ZBA Agenda 12-2015

Transcription

ZBA Agenda 12-2015

TO:
Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM:
Melody Kearse, Zoning Coordinator
RE:
Meeting Agenda
DATE:
December 9, 2015
The Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals will meet in Executive Session on Tuesday, December
15, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, to
receive attorney-client privileged information about Board review processes.
Immediate following, the Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston
Street, to consider the following appeals. Please feel free to contact me regarding any item on
the agenda. Thank you.
AGENDA
Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals
December 15, 2015
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from the November 17, 2015, meeting.
3. Approval of Orders from the November 17, 2015, meeting.
4. Appeal Z-2015-31: Request by Lorraine Stewart, Colonial Services, Inc., for a Special
Exception for a Funeral Home use for the property located at 927, 935, 935½, & 939 East
Main Street. These properties are currently zoned Industry General (IG), which does not
allow Funeral Homes, but are subject to a separate request to rezone to Office &
Institutional (OI) which allows Funeral Homes by Special Exception. Tax map numbers 62602-02-022 to -024.
5. Appeal Z-2015-32: Request by Kim Nguyen for a Special Exception for an Automobile
Repair & Service use in the Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). The property is located at 510
Summit Street. Tax map number 625-01-07-001.
6. Appeal Z-2015-33: Request by Michael Englert for a Special Exception to operate a
Personal Services use (boxing center) in the Neighborhood Office (NO) zoning district and a
Variance from the required parking standards. The property is located at 1250 Curtis Street.
Tax map number 630-09-06-002.
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Items
rk
India
Old Yo
Ho o k
Hw
Mt Gallant
y 21
Sutton
City of Rock Hill, SC
December 15, 2015
Zoning Board of Appeals
Celanese
Heckle
C
r
he
ry
I-77
York
Ma
in
rs
Ande
6
on
Dave Lyle
ne
lls
ck
He
4
le
n
Co
c
M
h
rig
Alb
t
n
n
rso
de
Og
e
And
I-77
5
.H
Mt
y
oll
Legend
City Limits
a
lud
Sa
¯
River
#
Map Not Drawn To Scale
Agenda
Item
DR 5/11/15
City of Rock Hill, South Carolina
November 17, 2015
A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 17,
2015, at 6:30 PM in Council Chambers at City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South
Carolina.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Matt Crawford, Donovan Steltzner, Jeff Greene, Keith Sutton,
John Antrim, Stacey Reeves
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michael Smith
STAFF PRESENT:
Melody Kearse, Leah Youngblood, Janice Miller
Legal notice of the public hearing was published in The Herald, Saturday, October 31,
2015. Notice was posted on all property considered. Adjacent property owners and
residents were notified in writing.
1.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM.
2.
Approval of minutes of the October 20, 2015, meeting.
Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the minutes as noted. Mr. Sutton seconded
the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
3.
Approval of Orders from October 20, 2015, meeting.
Mr. Antrim made a motion to approve the Orders as submitted. Mr. Sutton
seconded the motion. The Orders were approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
4.
Appeal No. Z-2015-30: Request by John Gast, Keck & Wood, for a Special
Exception to reduce the separation that otherwise would be required between
a Wholesale and Warehouse (General) use and residentially-zoned properties
and uses nearby. The property is located at 325, 335, 339, 345, 355, 365, 417,
& 469 Springdale Road and 1271 S. Anderson Road, and is zoned Industry
General (IG). Tax map numbers 669-04-01-011, -013, & -017, and 669-04-01111.
Mr. Crawford recused from this item due to a conflict of interest. (He is employed by
the applicant.) Mr. Steltzner took over as Chair.
Ms. Kearse presented the staff report.
Mr. Steltzner asked the distance to the closest residential use. Ms. Kearse stated
approximately 230 feet from the parking lot of the first building to the residential
structure, but 0 feet from lot line to lot line.
Mr. Steltzner asked for confirmation that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 250 feet
separation from lot line to lot line. Ms. Kearse stated that this was correct.
Mr. Sutton asked about the relevancy of a statement in the staff report referring to a
residentially zoned property that was listed as commercial. Ms. Kearse stated that
1|P a g e
this property was adjacent to the subject property and that when the property was
sold, it would have to be rezoned in order to have commercial activity there.
Mr. Sutton asked if the RD-1 zoned property that was indicated as undeveloped
contained any homes. Ms. Kearse stated there were none.
Mr. Sutton asked about access to the site being from Springdale, referencing that
traffic going to the current Ross Distribution Center used Galleria Boulevard. Ms.
Kearse stated that access would be off Springdale. Mr. Sutton asked if this included
truck traffic. Ms. Kearse stated that it did.
Mr. Greene asked the number of parking spaces. Ms. Kearse stated that the
applicant could best answer that question.
Mr. Greene asked if Ross had requested access for trucks off Galleria and
Anderson in order to mitigate traffic flow. Ms. Kearse stated that she did not know,
but for this property there would be one entrance for both car and truck traffic.
Mr. Edgar Williams, 4063 Sandy Creek Road, Buford, GA, property owner, provided
a brief history of his family’s ownership of the property. He noted that the area was
zoned industrial by the County in 1987. He added that this area was developing as
industrial and that the family wanted to continue with this concept. He noted that
they had worked to keep the neighbors informed as to what was going on with
development in the area.
Mr. John Gast, Keck & Wood, 215 Hampton Street, applicant, stated that the
proposed use was much less intense regarding noise as a warehouse than uses
that are allowed in that zoning district. He noted that the house for sale adjacent to
this property was being marketed for commercial uses and would have to be
rezoned in the county. He added that the developers were including a great deal of
green space with landscaping to increase the buffer with berms and a grade break
that should not create an impact on the residential properties.
Mr. Joel Scannell, Scannell Properties, 630 Kings Cloister Circle, Alexandria, VA,
developer, noted that the site plan had already been approved at several stages and
by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Greene asked for details about the site plan, including the building sizes, docks,
number of parking spaces, and hours of operation. Mr. Scannell stated that the
larger building would be approximately 413,000 square feet and the smaller building
would be approximately 126,000 square feet. Mr. Gast indicated the locations for
the loading dock, trailer and car parking that would be located at the rear of the
buildings away from adjoining neighbors.
Mr. Greene asked for the number of employee parking spaces. Mr. Gast stated that
the smaller building would have 115 and the larger building would have 250.
Mr. Greene asked about the number of spaces for trucks.
approximately 160.
Mr. Gast stated
Mr. Greene asked if the site was more than 50 acres total. Mr. Gast stated that this
was correct.
Mr. Scannell added that the plan approval process had required a traffic impact
analysis, and that the result of this analysis was the addition of a dedicated left turn
lane. He noted that they had coordinated a shared access with the Pepsi facility.
2|P a g e
Mr. Antrim asked if the facility would operate 24 hours a day. Mr. Scannell stated
that the facility was capable of being operational 24 hours per day but would go with
whatever was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, such as 7AM to 7PM.
Mr. Antrim asked about the traffic study that had been conducted. Mr. Gast stated
that the study was done to analyze traffic generation during peak hours for the
proposed use. Mr. Scannell added that the traffic study indicated that this study is
what determined the need for the dedicated turn lane.
Mr. Steltzner asked the approximate distance from the western boundary of the site
and the houses located on Southside Road. Mr. Gast stated that it was more than
250 feet.
Mr. Greene asked if staff agreed with this estimate of distance from property line to
property line. Ms. Youngblood stated that they would have to measure to confirm.
There was general discussion on the distance between the proposed buildings and
residences as well as between property lines. Ms. Kearse noted that the distance
from property line to property line was less than 250 feet but the distance from use
to use was more than 250 feet.
Mr. Jeff Blair, 299 Southside Road, spoke regarding the request. He noted that he
was not opposed to the development itself, just that the site was not large enough
for this purpose. He indicated that he was a member of the York County Zoning
Board of Appeals. He noted that the natural buffer had been removed and that a
75-foot minimum buffer was proposed. He stated that he saw the request as an
elimination of separation, not a reduction. He stated that the Ross Distribution
Center was farther away from his property than this one, but that he could still hear
truck backup signals.
Mr. Greene asked Mr. Blair if he would rather see one building or the site carved up
into six or seven sites as opposed to one this size. Mr. Blair stated that six or seven
was preferred over one building of this size. He added that he was not opposed to
the warehouse use itself, just a building this large.
Mr. Steltzner explained that a smaller warehouse would still be required to get a
Special Exception. Mr. Blair stated he understood that, and that a smaller plan with
the provision of more distance was no problem.
Mr. Steltzner asked the elevation as compared to Mr. Blair’s. Mr. Blair stated that it
was a little higher, that he could see the equipment on an equal or higher plane
when the clearing was being done.
Mr. Roger Collins, 350 Southside Road, spoke regarding the request, noting that he
was the closest to the property of anyone, and that he would like to see the buildings
constructed further away. He stated that he could hear the trucks at Ross, so he
would request a buffer to reduce the noise.
Mr. Al Walters, 535 Whispering Pines Drive, Catawba, spoke at the request of the
pastor as a member of Southside Baptist Church, 1229 S. Anderson Road. He
stated that the church was one lot away from the proposed development and that
they were not opposed to the project or the reduction requested because of the
amount of landscaping and berming proposed.
Mr. Rick Norwood, 4465 Winrock Lane, staff of Rock Hill Economic Development
3|P a g e
Corporation at the City of Rock Hill’s Economic Development Department, noted that
the Special Exception approved for Ross was similar to the current request. He
added that the proposal was designed to maximize the use of the site without
overwhelming it. He noted that there were a number of industrial parks developed in
the City where industrial development abutted residential properties. He stated that
the developer proposed additional landscaping for buffer areas, and that the 75- to
80-foot area between the driveway and adjoining property line provided additional
buffer area.
There were no further questions or comments from the audience.
Mr. Williams spoke in response to Mr. Blair’s comments, stating that when the land
was cleared, the timber harvester was instructed to leave buffer area. He added
that he had not been made aware of the separation requirement until late in the
process after the plan had been submitted for review by the Planning Commission.
There was general discussion regarding the size of the buildings and percentage of
development use of the site.
Mr. Steltzner asked if there had been any consideration in moving the building to the
east. Mr. Gast stated that grading restraints and topography from east to west
made this difficult.
Mr. Antrim asked about the finished ground elevation for Ross. Mr. Gast stated that
he did not know but that it was probably similar.
Mr. Antrim noted that with sound travel, the buffer elevation would need to be
considered in order to protect nearby residents. Mr. Gast stated that higher and
larger evergreen trees would be installed within the buffer area to dampen sound.
Mr. Greene asked if Ross had come before the ZBA. Mr. Gast stated that he had
been told by staff that Ross would have requested the same Special Exception.
Mr. Steltzner closed the floor for discussion. There was general discussion over the
buffer and landscaping, noise reduction, time restrictions, and building location.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to reopen the floor to ask the applicant additional
questions. Mr. Greene seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of
5-0.
Mr. Gast asked with regards to the landscaping if a 6-foot stockade type fence
would be an acceptable solution. Mr. Antrim noted that ideally a sound wall placed
around interstates would be the best solution, but that a combination of fencing and
vegetation should work.
Mr. Greene asked if the applicant would consider a limit on the hours of operation.
Mr. Bill Linville, Scannell Properties, 2651 N Burling St, Chicago, IL, stated that
limiting the hours of operation was not beneficial to the tenants. He added that he
had never seen a distance separation of lot line to lot line as was required by Rock
Hill. He noted that the buildings complied with the setbacks required but that a 250foot separation was a large amount. He stated that the building would be used in
the least intensive sense possible for an industrial use, and that outdoor storage
which was allowed in this zoning district was more intrusive. He added that they
would do what was reasonable with the berming but that moving the buildings
further into the site was not feasible.
4|P a g e
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to allow Mr. Blair to speak again. Mr. Greene
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Blair noted his concern that the berm may or may not work, that as he stated
earlier, he could still hear the truck back up signals even though it was a
considerable distance away and that these buildings would not be. He added that
the fence might deaden the noise but asked about maintenance responsibility and
that he was opposed to such a large building being constructed so close to
residential properties.
Mr. Scannell stated that the fence would be placed at the top of the proposed berm
and as it would be located on the development property, they would be responsible
for maintenance.
Mr. Steltzner closed the floor for Board discussion.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the Special Exception as requested
subject to the applicant working with City acoustical engineers to minimize the sound
effects and subject to the installation of a minimum 6-foot fence on a berm that
would be constructed of a material that would be non-reflective of noise. Mr.
Greene asked for the addition that the construction be limited to the site plan
submitted with regards to undeveloped land and square footage. Mr. Greene
seconded the motion.
Ms. Youngblood stated that the City could not commit to the motion as presented
because the City did not have acoustical engineers—that City engineers were
general civil engineers without the type of experience necessary to analyze sound
penetration and mitigation techniques. Mr. Sutton asked what language could be
stated in the motion to achieve the goal of noise evaluation and mitigation. Ms.
Youngblood stated that the Board could require that a noise study be brought back
for review. There was general discussion over sound engineering.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to retract his motion from consideration. Mr.
Antrim seconded, and the retraction carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the request as submitted with the
condition that a noise dampening berm as indicated on the site plan be constructed,
along with a noise-dampening, 6-foot tall fence not constructed of metal, and
adequate vegetation. Ms. Youngblood asked if this would be along the entire
property line. Mr. Steltzner amended the motion to require the conditions only along
the western side of the property as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Antrim seconded.
Mr. Greene noted that it was the immediately adjacent property owner whose
property had primarily created this issue but as they had not heard from the owner,
he hoped the Board was able to mitigate any issues for those who had appeared
before the Board for their concerns to be addressed.
Mr. Steltzner called for a vote and it carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Steltzner presented the findings as noted in the staff report with the addition that
the conditions imposed with the noise deadening fence should alleviate sound and
light issues for the neighbors.
Mr. Crawford returned to chair the remainder of the meeting.
5|P a g e
5.
Other Business.
Adopt 2016 Calendar
Ms. Kearse presented the calendar for approval. Mr. Crawford asked for
confirmation on the change in the December dates. Mr. Greene presented the
motion to approve the calendar as presented. Mr. Sutton seconded, and the motion
carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
6.
Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:57PM.
6|P a g e
Order on Application for a Special Exception
Date Application Filed:
October 28, 2015
Appeal No. Z-2015-30
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on November 17, 2015, to consider a request by John Gast
for a Special Exception to reduce the separation that otherwise would be required between a
Wholesale and Warehouse (General) use and residentially-zoned properties and uses nearby.
After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Board voted to grant the request based on the
following findings of fact:
1.
The site may be identified as 325, 335, 339, 345, 355, 365, 417, & 469 Springdale Road and 1271
S. Anderson Road with Tax Map Numbers 669-04-01-011, -013 & -017, and 669-04-01-111.
2.
The property is owned by The Williams & Lesslie Trusts.
3.
This property is zoned IG (Industry General).
4.
The proposed use is as Wholesale & Warehouse (General).
5.
Industry General (IG) allows a Wholesale & Warehouse (General) use by right. However,
Wholesale and Warehouse (General) uses are required to be separated from the following by
at least 250 feet: any residential district, existing residential use, religious institution use,
community service use, day care use, school (elementary, middle, or senior high), or public
park.
6.
The property is closer than 250 feet away from residentially zoned and used properties.
7.
The request is therefore for a Special Exception for a reduction in the required separation.
8.
The request was advertised to the public according to state law and the City of Rock Hill Zoning
Ordinance. The following public notification actions were taken:
•
October 29: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within 300 feet
of the subject property.
•
October 30: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.
•
October 31: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in The
Herald.
•
Information about the application was posted on the City’s website.
9.
Prior to the meeting, staff received only one phone call regarding the proposed use. The caller
was seeking information only about the special exception for the reduction of required separation.
10.
During the public hearing, the following comments were heard by the Board:
Mr. Crawford recused from this item due to a conflict of interest. (He is employed by the
John Gast
325, 335, 339, 345, 355, 365, 417, & 469 Springdale Road and 1271 S. Anderson Road
Page 1
applicant.) Mr. Steltzner took over as Chair.
Ms. Kearse presented the staff report.
Mr. Steltzner asked the distance to the closest residential use. Ms. Kearse stated
approximately 230 feet from the parking lot of the first building to the residential structure, but
0 feet from lot line to lot line.
Mr. Steltzner asked for confirmation that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 250 feet separation
from lot line to lot line. Ms. Kearse stated that this was correct.
Mr. Sutton asked about the relevancy of a statement in the staff report referring to a
residentially zoned property that was listed as commercial. Ms. Kearse stated that this
property was adjacent to the subject property and that when the property was sold, it would
have to be rezoned in order to have commercial activity there.
Mr. Sutton asked if the RD-1 zoned property that was indicated as undeveloped contained
any homes. Ms. Kearse stated there were none.
Mr. Sutton asked about access to the site being from Springdale, referencing that traffic going
to the current Ross Distribution Center used Galleria Boulevard. Ms. Kearse stated that
access would be off Springdale. Mr. Sutton asked if this included truck traffic. Ms. Kearse
stated that it did.
Mr. Greene asked the number of parking spaces. Ms. Kearse stated that the applicant could
best answer that question.
Mr. Greene asked if Ross had requested access for trucks off Galleria and Anderson in order
to mitigate traffic flow. Ms. Kearse stated that she did not know, but for this property there
would be one entrance for both car and truck traffic.
Mr. Edgar Williams, 4063 Sandy Creek Road, Buford, GA, property owner, provided a brief
history of his family’s ownership of the property. He noted that the area was zoned industrial
by the County in 1987. He added that this area was developing as industrial and that the
family wanted to continue with this concept. He noted that they had worked to keep the
neighbors informed as to what was going on with development in the area.
Mr. John Gast, Keck & Wood, 215 Hampton Street, applicant, stated that the proposed use
was much less intense regarding noise as a warehouse than uses that are allowed in that
zoning district. He noted that the house for sale adjacent to this property was being marketed
for commercial uses and would have to be rezoned in the County. He added that the
developers were including a great deal of green space with landscaping to increase the buffer
with berms and a grade break that should not create an impact on the residential properties.
Mr. Joel Scannell, Scannell Properties, 630 Kings Cloister Circle, Alexandria, VA, developer,
noted that the site plan had already been approved at several stages and by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Greene asked for details about the site plan, including the building sizes, docks, number
of parking spaces, and hours of operation. Mr. Scannell stated that the larger building would
be approximately 413,000 square feet and the smaller building would be approximately
126,000 square feet. Mr. Gast indicated the locations for the loading dock, trailer and car
parking that would be located at the rear of the buildings away from adjoining neighbors.
Mr. Greene asked for the number of employee parking spaces. Mr. Gast stated that the
smaller building would have 115 and the larger building would have 250.
John Gast
Page 2
Mr. Greene asked about the number of spaces for trucks. Mr. Gast stated approximately 160.
Mr. Greene asked if the site was more than 50 acres total. Mr. Gast stated that this was
correct.
Mr. Scannell added that the plan approval process had required a traffic impact analysis, and
that the result of this analysis was the addition of a dedicated left turn lane. He noted that
they had coordinated a shared access with the Pepsi facility.
Mr. Antrim asked if the facility would operate 24 hours a day. Mr. Scannell stated that the
facility was capable of being operational 24 hours per day but would go with whatever was
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, such as 7AM to 7PM.
Mr. Antrim asked about the traffic study that had been conducted. Mr. Gast stated that the
study was done to analyze traffic generation during peak hours for the proposed use. Mr.
Scannell added that the traffic study indicated that this study is what determined the need for
the dedicated turn lane.
Mr. Steltzner asked the approximate distance from the western boundary of the site and the
houses located on Southside Road. Mr. Gast stated that it was more than 250 feet.
Mr. Greene asked if staff agreed with this estimate of distance from property line to property
line. Ms. Youngblood stated that they would have to measure to confirm.
There was general discussion on the distance between the proposed buildings and
residences as well as between property lines. Ms. Kearse noted that the distance from
property line to property line was less than 250 feet but the distance from use to use was
more than 250 feet.
Mr. Jeff Blair, 299 Southside Road, spoke regarding the request. He noted that he was not
opposed to the development itself, just that the site was not large enough for this purpose.
He indicated that he was a member of the York County Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted
that the natural buffer had been removed and that a 75-foot minimum buffer was proposed.
He stated that he saw the request as an elimination of separation, not a reduction. He stated
that the Ross Distribution Center was farther away from his property than this one, but that he
could still hear truck backup signals.
Mr. Greene asked Mr. Blair if he would rather see one building or the site carved up into six or
seven sites as opposed to one this size. Mr. Blair stated that six or seven was preferred over
one building of this size. He added that he was not opposed to the warehouse use itself, just
a building this large.
Mr. Steltzner explained that a smaller warehouse would still be required to get a Special
Exception. Mr. Blair stated he understood that, and that a smaller plan with the provision of
more distance was no problem.
Mr. Steltzner asked about the elevation of the site as compared to Mr. Blair’s. Mr. Blair stated
that it was a little higher, that he could see the equipment on an equal or higher plane when
the clearing was being done.
Mr. Roger Collins, 350 Southside Road, spoke regarding the request, noting that he was the
closest to the property of anyone, and that he would like to see the buildings constructed
farther away. He stated that he could hear the trucks at Ross, so he would request a buffer
to reduce the noise.
Mr. Al Walters, 535 Whispering Pines Drive, Catawba, spoke at the request of the pastor as a
John Gast
Page 3
member of Southside Baptist Church, 1229 S. Anderson Road. He stated that the church
was one lot away from the proposed development and that they were not opposed to the
project or the reduction requested because of the amount of landscaping and berming
proposed.
Mr. Rick Norwood, 4465 Winrock Lane, staff of Rock Hill Economic Development Corporation
at the City of Rock Hill’s Economic Development Department, noted that the Special
Exception approved for Ross was similar to the current request. He added that the proposal
was designed to maximize the use of the site without overwhelming it. He noted that there
were a number of industrial parks developed in the City where industrial development abutted
residential properties. He stated that the developer proposed additional landscaping for
buffer areas, and that the 75- to 80-foot area between the driveway and adjoining property
line provided additional buffer area.
There were no further questions or comments from the audience.
Mr. Williams spoke in response to Mr. Blair’s comments, stating that when the land was
cleared, the timber harvester was instructed to leave buffer area. He added that he had not
been made aware of the separation requirement until late in the process after the plan had
been submitted for review by the Planning Commission.
There was general discussion regarding the size of the buildings and percentage of
development use of the site.
Mr. Steltzner asked if there had been any consideration in moving the building to the east.
Mr. Gast stated that grading restraints and topography from east to west made this difficult.
Mr. Antrim asked about the finished ground elevation for Ross. Mr. Gast stated that he did
not know but that it was probably similar.
Mr. Antrim noted that with sound travel, the buffer elevation would need to be considered in
order to protect nearby residents. Mr. Gast stated that higher and larger evergreen trees
would be installed within the buffer area to dampen sound.
Mr. Greene asked if Ross had come before the ZBA. Mr. Gast stated that he had been told
by staff that Ross would have requested the same Special Exception.
Mr. Steltzner closed the floor for discussion. There was general discussion over the buffer
and landscaping, noise reduction, time restrictions, and building location.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to reopen the floor to ask the applicant additional
questions. Mr. Greene seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Gast asked with regards to the landscaping if a 6-foot stockade type fence would be an
acceptable solution. Mr. Antrim noted that ideally a sound wall placed around interstates
would be the best solution, but that a combination of fencing and vegetation should work.
Mr. Greene asked if the applicant would consider a limit on the hours of operation. Mr. Bill
Linville, Scannell Properties, 2651 N Burling St, Chicago, IL, stated that limiting the hours of
operation was not beneficial to the prospective tenants. He added that he had never seen a
distance separation of lot line to lot line as was required by Rock Hill. He noted that the
buildings complied with the setbacks required but that a 250-foot separation was a large
amount. He stated that the building would be used in the least intensive sense possible for
an industrial use, and that outdoor storage which was allowed in this zoning district was more
intrusive. He added that they would do what was reasonable with the berming but that
John Gast
Page 4
moving the buildings further into the site was not feasible.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to allow Mr. Blair to speak again. Mr. Greene seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Blair noted his concern that the berm may or may not work, that as he stated earlier, he
could still hear the truck back-up signals even though it was a considerable distance away
and that these buildings would not be. He added that the fence might deaden the noise but
asked about maintenance responsibility and that he was opposed to such a large building
being constructed so close to residential properties.
Mr. Scannell stated that the fence would be placed at the top of the proposed berm and as it
would be located on the development property, they would be responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Steltzner closed the floor for Board discussion.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the Special Exception as requested subject to
the applicant working with City acoustical engineers to minimize the sound effects, and
subject to the installation of a minimum 6-foot fence on a berm that would be constructed of a
material that would be non-reflective of noise. Mr. Greene asked for the addition that the
construction be limited to the site plan submitted with regards to undeveloped land and
square footage. Mr. Greene seconded the motion.
Ms. Youngblood stated that the City could not commit to the motion as presented because
the City did not have acoustical engineers—that City engineers were general civil engineers
without the type of experience necessary to analyze sound penetration and mitigation
techniques. Mr. Sutton asked what language could be stated in the motion to achieve the
goal of noise evaluation and mitigation. Ms. Youngblood stated that the Board could require
that a noise study be brought back for review. There was general discussion over sound
engineering.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to retract his motion from consideration. Mr. Antrim
seconded, and the retraction carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Steltzner presented the motion to approve the request as submitted with the condition
that a noise dampening berm as indicated on the site plan be constructed, along with a noisedampening, 6-foot tall fence not constructed of metal, and adequate vegetation. Ms.
Youngblood asked if this would be along the entire property line. Mr. Steltzner amended the
motion to require the conditions only along the western side of the property as indicated on
the site plan. Mr. Antrim seconded.
Mr. Greene noted that it was the immediately adjacent property owner whose property had
primarily created this issue but as they had not heard from the owner, he hoped the Board
was able to mitigate any issues for those who had appeared before the Board for their
concerns to be addressed.
11.
The Board made the following findings:
a. There are no adverse impacts to the residential or institutional properties within the
specified separation distance that are greater than those generally experienced in the area
from other permitted uses in the district, including but not limited to noise, light, and traffic.
The noise, lighting and traffic volume should not create any greater impacts on
neighboring properties then other uses with similar impacts that are permitted in the
district, such as fire stations, business offices and vocational schools. The use would,
John Gast
Page 5
however, generate an increase in heavy truck traffic, the impacts of which the applicant
would mitigate through site design with an emphasis on buffering and truck dock
orientation. Additionally a noise-deadening, 6-foot fence would be added to the landscape
berm along the side that abuts residentially zoned and used properties.
b. Any impacts of the use can be mitigated through buffering, screening, or other
mechanisms that are made a part of the site plan for the property.
Impacts from noise and lighting would be mitigated through the landscape buffering
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and a 6-foot fence installed on the landscape berm
constructed of appropriate noise-deadening material. Additionally, all lighting on site would
meet the City’s lighting requirements.
Truck docks would be oriented away from roads and non-industrially zoned properties, and
all traffic would enter along Springdale Road. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been
prepared for this project that addresses all traffic issues associated with the use of
Springdale Road.
c. The separation requirements for the following uses are not subject to reduction through
special exception: Adult entertainment, tattoo parlor, body piercing establishment, check
cashing establishment, title loan lender, deferred presentment lender, debt relief or small
loan company, or pawn shop.
The proposed use is not one of the above listed uses.
THE BOARD, THEREFORE, ORDERS:
That the request by John Gast for a Special Exception to reduce the separation that otherwise would be
required between a Wholesale and Warehouse (General) use and residentially-zoned properties and
uses nearby, is APPROVED, WITH CONDITIONS.
The conditions include the following:
• A noise-dampening berm must be constructed as indicated on the site plan along the western
side of the property;
• A noise-dampening, 6-foot tall fence not constructed of metal must be installed on the berm; and
• Adequate vegetation must be installed along the berm.
Section 2-300 (D)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance states:
A person having a substantial interest affected by a decision of the ZBA on a Special Exception Permit may
a ppeal from the decision of the ZBA to the Circuit Court in and for York County by filing with the Clerk of
the Court a petition setting for plainly, fully, and distinctly why the decision is contrary to law. The appeal
shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ZBA is mailed. For the purposes of this
subsection, person includes persons jointly or severally aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________
Date Issued
_____________________________
Matt Crawford, Chairman
__________________
Date Mailed
John Gast
Page 6
Staff Report to Zoning Board of Appeals
Z-2015-31
Meeting Date: December 15, 2015
E
Lorraine Stewart, Colonial Services, Inc., is requesting a Special Exception for a Funeral Home use at
927, 935, 935 1/2, and 939 East Main Street. These properties are zoned Industry General (IG), which
does not allow funeral homes, but are subject to a separate request for rezoning to Office & Institutional
(OI), which allows funeral homes by special exception.
Tax map numbers 626-02-02-022 to –024.
Proposed
Location
SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Case No. Z-2015-31
Location:
927, 935 and 939 East Main Street
Request:
Special Exception for a funeral home
Tax Map Numbers:
626-02-02-022, -023 & -024
Zoning District:
Industrial General (IG), subject to a rezoning request to
Office and Institutional (OI)
Applicant:
Lorraine Stewart
Colonial Services, Inc.
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Prospective Owner:
Rep. John King
P.O. Box 11555
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Background
The applicant, Colonial Services, Inc., is requesting a special exception to operate a funeral
home at 927, 935 & 939 East Main Street.
The property is currently zoned Industrial General (IG) but is subject to a rezoning request to
Office and Institutional (OI). The reason for the rezoning request is because the IG zoning
district does not allow funeral homes at all but the OI zoning district allows them by special
exception. (Two of the zoning districts that would allow funeral homes by right—Downtown
(DTWN) and Community Commercial (CC)—would not be appropriate for this property, and
the third—General Commercial (GC)—is being phased out and is not a district to which the
City allows owner-initiated rezonings any longer.)
No use-specific requirements exist for a funeral home.
Site Description
The sites are located on the east side of the City and front on East Main Street. The three
parcels combined are 1.08 acres.
•
927 E. Main Street has an existing building that is vacant.
•
935 E. Main Street has three buildings. The main building is a multi-tenant office
building and is currently occupied by a cleaning service. A smaller building, located
directly behind the main building, was occupied by a financial loan business. The
third building is being used for storage.
•
940 E. Main Street is used for unpaved parking.
Z-2015-31
Page 2
Relation to Zoning Ordinance
Table of Allowed Uses
Existing Zoning District Summary
Industry General (IG):
The IG District is established and intended to provide lands for light industrial uses that can
be operated in a relatively clean and quiet manner and that will not be obnoxious to adjacent
residential or business districts. Allowable uses include limited manufacturing and
functionally related uses such as distribution, storage, and processing. Some heavier
industrial uses may be permitted with a Special Exception (see Section 2-300(D)).
Commercial uses are allowed, but are considered incidental to the predominantly light
industrial nature of the district. Residential uses, other than caretaker dwellings, and uses
that generate hazardous wastes are not permitted.
Proposed Zoning District Summary
Office and Institutional District (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. Community facilities and religious institutions are also allowed.
Analysis of Request for Special Exceptions
A Special Exception Permit shall be approved only upon a finding the applicant
demonstrates that the applicable standards are met. The Board may find that not all of these
standards will be applicable in every case.
(a)
Complies with Use-Specific Regulations
The proposed special exception complies with all standards in Section 4-300,
Use Specific Standards.
No use-specific standards exist for a funeral home.
Z-2015-31
Page 3
b)
Compatibility
The proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible
with the character of surrounding lands and the uses permitted in the zone
district(s) of surrounding lands.
The proposed use is surrounded by a mixture of different land uses and zoning
classifications. The surrounding uses include a single family residence, a church,
a gravel parking lot, a mini-storage facility and offices. The larger area has a mix
of buildings on the adjoining properties are similar in size and height to those on
this property. The purposed use would be consistent with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, as of the time of the writing of this staff
report, staff has not heard from anyone with opposition to the proposed use.
(c)
Design Minimizes Adverse Impact
The design of the proposed special exception minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the
proposed special exception avoids significant adverse impact on surrounding
lands regarding service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and
vibration, and does not create a nuisance.
The property is currently developed; impacts of the proposed use on surrounding
properties would be minimal. The applicant proposes to make substantial
improvements to the property by renovating the main building, adding
landscaping, and demolishing two deteriorating buildings. The parking provided
would be adequate to serve the use, and would be arranged on the site to
accommodate a funeral home use.
(d)
Design Minimizes Environmental Impact
The proposed special exception minimizes environmental impacts and does not
cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic
resources, and other natural resources.
This site is already developed, so no new environmental impacts would be likely
in terms of stormwater run-off, reduction or wildlife habitat, scenic resources, or
other natural resources. Property upgrades would be required to comply with all
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control regulations for a funeral
home use.
(e)
Roads
There is adequate road capacity available to serve the proposed special
exception, and the proposed special exception use is designed to ensure safe
ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site.
It is anticipated that the funeral home would increase traffic in the area during
funeral services. However, East Main Street has sufficient capacity to serve this
additional use. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to demolish two
buildings on the site to improve internal traffic circulation and to provide
adequate parking for the use on-site.
Z-2015-31
Page 4
(f)
Not Injure Neighboring Land or Property Values
The proposed special exception will not substantially and permanently injure the
use of neighboring land for those uses that are permitted in the zone district, or
reduce property values.
Because most of the surrounding uses are commercial or light industrial in
nature, the proposed use should not have a negative impact on their property
values. Again, as of the time of the writing of this staff report, staff has not heard
from anyone with opposition to the proposed use.
(g)
Complies With All Other Relevant Laws and Ordinances
The proposed funeral home would be required to comply with all other relevant
laws and regulation.
The propose use will comply with all laws and regulations.
(h)
Site Plan
A site plan has been prepared that demonstrates how the proposed special
exception use complies with the other standards of this subsection.
This is a developed site. See aerial photos in lieu of a site plan.
Public Involvement
The following public notification actions have been taken:
•
November 13, 2015: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners
within 300 feet of the subject property.
•
November 13, 2015: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.
•
November 28, 2015: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement
published in The Herald.
Public Feedback
None received.
Staff Recommendation
Because the funeral home use is compatible with the existing mixed commercial and
industrial uses in the area, and would not generate negative impacts off-site in terms of
parking, traffic, noise, or otherwise, staff recommends approval of the proposed special
exception, contingent upon the property being rezoned to OI.
Attachments
•
•
Application and supporting documents from applicant
Zoning Map
Z-2015-31
Page 5
Staff Contact:
Shamaury Myrick, Planner II
Shamaury.Myrick@cityofrockhill.com
(803) 326-2456
LE
T
RD
ST
EE
ST
HS
DA
ST
HIG
IH
HI
GH
LA
N
D
ST
ST
AN
OI
SF-5
Legend
Industry General (IG)
General
Commercial (GC)
CU
WH
ITE
S
HL
AN
OI
MM
ING
DS
T
SS
T
Z-2015-31
T
HIG
Single-Family-5 (SF-5)
Office and Institutional (OI)
EL
SA
V
Industry Heavy (IH)
PR
IDE
ST
KE
Subject Properties
IG
Zoning Data
OI
MAR
SHA
LL
ST
Current Zoning:
IG
ST
ST
µ
ST
CK
KM
AN
BLA
WO
R
SF-5
MA
IN
GC
0
155
Feet
Development Services
Department
City of Rock Hill
12/15/15
310
Z-2015-32
E
Kim Nguyen is requesting a Special Exception for an Automobile Repair & Service use in the Mixed Use
Corridor (MUC) zoning district. The property is located at 510 Summit Street.
Tax map numbers 625-01-07-001.
Proposed
Location
Case No. Z-2015-32
Location:
510 Summit Street
Requests:
Special Exception for Automobile Repair and Servicing
(without Painting/Bodywork) use in the Mixed Use Corridor
(MUC) zoning district.
Tax Map Number:
625-01-07-001
Zoning District:
Mixed Use Corridor (MUC)
Owner/Applicant:
Kim Tuyet Nguyen
1001 Saluda Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Designated
Representative:
That Tran
1001 Saluda Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Kelly Nguyen
1001 Saluda Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Background
The applicant, Kim Nguyen, would like to add an Automobile Repair and Servicing (without
Painting/Bodywork) use to an existing site that is zoned Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). A
special exception is required for this use in the MUC district.
Two businesses are located on the site currently. The first is Gee Gee’s Food Store, a
convenience store, located at 1001 Saluda Street, and the second is A and A Detailing, a
car wash, located at 1009 Saluda Street. At this time, 1005 Saluda Street is vacant.
The Automobile Repair and Servicing use has use-specific standards, which are listed
below.
Site Description
The site is located at the corner of Summit Street and Saluda Street. The site is
surrounded by a mix of commercial, institutional and residential uses, such as a barber
shop, church, automotive parts store and single-family residential homes, in the MUC and
Single-Family 5 (SF-5) zoning districts.
Z-2015-32
Page 2
TABLE 4-100(B): TABLE OF ALLOWED USES
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use
S = Special Exception
A = Allowed in NMU District
Blank Cell = Prohibited
Applicable Use Specific Standards Listed in Column on Far Right
Where those Use Specific Standards apply only in certain districts, those districts are marked with an asterisk.
RESIDENTIAL
4-300
IB
IH
IG
MUC
GC
CC
LC
NC
DTWN
NO
OI
MX
RH
MHP
MFR AND MF-15
SF-A AND MF-8
SF-8
Vehicle Sales
and Services
USE TYPE
S-5
SF-4
SF-3
SF-2
USE
CATEGORY
ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
BUSINESS
Automobile repair
and servicing
(without painting/
bodywork) or small
engine repair
S
S
P
P
S
P
S
S
4-300(C)(8)(e)
USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS
4-300(C)(8)(e) Automobile Repair and Servicing (without Painting/Bodywork)
Automotive repair and servicing uses shall:
1. On-Site Circulation
Be designed to ensure proper functioning of the site as related to vehicle stacking, circulation,
and turning movements;
2. Enclosure
Repair and store all vehicles within an enclosed building. Temporary vehicle storage may be
allowed in an outdoor storage area that shall be no larger than twenty-five percent (25%) of the
total lot area. Such areas shall be located to the rear of the principal structure and be screened
with a wooden fence or masonry wall in accordance with Section 6-400, Fencing Standards. The
height of materials and equipment stored shall not exceed the height of the screening fence or
wall;
3. Public Address Systems
Have no outdoor speaker or public address system which is audible off-site;
4. Trash Storage
Provide adequate, enclosed trash storage facilities on the site;
5. Test Drives
Not test drive vehicles on residential streets;
6. Gasoline Sales
Comply with the standards for a gasoline filling station (Section 4-300(C)(8)(h), Gasoline Filling
Station) if gasoline is sold on-site;
Z-2015-32
Page 3
7. Parked Vehicles
Not park or store a vehicle as a source of parts, or park or store a vehicle for the purpose of sale
or lease/rent; and
8. Vehicle Storage
Not store or park a vehicle that has been repaired and is awaiting removal for more than thirty
(30) consecutive days. In cases where a vehicle has been abandoned by its lawful owner prior to
or during the repair process, the vehicle may remain on site as long as is necessary after the
thirty (30) day period, provided the owner or operator of the establishment can demonstrate steps
have been taken to remove the vehicle from the premises using the appropriate legal means.
MUC, Mixed Use Corridor
The MUC district is intended to foster a compatible mix of land uses along significant roadway
corridors that pass through residential areas, while also maintaining or strengthening connections to
and between the existing residential neighborhoods. The MUC district addresses concerns unique to
specific transportation corridors in the City identified in the Comprehensive Plan and special plans,
including the Saluda Corridor Master Plan.
Analysis of Request for Special Exception Use
(a)
The proposed use complies with the use specific standards in the following
manner:
On-site Circulation: The site has an existing rear drive. The applicant has
installed parking in the front of the building that comes off the existing drive.
Enclosure: The proposed use will be located in an existing enclosed
structure adequate for the use. At this time the applicant does not believe
that he will need any outdoor temporary storage. If such area is desired in
the future, it will be built in accordance with the requirements of Section 4300(C)(8)(e).
Public Address Systems: The applicant will not install an outdoor speaker or
public address system.
Trash Storage: The proposed use will share trash storage with the other
existing businesses. This storage is adequate at this time.
Test Drives: The applicant will not be performing any test drives.
services offered will include only minor repair and tune-ups.
The
Z-2015-32
Page 4
Gasoline Sales: Gasoline sales will not be conducted at this site.
Parked Vehicles: No cars will be stored on site.
Vehicle Storage: The applicant agrees to not store or park any vehicles for
longer than 30 days. The applicant is only conducting minor repairs and
tune-ups, and in most cases will not be keeping cars overnight.
(b)
Compatibility
The proposed use would be an addition to an existing site in a mixed-use area. It
is compatible with the other uses in the area, which are mostly commercial in
nature. It also would be buffered from existing residential uses through existing
vegetation and a row of storage buildings between the sites. As of the time of the
writing of this staff report, staff has not heard from anyone with opposition to the
proposed use.
(b)
The design does not include any major changes to the look of the current
building on the site. The site design includes new pavement for parking and the
addition of landscaping to soften the appearance of the existing building.
(c)
No foreseeable environmental impacts are expected from the use. The applicant
will need to be diligent in providing adequate waste disposal systems for any
automotive fluid waste, which goes for all automotive uses in the City.
(d)
Roads
There are no foreseen negative impacts to roads, traffic and pedestrian safety.
The existing road network in the area is sufficient to handle any additional traffic.
Z-2015-32
Page 5
(e)
The proposed use is not anticipated to have any negative effects on neighboring
land or property values in the area since the surrounding properties are generally
commercial in nature. There is residential neighborhood behind the structure,
existing vegetation provides a buffer behind the service area. A row of accessory
storage structures also exists between the residential dwelling and the proposed
use. Again, as of the time of the writing of this staff report, staff has not heard
from anyone with opposition to the proposed use.
(f)
Site Plan
A simple site plan has been prepared and submitted with the application.
(g)
The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws
and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations.
This use will be required to comply with all other relevant laws and ordinances.
Public Involvement
•
November 25: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within
300 feet of the subject property.
•
November 25: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.
•
November 28: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in
The Herald.
Public Feedback
None received.
Because this use is compatible with the existing mix of uses in the area, and is not expected
to have negative off-site impacts in terms of traffic, parking, noise, or otherwise, staff
recommends approval of the proposed special exception.
Z-2015-32
Page 6
Attachments
•
•
Application
Zoning Map
Staff Contact:
803.329.7088
melody.kearse@cityofrockhill.com
ST
SO
N
HE
ND
ER
SU
M
M
IT
Z-2015-32
ST
Legend
SF-5
AV
ATE
Mixed Use Corridor (MUC)
Subject Properties
MUC
BOG
SALU
DA S
T
CON
ER
FED
Zoning Data
SF-5
Current Zoning:
MUC
GS S
T
A
VI
YL
R
CI
S
µ
0
87.5
Feet
Department
City of Rock Hill
12/15/15
175
Z-2015-33
E
Michael Englert is requesting a Special Exception for a Personal Services use (a boxing center) in the
Neighborhood Office (NO) zoning district and a Variance from the required parking standards. The
property is located at 1250 Curtis Street.
Tax map numbers 630-09-06-002.
Proposed
Location
Case No. Z-2015-33
Location:
1250 Curtis Street
Requests:
Special exception for boxing academy (personal services use)
AND
Variance for the required parking
Tax Map Number:
630-09-06-002
Zoning District:
Neighborhood Office (NO)
Owner:
Ruth A Olney, Trustee
1625 Colony Drive
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Applicant:
Michael Englert
3540 McFarland Road
York, SC 29745
Background
Special exception for personal services use
The applicant is seeking to locate a youth boxing academy at 1250 Curtis Street, which is
zoned Neighborhood Office (NO). This location would be a free-of-charge academy for local
youth. Currently the applicant, Mr. Englert, is teaching these classes at Emmett Scott
Recreational Center. He is hoping to grow the program, and the space available at the
center is too small for his needs. A boxing academy is considered to be a personal services
use, similar to a karate studio. A personal services use requires a special exception in the
NO zoning district.
The use has several use-specific requirements, which are listed below. The applicant would
meet all of the use-specific requirements.
Variance for required parking
The applicant is also seeking a variance from the required parking.
The building has approximately 3,000 square feet of usable space, divided into two tenant
suites; of that, only 1,500 would be used for the boxing academy at this time. Parking is
calculated at 1 space per 250 square feet for personal services uses. The property does
have Old Town status, but even with the 20% reduction, is still shy of meeting the required
off-street spaces; six (6) spaces are required, and the site provides four (4).
Curtis Street does have on-street parking available; however, this cannot be used to meet
the parking requirement since the site is already getting the benefit of the 20% reduction in
Old Town. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a variance from two (2) parking spaces.
Z-2015-33
Page 2
Mr. Englert plans to pick up most of the students, who are often below legal driving age, in a
van. Additionally, the classes would be small, likely with no more than five students at a
time.
Site Description
The property is located off Curtis Street, between Howard Street and Parker Street. The
property is in a mixed-use area consisting of several churches, two contractor’s offices and
single-family residential dwellings in the Neighborhood Office and Single-Family Residential5 zoning districts. The last use of the property was a window screen installation and sales
company.
TABLE OF ALLOWED USES
TABLE 4-100(B): TABLE OF ALLOWED USES
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use
S = Special Exception
A = Allowed in NMU District
Blank Cell = Prohibited
Applicable Use Specific Standards Listed in Column on Far Right
Where those Use Specific Standards apply only in certain districts, those districts are marked with an asterisk.
RESIDENTIAL
IB
IH
IG
MUC
GC
CC
LC
NC
DTWN
NO
OI
Personal services
establishment
MX
RH
MHP
MFR AND MF-15
SF-A AND MF-8
SF-8
Retail Sales
and Services
USE TYPE
S-5
SF-4
SF-3
SF-2
USE
CATEGORY
ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
BUSINESS
P*
P
S* P C* P
P
P
P S*
S*
4-300(C)(7)(i)
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
4-300(C)(7) Retail Sales and Services
(i) Personal Service Establishment
1. Personal service establishments in the NC and NO districts shall:
a. Floor Area
Have floor areas of an individual establishment that do not exceed three thousand
(3,000) square feet in area;
b. Enclosed Building
Conduct the business activities of the establishment within an enclosed building, with no
more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area devoted to storage;
Z-2015-33
Page 3
c. Retail Sales Only
Only sell products at retail; and
d. Hours of Operation
Limit the hours of operation to between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM within the NO district.
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
6-100(D) Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 6-100(D)(2): MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
“DU” = DWELLING UNIT, “SF” = SQUARE FOOTAGE
USE CATEGORY
Retail Sales and
Services
USE TYPE
Personal services establishment
PARKING STANDARD
1 per every 250 sf
6-100(8) Reductions in Old Town
Development in Old Town shall only be required to provide eighty percent (80%) of the
minimum number of required off-street parking spaces identified in Table 6-100(D)(2),
Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards. On-street parking spaces do not count towards any
portion of the required number of spaces that must be provided on site. In no case shall
development on these lands exceed the maximum number of allowable spaces permitted in
accordance with Section 6-100(D)(6), Maximum Number of Spaces Permitted, except in
accordance with an Alternative Parking Plan approved pursuant to Section 6-100(J),
Alternative Parking Plan.
NO, Neighborhood Office District
The NO district is established to provide for a mix of small-scale professional office uses
together with limited service uses and single-family detached dwellings in close proximity to
one another, subject to design and compatibility standards. Nonresidential 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 8200(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 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.
Z-2015-33
Page 4
Analysis of Request for Special Exception Use
(a)
The proposed use complies with the use-specific standards in the following
manner:
Floor Area: The proposed use will not exceed 3,000 square feet.
Enclosed Building: The proposed use will be conducted inside of an
enclosed building with no more than twenty percent of the gross floor area
devoted to storage.
Retail Sales Only: No items will be sold at retail.
Hours of Operation: Hours of operation will be limited to late afternoons
and early evenings during the week.
(b)
Compatibility
The proposed use provides easy access for the urban youth that the service is
targeting, and it would be no more intensive than other uses in the immediate
area. The classes will be small.
Additionally, the applicant reports that he has been well received by his
prospective neighbors, and as of the time of the writing of this staff report, staff
has not heard from anyone in opposition to the request.
(c)
Since this is an existing site that would take place within an existing building, no
negative impacts are expected, especially considering the small size of the
classes that are expected.
(d)
Z-2015-33
Page 5
This is a developed site, so no environmental impacts in terms of water and air
resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources are
expected.
(e)
Roads
There is adequate road capacity available for the use. Classes will be limited to
five students at a time with their respective trainers, and most of the students
would be picked up by van since they are below driving age. Therefore, impacts
on traffic would be extremely minimal.
(f)
The proposed use is located in a mixed-use area and that would more than likely
benefit from its presence.
(g)
Site Plan
Since this is a developed site, aerials are being used to describe existing
conditions in lieu of a site plan.
(h)
The proposed special exception use complies with all other relevant City laws
and ordinances, state and federal laws, and regulations.
This use will be required to comply with all other relevant laws and ordinances.
Analysis of Request for Variance
2-300 (E) (4) Variance Standards
(a) Findings
A Variance Permit shall be approved only upon a finding, made in writing, that the applicant
demonstrates that all of the following standards are met:
1. Extraordinary and Exceptional Conditions
There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the
particular piece of land.
Z-2015-33
Page 6
The site is located on a very narrow lot, with the front of the building sitting close
to the street, which limits the amount of parking available to the site. There is no
access to the rear of the property, so no new parking can be established there.
2. Unique Conditions
These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
The conditions affecting this property are shared by some of other properties in
the vicinity, but they are not shared with the corner lot uses. The corner lot uses
have secondary street access and could add additional parking in the rear.
3. Strict Application Deprives Use
Because of the conditions, the application of this Ordinance to the land
would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
land.
The strict application of the Ordinance restricts the uses that can be located on
the property. Because of the limited parking area, essentially any use would
need to seek a variance from the required parking.
4. Not Detrimental
The authorization of the Variance Permit will not result in substantial
detriment to adjacent land, or to the public good, and the character of the
district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance.
The granting of the parking variance would not cause any detriment to any
adjacent property, the public good, or the character of the district. On-street
parking is utilized by most of the residents and businesses located along Curtis
Street. Moreover, in this case, since most of the children will arrive by van,
parking is not needed at the same level as otherwise it would be. As of the time
this staff report was written, no one had contacted staff with any objections to the
use.
(b)
Not Grounds for Variance
The following do not constitute grounds for a Variance Permit:
1. Property Could Be Utilized More Profitably
The fact that land may be utilized more profitably should a Variance permit
be granted.
The granting of the variance would allow the business to operate in this location,
making the site more profitable than if it were to sit vacant. However, essentially
any use of this property would necessitate a parking variance request due to the
limiting number of existing spaces. And this particular use is likely to have much
less of a parking demand than most, given that most of the children would be
picked up by van and brought to the site.
Z-2015-33
Page 7
Prohibitions
(c)
No Variance Permit shall be granted to:
1. Allow a use not permitted by right, Conditional Use Permit, or by Special
Exception Permit in the district in which the land subject to the Variance
Permit is located.
The use of the property as a boxing academy is allowed in the zoning district by
Special Exception Permit. Therefore, if the variance were granted, it would not
permit a use that is not already allowed, provided that the Zoning Board of
Appeals grants the special exception for the use.
2. Extend physically a nonconforming use of land.
The use is allowed with a Special Exception Permit, so it is not a nonconforming
use. Therefore, granting the variance would not extend a nonconforming use.
3. Change the zone district boundaries on the Official Zone District Map.
If granted, the variance would not change the zoning district boundaries. The
property would retain its current NO zoning.
Public Involvement
•
November 25: Public Hearing notification postcards sent to property owners within
300 feet of the subject property.
•
November 25: Public Hearing notification signs posted on subject property.
•
November 28: Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing advertisement published in
The Herald.
Public Feedback
• None received
Attachments
•
•
Application
Zoning Map
Staff sees this specialized personal services use as an ideal one for this site. The boxing
academy use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is unlikely to cause any negative
impacts to the surrounding community. In fact, having the building occupied instead of sitting
vacant likely would help the neighborhood. Staff has not heard from anyone opposed to the
use, and the applicant reports that the idea has been well-received in the neighborhood.
The associated parking variance request would likely be required for any use on this site,
and in this case the impacts of that are likely to be less than for other types of uses, since
most of the children would be picked up by van. Moreover, off-street parking is available to
serve any expected parking need for this use.
Z-2015-33
Page 8
For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed special exception and
variance.
Staff Contact:
803.329.7088
melody.kearse@cityofrockhill.com
IH
Z-2015-33
Legend
CHURCH
ST
Industry Heavy (IH)
Neighborhood Office (NO)
CURTIS
Subject Properties
HOWARD
NO
ST
ST
Zoning Data
Current Zoning:
NO
ST
ST
PARKER
ARAGON
SF-5
µ
0
75
Feet
ROY ST
Department
City of Rock Hill
12/15/15
150

ZBA Agenda 12-2015

Transcription

Similar documents

MLK - Landcroc

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Användarinstruktion och tips

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

141 HIsTES Of I(i~CLjLA,(tlEtTl hG `a CITY YLt.55114G ,uji) au~aSC

May 14, 2013 - Planning and Land Development

S-15-058

16-039-V - the City of Columbia