►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 6:00 PM Theodore D. Washington Municipal Building
Description
Planning Commission
Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 6:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission will not hear new items after 9:30 p.m. unless authorized by a majority
vote of the Commission Members present. Items which have not been heard before 9:30 p.m. may
be continued to the next regular meeting or a special meeting date as determined by the
Commission Members.
IV. NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS*
Every member of the public who is recognized to speak shall address the Chairman and in
speaking, avoid disrespect to Commission, Staff, or other members of the Meeting. State your
name and address when speaking for the record. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3)
MINUTES.
V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
VI. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
1. September 28, 2022 Minutes
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Indigo Cove Townhomes (Street Naming): A request by Heath Duncan of Ward Edwards, on
behalf of PKP Group, LLC for approval of a street naming application. The project consists of
84 townhome lots and associated infrastructure. The property is identified by tax map
number R610 031 000 0002 0000 and consists of 23.8 acres at the northeast corner of Buck
Town of Bluffton, SC Planning Commission Agenda October 26, 2022
Island Road and Bluffton Parkway within the Residential General Zoning District. (STR-09-22-
017192) (Staff - Jordan Holloway)
2. 41 Calhoun Street (Preliminary Development Plan): A request by Randolph Stewart on behalf
of Windsong Investments, LLC for approval of a development plan. The project consists of a
renovation/re-model and additions to the existing structure to create a "walk-up restaurant",
a "carry-out restaurant", retail space with a covered patio/courtyard, and associated parking.
The property is zoned Neighborhood center-HD and consists of approximately .32 acres
identified by tax map numbers R610 039 00A 094A 0000 located 41 Calhoun Street. (DP-01-
21-014926) (Staff - Jordan Holloway)
X. DISCUSSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
C
E
E
Of
Udo,
you
have
to
get
ready
to
approve
the
application
and
submit
approve
the
application
with
conditions
or
deny
the
application,
as
submitted
by
by
the
applicant
okay.
Here's
the
review
criteria
and
Analysis
that
I
can
go
through
if
you
would
like
YouTube,
but
Town
staff
finds
that
11
of
the
proposed
12
Community
street
names
are
acceptable
and
neither
requirements
of
article
3
of
UE
always
stated
above,
and
we
recommend
that
Planning
Commission
approve
the
following:
11.
H
I
A
A
So
the
next
item
number
two
is
41
Calhoun
Street.
It's
a
preliminary
development
plan,
a
request
by
Randolph
Stewart
on
behalf
of
Windsong
Investments,
for
an
approval
of
a
development
plan.
The
project
consists
of
a
renovation
remodel,
in
addition
to
the
existing
structure,
to
create
a
walk-up
restaurant,
a
carryout
restaurant
retail
space
with
a
covered
patio,
Courtyard
and
Associated
parking.
E
Since
you
just
did
it
perfectly
so
we'll
move
on
just
the
project
location,
this
is
at
the
corner
of
Lawton
and
Calhoun
Street,
just
on
the
west
side
of
DuBois
Park.
As
you
can
see
on
the
map,
there
is
an
existing
structure
there
and
I'll
get
into
that
a
bit
more
here,
interesting
buildings
comprised
of
a
single-family
residence
and
two
retail
tenants
that
run
towards
Calhoun
Street.
It's
important
to
note
that
none
of
the
existing
structures
on
the
parcel
are
contributing
resources
project
consists
of
constructing
two
building
additions
on.
E
The
just
a
bit
of
history
on
this
one.
The
applicant
originally
submitted
preliminary
development
plans
on
January
20th
of
2021.
At
that
time,
staff
deemed
that
the
submission
was
incomplete
and
lacks
sufficient
detail
for
a
review.
The
applicant
made
a
resubmission
and
provided
a
response
to
comments
on
April
7th
of
2021.
E
staff.
Comments
on
that
preliminary
development
plan
were
reviewed
at
the
May
5th
2021
DRC
meeting
the
applicant
provided
a
response
to
comments
and
updated
exhibits
to
respond
to
the
comments
provided
after
that
May
5th
2021
DRC
meeting
the
applicant
proposed
numerous
questions
and
town
staff
and
requested
to
receive
a
formal
written
response
for
each
question.
Town
stack
provided
a
formal
written
response
with
Udo
interpretations
and
code
sections
on
June
17th
of
2021..
E
The
applicant
resubmitted
plans
without
a
response
to
comments
on
January
4th
of
2022
and
staff.
Comments
were
reviewed
at
the
February,
2nd
DRC
meeting
and
on
July
25th
2022.
The
applicant
resubmitted
plans,
without
a
response
to
comments,
Town
staff
notified
of
an
applicant
that
they
would
be
on
the
next
available
Planning
Commission
meeting
agenda
once
they
provided
a
response
to
comments
and
a
site
plan
that
was
stamped
and
signed
by
an
engineer
or
landscape
architect.
E
The
applicant
provided
that
information
on
September
16th
of
2022,
which
is
why
we're
on
the
Planning
Commission
agenda
for
tonight
here,
is
a
picture
of
the
site
plan.
The
hashed
out
areas
that
are
the
front
of
the
building
are
the
proposed
editions
with
the
courtyard
in
the
middle.
The
accessory
structure
is
back
here
that
they're
proposing
on
moving
with
parking
and
access
to
the
rear.
E
Here's
their
landscape
plan
showing
much
of
the
same
features
as
well.
If
I'm
going
to
in
more
depth
where
the
applicant
could,
as
well
as
far
as
review
criteria,
the
planning
commissioner
has
to
consider
the
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3103a
of
the
Udo
and
assessing
an
application
for
preliminary
development
plan,
the
applicable
criteria
are
going
to
be
followed
on
the
next
slides.
E
These
are
also
surprise
here.
The
ones
that
are
highlighted
are
the
ones
I
want
to
go
into
in
more
depth
and
detail.
Numbers
two
through
four
have
been
met
and
satisfied
because
they're,
mostly
not
applicable,
criteria,
number
one
from
section.
3.10.3
0.8.1
is
conformance
with
the
applicable
Provisions
provided
in
Article
5
design.
E
Staff
has
found
that
the
proposed
development
does
not
conform
with
all
applicable
provisions
of
Article,
5
design,
standards
and
staff
finds
that
the
development
does
not
comply
with
the
following
Provisions
within
article
5.
number.
One
section
5.11.4
requires
a
driveway
Iowa
width
with
90
degree
parking
to
be
a
22
foot,
minimum
24
foot
maximum.
The
applicant
has
proposed
a
20-foot
Drive
aisle
number
two
from
section.
511
487
requires
a
landscape
island
of
at
least
12
feet
in
width
at
the
ends
of
each
parking
Bay.
E
C
E
537
B2
requires
buffers
to
be
no
less
than
half
of
the
side
of
your
setback,
as
shown
they
are
two
and
a
half
feet
which
is
not
adequate
to
screen.
The
parking
areas
from
The
Shining
properties
for
Section
537-d
requires
75
candidate
coverage,
not
including
rooftops.
The
plan
shows
calculations
counting
canopy
over
rooftops,
as
well
as
existing
canopy
that
is
proposed
to
be
removed.
E
E
E
Table
5
15
7c1
requires
six
spaces
per
1000
square
feet
of
restaurant
uses
due
to
the
submitted
narratives,
which
say
the
courtyard
will
be
used
as
seating
and
event
Gathering
space,
the
tables
and
scenic
areas
classify
the
carryout
restaurant
as
a
restaurant,
which
has
higher
parking
requirements
which
makes
the
plan
under
parked
table.
515
7c1
requires
two
spaces
per
1000
square
feet
for
Commercial
Services.
E
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
rooftop
deck
and
has
not
taken
that
square
footage
for
the
Airing
into
account,
leading
to
the
plan
being
under
parked
for
the
commercial
retail
services
area
and,
lastly,
section
5157
E3
requires
a
pedestrian
connection
from
the
parking
lot
to
the
building
which
the
parking
serves.
The
applicant
has
not
provided
this
connection.
E
E
E
Open
space,
irrespective
of
the
completion
of
their
proposed
phases,
staff
has
found
that
the
project
was
originally
proposed
to
be
two
faces.
However,
no
phasing
plan
has
been
submitted
if
the
project
is
to
be
two
phases
in
a
single
phase.
The
phasing
plane
needs
to
be
submitted
by
the
app
and
the
last
criteria
from
the
section
310
386
is
that
the
application
must
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements
in
the
applications
manual.
A
staff
has
found
that
the
application
has
been
reviewed
by
Town
staff
and
has
been
determined
to
be
material
complete.
E
Prior
to
the
final
development
plan,
approval
to
be
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
section
3103a
number
one
is
to
provide
a
22-foot
minimum
Drive
aisle
with
90
degree
parking,
providing
landscape
balance
of
at
least
12
feet
into
parking
base,
providing
adequate
buffers
to
screen
the
parking
lot.
Providing
75
Community
coverage,
providing
20
open
space
on
the
site,
providing
sufficient.
E
Providing
a
pedestrian
route
from
the
parking
lot
to
the
entry
of
the
building
and
providing
an
ADA
accessible
space.
That
means
State,
Building
or
code
requirements,
which
is
the
minimum
of
a
space
at
least
132
inches
wide,
with
an
access
aisle
at
least
60
inches
wide
or
space
96
inches
wide,
with
an
exercise
at
least
96
inches
wide.
J
B
E
C
K
F
Again,
with
the
item
C
requiring
the
buffers,
you
know
less
than
half
of
the
side
or
the
rear
step
back
at
this
point,
they're
2.5
feet,
which
is
not
adequate
screening
parking
area.
It
is
okay.
So
that's
your
common.
Our
comment
is
that
they
agreed
previously
verbally
on
the
living
offenses.
So
again,
I've
just
done
what
I
was
told
and
we
will
accommodate
you
know
if
we
have
to
moving
forward
I'm,
not
really
sure
how
else
to
respond,
except
just
sort
of
reiterate.
F
What's
written
here,
the
75
canopy
coverage,
I
did
I,
did
look
at
my
landscape
plan
and
I
see
the
discrepancy
where
I've
erroneously
kept
the
square
footage
of
that
top
portion
of
the
existing
canopy
and
that's
about
645
square
feet
and
I
need
to
in
removing
that
my
my
numbers
get
me
down
to
48.15
of
the
existing
and
proposed
canopy,
which
is
shot.
You
know,
which
is
about
700,
plus
or
minus
shy
of
what
we
need.
F
F
J
J
About
the
rooftop
and
previous
in
previous
meeting,
the
previous
staff,
we
mentioned
the
it's
going
to
be
a
rooftop
garden,
it's
gonna
be
with
a
chain
and
no
access
to
the
public,
it's
just
private
for
the
owner,
but
it
is
the
commission.
You
guys
don't
agree
with
this.
We
can
follow
your
advice,
and
this
is
you
can
see
in
the.
J
A
K
J
J
F
J
L
C
J
A
But
if
there's
been
a
problem
for
the
last
two
or
three
years
through
staff
regarding
that
drive,
how
come
you
keep
reverting
back
to
2019
of
a
verbal
agreement
that
we
don't
have
any
knowledge
of
like
how
come
it
hasn't
been
changed
since,
like
if
you
knew
that,
like
in
2020,
the
staff
was
saying
no,
it's
supposed
to
be
a
22
foot
aisle.
How
come
you
guys
keep
existing
without
trying
to
work
it
out?
In
writing.
A
J
C
E
H
Project
you
know,
and
because
of
the
amount
of
time
that's
been
involved
in
this
I
I
personally
feel
we
need
to
make
a
decision
tonight.
I
personally,
am
also
concerned
with
the
mass
and
scale
of
this.
There
are
some
things
that
are
questionable:
the
restaurants
that
are
considered
walk-up
restaurants,
but
there's
part
of
the
narrative
that
talks
about
tables
and
chairs
being
set
out,
but
the
tables
and
chairs
won't
be
for
people
eating,
but
they'll
just
be
for
the
general
public
that
doesn't
make
sense
I'm
concerned
about
a
deck.
H
L
Well,
Charlie
I
agree
with
you
that
it
I
I.
Might
my
concern
is
a
very
simple
one.
I
think
we
owe
staff
and
the
applicant
a
decision.
You
know,
and
it's
been
going
on
too
long
for
both
I
think
we
we
owe
you
guys
a
decision
because
I
know
it's
been
taking
a
lot
of
your
time
as
well
as
staff's
time,
so
that
I
agree
with
your
points.
I
I,
just
you
know
we
need
to
make
a
decision.
A
And
I'm
I
have
the
same
thought.
You
know
the
whole.
The
parking
just
does
not
seem
sufficient
at
all
for
that
large
of
a
space
and
that
many
uses
it's
just
it's
under
parked,
especially
with
the
seating
and
restaurant
classification,
so
I
think
that
needs
to
be
taken
care
of
I.
Think
we
just
need
to
respect
the
Udo
and
and
follow
what
the
Udo
is
guiding
us
on.
A
D
If
I
may
just
do
Echo
what
concerned
that
you
had
mentioned
about
parking
and
just
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Richardson
Brooks
laborers
on
hillhead
and
serving
the
Scout
Planning
Commission
and
looking
at
the
application,
there
was
a
written
determination
by
the
Udo
administrator
about
the
type
of
use
that
would
apply
and
what
parking
requirements
would
apply.
There
is
a
process
for
appealing
that
that
would
have
expired
back
in
2021,
so
it
wasn't
appealed
within
a
certain
time
frame,
a
yellow
Bound
by
that
determination.
D
A
I
Exception
I
agree
with
command
Commander,
as
well
still
in
the
parking,
but
also
staff
has
seen
to
try
to
work
the
applicant
on
many
occasions
throughout
this
period
of
time,
and
it's
looking
at
the
list
of
you
know
exclusions
that
would
have
to
be
done
or
at
least
met
are
I.
Think
over.
You
know,
over
and
above
I
I,
agree.
I
think
we
need
to
make
a
decision
on.
G
G
I
agree
as
well:
I
think
we
won't
be
able
to
meet
I'm,
not
convinced,
based
on
what
has
been
presented,
that
the
criteria
that
we
have
to
maintain
are
able
to
be
achieved
by
doing
a
type
of
conditional
approval,
I
think
there's
a
fundamental
issue
with
the
amount
of
room.
That's
on
the
lot,
the
amount
of
open
space.
We
need
the
coverage
that
we
need
the
amount
of
parking
that
we
need
and
I
don't
think
that
that
can
be
reconciled
with
the
existing
plan.
K
A
Food,
yes,
if
I
can,
if
based
off
of
the
tenor
of
the
discussion,
the
commission
is
inclined
to
to
deny
the
application.
If
that
is
the
case,
make
sure
please
make
sure
that
you
provide
findings
to
the
facts
and
conclusions
of
law,
given
reason
for
the
denial
to
the
best
of
your
abilities.
Thank
you.
H
Is
submitted
primary
reason
would
be
the
Udo
administrator's
determination
that
it
is
use
of
a
restaurant
that
was
not
appealed
within
the
proper
time
frame
and
therefore
it
does
not
meet
the
parking
requirements.
The
open
space
requirements
for
staff
are
not
met
and
help
me
out
here
guys
to
search
something
else.