indicated was undevelopable, and that the City had infrastructure inspectors that
would make certain there would be no issues with erosion.
Mr. Christopher asked if there was a minimum 100’ buffer to the river. Ms. Youngblood stated that it
was between 100’ and 150’.
Mr. Luis Jurado, 130 East Main Street, applicant, provided an outline of the updated development
proposal, along with a proposed timeline for completion. He addressed staff concerns regarding parking
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
April 5, 2016
issues, noting that they had changed the plan to accommodate more parking. He noted that the project
included eight acres of undeveloped land that would create a buffer to protect the river. He added that
they would create a tie into the Carolina Thread Trail with a bridge over a ravine area.
Mr. Roper asked about the view from the trail. Mr. Jurado stated that the views of the river were
obstructed up to the third floor of the proposed buildings, but that there was approximately 60-70%
visibility during the early spring. He added that rooftop amenities including pools on the residential
buildings and restaurants on the commercial buildings would create views.
Mr. Jurado addressed the concern over the TIA, noting that one of the intersections indicated was
currently under improvement, and that the other was too far away from the project to require a financial
commitment on their part. He noted that they were willing to pay for the trail, but wanted to retain
ownership while providing public access. With reference to the request to extend the trail to Dunkins
Ferry, Mr. Jurado stated that he did not feel that Riverside should be financially obligated to build
something that was not on their land.
Mr. Roper asked if the sidewalk was part of an easement area or if this was on their property. Mr. Jurado
stated that they would donate the sidewalk but if a trail was required and on Riverside property, they
would develop and retain ownership.
With regards to erosion control, Mr. Jurado stated that they would use the City’s required best
management practices (BMPs) in order to provide these measures.
Mr. Christopher asked the height of the residential buildings. Mr. Jurado stated 90’, not including any
rooftop amenities.
Mr. Christopher asked about the underground parking proposed. Mr. Jurado stated that this would only
be for office building C.
Mr. Christopher asked about the design intent for internal tree installations within the parking areas,
noting that there were areas around the City where the trees installed did not have enough room to create
a tree canopy. Mr. Jurado stated that the eight acres of buffer as well as the Terms & Conditions
alternate landscaping plan should allow for adequate tree plantings. He added that they were working
on other areas that would provide natural alternatives to landscaping, including the alfresco areas.
Mrs. Easley asked if the underground parking required the additional 5’ in height for the one building.
Mr. Jurado stated that this was correct.
Mr. Roper asked if the trail would include lights. Mr. Jurado stated that they would abide by the
Carolina Thread Trail requirements.
Mr. Roper asked about outside dining for buildings D, E, and F. Mr. Jurado stated that these were
generally retail and commercial with restaurants, and that the preference was to have the restaurants on
the corner units to accommodate outdoor dining.
Mr. Graham asked if there were any issues remaining that needed resolution. Ms. Youngblood stated
that the TIA, parking, updated site plan, trails, and existing county citation were all issues that were
being addressed.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the details regarding the trail ownership were included in these issues. Ms.
Youngblood stated that it was.
Mr. Graham asked about the trail in Riverwalk. Ms. Youngblood stated that it was privately owned but
maintained by the City.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
April 5, 2016
Mr. Roper asked if any of the Commissioners had any concerns over the request. Mr. Christopher noted
that he agreed with staff on the issues with the parking islands and tree planting but felt sure that this
would be worked out.
Mrs. Thomas presented the motion to recommend approval of Master Planned-Commercial (MP-C)
zoning to City Council as presented, subject to staff concerns. Dr. Robinson seconded, and the motion
carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent).
3.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2016-09 by
OTS Media Group to rezone approximately 0.70 acres at 136, 138 & 142 North Confederate
Avenue and adjacent right-of-way from Neighborhood Office (NO) to Office & Institutional (OI).
Tax parcels 627-08-01-010 to -012.
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report.
Mr. Manning Kimmel, WRHI, 142 North Confederate Avenue, applicant, presented a brief history of
the radio station. He noted that the request for rezoning would allow for the microwave tower in place
to be replaced with a taller one that would allow for clearer broadcast signals.
Mr. Graham asked if this was similar to a cell tower. Mr. Kimmel stated that it was a different style of
tower, that the new one would be a duplicate of what was in place now. He added that the new one
would be under the Federal Aviation Administration 200’ requirement so no lights would be installed.
Mr. Christopher asked the dimensions of the base of the tower. Mr. Kimmel stated that he did not have
that information.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Mr. Graham presented the motion to recommend approval of Office & Institutional (OI) zoning of the
property to City Council. Mr. Christopher seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 60 (Smith absent).
4.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2016-10 by
Reeves Property Management LLC to rezone approximately 0.90 acres at 724 & 732 East Main
Street and adjacent right-of-way from Industry General (IG) to Limited Commercial (LC). Tax
parcels 625-07-01-005 & -006.
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report.
Mr. Steve Reeves, 1462 Ebenezer Avenue, applicant and representative of owner, William Jackson, was
available to answer questions.
Mr. Roper asked if there had been any prospects interested in renting. Mr. Reeves stated that there have
been prospects but the uses did not conform to the zoning.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Mr. Christopher presented the motion to recommend approval of Limited Commercial (LC) zoning of
the property to City Council. Mrs. Easley seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 60 (Smith absent).
5.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2016-11 by
Sora-Phelps Rock Hill LLC to establish a Land Development Agreement upon approximately
29.966 acres located at 420 West White Street and portions of 868 Constitution Boulevard/143
Hardin Street, 167 North Lee Street, 908 Constitution Boulevard, 254, 258, & 262 Columbia
Avenue. Tax parcels 598-11-01-001 and portions of 598-10-02-004, -006 to -008, 589-10-02-018 &
598-10-02-021. 420 West White Street is currently being considered for rezoning from
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
April 5, 2016
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) and Industry Business (IB) to Master Planned-Commercial
(MP-C) through a separate rezoning case (M-2016-01); other properties are zoned Single-Family
Residential-5 (SF-5).
Mr. David Lawrence, Knowledge Park Development Manager, presented the staff report.
Mr. Roper asked why the development was structured in this way. Mr. Lawrence stated that because it
would be owned privately, the facility would be taxable. He added that the City would hold a long-term
lease on the indoor recreation facility with eventual ownership.
Mr. Christopher asked about the trolley that had been discussed previously. Mr. Lawrence stated that
this was on the back burner for now.
Mr. Christopher asked if the site plan would allow for a trolley. Mr. Lawrence stated that this could be
changed to accommodate the trolley line. Mr. Tim Elliott, Sora-Phelps Rock Hill LLC development
team, stated that there was hope for the City to develop a transportation plan from Cherry Road to the
downtown area and that they were willing to work to accommodate this in the future.
Mr. Christopher asked if the railway and track right-of-way would remain. Mr. Elliott stated that it
would.
Mr. Graham asked about the proper procedure for the Commission. Ms. Youngblood stated that this
action was for recommendation of financial support as this was a state requirement.
Mrs. Easley presented the motion to recommend approval of the Land Development Agreement to City
Council as presented. Dr. Robinson seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0
(Smith absent).
NEW BUSINESS
6.
Consideration of a request by Greens of Rock Hill for Major Site Plan approval for River District
Building 9. (Plan #20160198).
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report.
Mr. Graham presented the motion to approve the Major Site Plan as presented, subject to staff
comments. Mr. Christopher seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Smith
absent)
7.
Other Business
a. Presentation of Focus 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Musiol presented the plan update and brochure, and thanked everyone for their contributions and
comments in their role as members of the steering committee.
Mr. Graham asked who else receives copies of the plan. Mr. Meyer stated that staff is preparing a list of
other boards and commissions that will receive copies with the goal of improving coordination and
communication among agencies in the community. Mr. Graham stated that the plan could be used in
economic development recruiting efforts. Mr. Meyer added that the plan is useful to companies
researching the area and Ms. Musiol added that partner agencies use the information to help in obtaining
grant funding.
b. There was general discussion about reserving the Pump House for the Christmas dinner, due to its
popularity. Mr. Hawkins stated that he would look into this.
8.
Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35PM.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
M-2016-12
Meeting Date: May 3, 2016
E
Petition by Rock Hill School District 3 to rezone approximately 6.39 acres from Multi-Family
Residential-15 (MF-15) and Neighborhood Office (NO) to Office & Institutional (OI).
(insert aerial photo)
Reason for Request: The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to facilitate an expansion
of the school to accommodate additional Pre-K and School of Choice programs.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Case No. M-2016-12
Rezoning Analysis-Report to Planning Commission
Meeting Date: May 3, 2016
Location:
306, 312, & 332 Park Avenue; 224, 228, & 242
Ebenezer Avenue; and 261 Oakland Avenue, Tax
parcels 627-22-02-004 to -008, -032, & portion of 011.
Site Area:
Approximately 6.39 acres
Request:
Rezone property from Multi-Family Residential-15
(MF-15) and Neighborhood Office (NO) to Office &
Institutional (OI).
Proposed Development:
Expansion of existing elementary school.
Owner/Applicant:
Rock Hill School District 3 (Tony Cox)
803-981-1010
Site Description
The subject property encompasses Ebenezer Elementary School, a portion of the
former Winthrop Lodge property, and adjoining parcels owned by RHSD3. It is located
within Old Town and has frontage on Ebenezer Avenue and Park Avenue. Surrounding
uses include residential, office, and general manufacturing in residential, commercial,
and industrial zoning districts.
Proposal
The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to facilitate an expansion of the school
to accommodate additional Pre-K and School of Choice programs. Under the current
MF-15 zoning, the use is non-conforming and cannot be expanded. The rezoning
would also bring all of the school district’s property at this site into the same district (OI).
Existing Zoning District Summary
Multi-Family-15 (MF-15)- The MF-15 district is established and intended to encourage a
wide range of medium to high density housing types, especially multiple family
development, even though single-family detached, single-family attached, townhouses,
and two- to four-family dwellings are also allowed to meet the diverse housing needs of
City residents. Neighborhood commercial and complementary uses customarily found in
residential zone districts, such as schools, community facilities, religious institutions,
and parks and playgrounds are encouraged. The minimum lot area for single-family
detached dwellings is five thousand (5,000) square feet. The maximum residential
density allowed is fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. Buildings including street-level
non-residential uses may include residential units at a density of up to twenty (20) units
per acre.
Neighborhood Office (NO)- The NO district is established to provide for a mix of smallscale professional office uses together with limited service uses, single-family detached,
single-family attached, townhouse, two- to four-family dwellings, and multiple family
Rezoning Analysis-Report to Planning Commission
M-2016-12
Page 2
uses in close proximity to one another, subject to design and compatibility standards.
Non-residential uses shall be located in buildings that are consistent with surrounding
residential uses in physical design, scale, character, and shall not exceed ten thousand
(10,000) square feet in area. Legally established nonconforming Retail Sales and
Services uses in existence on March 1, 2006, shall be allowed to remain, recommence,
and expand in accordance with Section 8-200(D)(2), Retail Sales and Services Uses in
the Neighborhood Office (NO) District. Structures exceeding ten thousand (10,000)
square feet in size in existence on March 1, 2006 shall be allowed to remain, but in no
instance shall such structures be allowed to expand. The maximum residential density
allowed is five (5) dwelling units per acre. Live/work dwellings and upper story dwellings
over a street-level non-residential use may be included at densities of eight (8) units an
acre. In addition, all non-residential development in the NO district shall limit its hours
of operation to between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Proposed Zoning District Summary
Office and Institutional (OI)- The OI district is established to provide a wide variety of
professional and business offices and institutions proximate to residential and more
intense business districts so as to satisfy the City’s demand for services. These
regulations are designed to encourage the formation and continuance of a quiet,
compatible, and uncongested environment for offices intermingled with residential and
institutional uses. This district is different from the other business districts in that Retail
Sales and Services uses are generally prohibited. Some limited retail uses may be
allowed as a conditional or special exception use, subject to specific standards, and
provided the primary purpose is to serve the office workers in the district. Multiple family
residential uses, community facilities, and religious institutions are also allowed. The
maximum residential density allowed is five (5) dwelling units per acre, and the
minimum lot area for development for all non-residential uses is one (1) acre. Live/work
dwellings may be included at densities of eight (8) units an acre.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
The property is fully developed and there will be no additional impacts on the
transportation or utility systems.
RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC PLANS
Focus 2020 Comprehensive Plan
These properties are within the Old Town character area. The area is the City's most
dense and compact area and supports a mix of uses.
Conclusion
The requested rezoning is generally consistent with the City of Rock Hill Focus 2020
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.
Rezoning Analysis-Report to Planning Commission
M-2016-12
Page 3
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Staff hereby certifies that the required public notification actions have been completed
as follows:

April 15: Rezoning notification signs posted on subject property.

April 15: Rezoning notification postcards sent to seventy property owners within
300’ of the subject property.

April 16: Planning Commission public hearing advertisement published in The
Herald.
Public Feedback
No comments received to date.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff Assessment
The proposed zoning would be consistent with the zoning of other school sites in the
city and would bring the use into compliance. The proposal is consistent with the land
use plan.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Attachments


Rezoning Map
Existing Conditions Map
To see the applications submitted for this case, go to: www.cityofrockhill.com/PlanInfo.
Staff Contact:
Eric S. Hawkins, AICP, Planner III
eric.hawkins@cityofrockhill.com
803-329-8763
AV
IB
PARK AV
MF-15
DTWN
OI
NO
NO
GC
RA
ST
T
IT S
KL
OA
AN
V
DA
T
NS
SO
L
I
W
SF-5
NO
AV
TE
HI
W
ST
DTWN
V
NA
ER
EZ
N
E
EB
NMU
IO
UN
E
EG
LL
O
C
0
05/03/2016
Development Services
Department
City of Rock Hill
Feet
150
µ
Proposed:
OI
300
Current:
NO and MF-15
Zoning Data
Subject Properties
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU)
Office and Institutional (OI)
Downtown (DTWN)
Single-Family-5 (SF-5)
Multi-Family Residential (MF-15)
Industry Business (IB)
Neighborhood Office (NO)
General
Commercial (GC)
Legend
M-2016-12
67
4
672
8
65
6
66
668
AIT
660
658
664
664
664
668
674
654
ST
664
672
666
67
2
674
676
666
666
676
672
67
2
676 78
6
678
674
672
666
676
664
676
0
68
RA
8
66
672
S
ON
S
WIL
T
672
672
674
67
6
2
68
668
AY
ILW
66
67 8
0
670
666
4
66
666
668
AV
662
662
ND
66
8
LA
662
676
K
OA
AV
666
R
ZE
NE
PARK AV
E
EB
672
674
R
ST
664
674
664
664
674
67
4
0
66
V
NA
664
6
66
IO
UN
65
6
652
650
Existing Conditions
Case #M-2016-12
670
2
67
0
67
Legend
Parcels
Surface Water
Intermittent Streams
Contours
Street
Perennial Streams
Wetlands
Detention Pond
Utilities
Subject_Properties
Flood Prone Areas
100 Yr Flood Zone
0
200
400 Feet
¯
Planning Commission
Staff Report
May 3, 2016 ~ Agenda Item #5
Project Name:
Rock Hill Commerce Park, Paddock Parkway Site
Plan Type:
Major Site Plan
Plan Number:
20150405
Tax Map Number:
669-04-01-012
Location:
1532 Galleria Boulevard
Owner:
Hackett Limited Partnership
1339 Ebenezer Road
Rock Hill, SC 29732
Contact:
Keck & Wood, Inc. (John Gast)
215 Hampton Street, Suite 100
Rock Hill, SC 29730
(803) 620-1305
Land Use Information
Type:
Zoning:
Land Area:
Proposal
The proposed development would include a future
application to subdivide the current 31.71 acre parcel into
three separate lots. The proposed major site plan would be
located on the largest of the three proposed parcels, at
16.09 acres. It includes a 197,500 warehouse building, with
an associated parking lot.
Parking
205 new parking spaces are proposed with the construction
of the building, where 158 parking spaces are required,
assuming the entire building is used as warehouse. In
addition to the customer and employee parking, there is
semi-truck parking areas located behind the building,
adjacent to the loading berths.
Streets
The proposed development will be served by Paddock
Parkway, which was recently reconstructed and reconfigured
in 2015.
Pedestrian Access
Sidewalks will be provided along paddock parkway and
along the parking areas leading the building entrances. A
sidewalk connection must be made to the street. A staff
comment has been added that will require this to be added.
Vacant Land
IG (Industry General)
31.71 acres
Paddock Parkway
Page 2
May 3, 2016
Landscaping
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan, but will
need to meet all requirements for landscaping.
Special Notes:
There are outstanding comments from the Inspections,
Zoning, Infrastructure, Water and sewer, Stormwater,
utilities, and Landscape Divisions. While these comments
will need to be addressed, they are editorial in nature and
are not likely to result in substantial changes to the proposed
layout.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Major Site Plan subject to
staff comments.
Attachments:
Major Site Plan
Proposed Elevations
Plan Review Comments
Paddock Parkway Site - Plan Review Comments
Review of:
Status:
Project:
P. 1 of 2
Major Site Plan
Not Approved
Paddock Parkway Site
Plan # 20150405
Review Comments
Inspections:
1) Details consisting of but not limited to Fire apparatus access, Fire hydrant and Fire
Department Connection type and location, accessibility, Knox Box location, first floor
elevation relative to the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer,
Grease/Oil interceptor type and location and other pretreatment requirements, basic
building code compliance items that surface prior to building plan submission etc. will be
reviewed at the Civil Plan review phase.
Zoning:
1) This application requires approval by the Planning Commission since it is larger than
20,000 square feet. It is scheduled for the Planning Commission on May 3, 2016.
2) Add sidewalk connection from the building entrance to the sidewalk along Paddock
Parkway.
3) If a dumpster is located outside of the building, it must be located inside of an enclosure
that meets the requirements listed in section 6-300(F)(2)(a)
Infrastructure-Roadway:
1) Will the site have a dumpster?
2) Provide a common access easement through the drive connection to Parcel B.
3) Additional ROW and half section roadway improvements need to be provided between the
realignment work and the completed section near the culvert that Ross constructed.
Development on either side of this unimproved stretch will be responsible to improve their
half section. The half section should be 12' lane, 1.5' curb and gutter, 7' planer strip, and 5'
sidewalk along with associated storm drains and water quality treatment.
Infrastructure-Water & Sewer:
1) The existing water main with Galleria is shown incorrectly. It does not follow the newly
aligned road but rather continues within the old Paddock road bed.
2) What is the purpose of the water stub out to the floodplain area to the north?
3) Hydrants should not be placed immediately adjacent to the building.
4) A 20' private easement should be shown to the stubout for Parcel B.
5) How is sewer planned for Parcel B?
6) Label all onsite water and sewer as private.
7) Ensure that any maintenance of the sewer connection to the building would not impact
integrity of the pond.
Paddock Parkway Site - Plan Review Comments
P. 2 of 2
Infrastructure-Stormwater:
1) Show and label existing storm drains within Galleria Blvd (formerly Paddock Parkway).
Update road name.
2) Proposed contours are required for a major site plan.
3) Stormwater quantity management for the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storms will be required.
Utilize 6 hour Type II storms. Check 10 year 24 hour storm per DHEC requirements.
Evaluate freeboard within the pond for the 100-year 24 hour storm.
4) Storm drains must be able to convey the 100-year storm to the pond.
5) Water quality must be provided.
6) Indicate a 4' black vinyl coated fence for the pond.
7) Provide a copy of the environmental study since wetlands are delineated on the site.
Infrastructure-Landscape:
1) Awaiting a landscape Plan.
Utilities - Electrical:
1) Submit proposed transformer location. Transformer must be on level ground 10' from any
above ground structure, 5'from any below ground structure, within 10' of paved access
point, and 5' behind curbing or have protective bollards installed as needed.
2) Coordinate the electric utility design and installation with Marcelo Mauri @ (803) 803-2618,
Marcelo.Mauri@cityofrockhill.com.
3) Civil Construction Drawings must show conduit crossings for power and communication
lines. The conduit must be schedule 40 PVC Gray Pipe. The conduits must extend beyond
the road ROW & into the electrical easement on both sides of the road, and include conduit
sizes, quantities, & depths. Coordinate with the City's assigned project engineer and
Comporium's Engineering Department at 803 326 6109. A note must be placed on the
plans indicating that the developer will provide and install the conduit crossings.
Utilities - ROW:
1) Clearly identify the existing utility easements on the property and label the proposed utility
easements accordingly. (private or public).
Planning Commission
Staff Report
May 3, 2016 ~ Agenda Item #4
Project Name:
Finley View Phase 3
Plan Type:
Preliminary/Final Plat
Plan Number:
20150651
Tax Map Number:
598-28-01-001
Location:
859 Finley View Drive
Owner/Developer:
Arthur Whitesell
Rock Hill, SC
803-372-9491
Project Contact:
Hucks & Associates PC (Larry Hucks)
Rock Hill, SC
803-366-4677
Background:
Phase 2 of Finley View subdivision was platted in 2001 and
the subject property was shown as a future townhome site.
The property was rezoned from Multi-Family Residential-15
(MF-15) to Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5) in 2015 as
recommended by the City’s study of undeveloped multifamily zoned property.
The proposed lots would be
consistent with the development pattern of the remainder of
the subdivision.
Site Info:
There is a flood plain associated with a tributary of Wildcat
Creek along the rear of lots 1-3.
Land Use Information:
Type:
Zoning:
Land Area:
Total Lots:
Lot Size Range:
Lot Width Range:
Streets:
No new streets proposed. All of the proposed lots front an
existing street.
Pedestrian Access:
There is a sidewalk along Finley View Drive.
Open Space:
Open space is provided around the perimeter of the
development in accordance with the original plat for Finley
View subdivision.
Environmentally
Sensitive Lands:
Special Notes:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential-5 (SF-5)
Approximately 1.46 acres
5
0.25 - 0.39 acres
60-70’
There is a flood plain associated with a tributary of Wildcat
Creek along the rear of lots 1-3.
There are minor editorial comments (attached) that need to
be addressed before the plat can be stamped approved.
T:\Planning\DEVSVC\Working Files\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\P C\2016\2016_PC05-Elect Officers\Finley View\FinleyView_PCReport.doc
Finley View Phase 3
page two
May 3, 2016
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval subject to comments.
Attachments:
Plat
Staff Review Comments
Finley View Phase 3- Plan Review Comments
Review of:
Status:
Project:
P. 1 of 1
Preliminary/Final Plat
Not Approved
Finley View
Plan #20150651
Review Comments
Inspections (Conditional):
Development in a Special Flood Hazard Area must comply with the City of Rock Hill Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance
Zoning (Not approved):
1. Rename plat "Finley View Phase 3" and re-number lots to be 26-30. Phase 1 was lots 1-4, Phase 2 was
lots 5-25. Revise label on lots 5 & 6 on Finley Road to say Phase 2 instead of Phase 1.
2. Add owner name, address, & phone number.
3. Add note stating that this plat is a subdivision of Tax Parcel 598-28-01-001.
4. Are changes being made to existing lots 5 & 6 on Finley Road? If not, they can be grayed out and
shown with owner & tax map info like other existing lots.
5. Add the following note: "No Owner/Developer/Contractor shall place any part of a structure,
permanent equipment, permanent retaining wall, or impoundment within a public utility easement
dedicated to the City. Fences and walls may be permitted within public utility easements with approval
from the City through an encroachment permit."
6. Add CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF RECORDING
Infrastructure-Roadway (Approved)
Infrastructure-Water & Sewer (Approved)
Infrastructure-Stormwater (Conditional):
The following note shall be placed on the plat:
"The owner shall be responsible for maintaining the existing "Stormwater Detention Pond", in
accordance with City Stormwater Utility requirements. A “Stormwater Permanent Maintenance
Agreement” must be submitted to Development Services Infrastructure Department, prior to issuance of
building C.O. (certificate of occupancy) for remaining lots."
Utilities-Electrical (Approved)
E-911/GIS/Addressing (Approved)