planning commission meeting city of tega cay, south carolina may 3

-21-

N:/StaplesB\My Documents\2010-Planning Commission\Mins 05-03-2010 –kbh..doc

Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir:

allowed per SC State Code at Title 57, Chapter 25 and the conditions attached thereto are met. You’ve got construction signs. They’re pretty much like they’ve always been. Pennants, flags, banners, balloons and fluttering devises for grand openings is pretty much the same. Search lights is the same. Signs advertising events pulled behind an aircraft is just like it was. Banners denoting sale events, that’s just like it was and temporary planned development sign, I think it’s just like it originally was, only on weekends, not on holidays. Moving on, under removal of signs, that stays the way it is and Kathy, I know you were looking for signs and I kind of gathered from Tom Goebel’s latest note we talked about just how he would do the enforcement. It kind of leads me to believe that he’s not interested in doing enforcement using fines. That’s one person’s opinion.

I don’t know that they’re even going to do any enforcing anyway so…that’s something we can leave as it and take up when Council looks at this, as a citizen.

Yes, I probably would rather see the ability to do a fine because I think that would help enforcement and try to get everybody get squared away.

Remove is a good start but we’ll ask Council to go further than that.

Right, so right now it does not have that it there. So those are the changes as I have done.

The only adjustment that I want to discuss or consider with political signs on private property, I almost wonder if we should leave out the time frames because it is private property and then off premise we should at least let Council know that we’re divided that some of us think sixty (60) and others think thirty (30), me and Jerry are together on this one.

I’ll give you my thoughts on both those two (2) issues and obviously we’ll go with the consensus.

I’m fine with letting it go to Council. I just think that we should let them know that this is one of the areas that…

Okay, for one thing for political signs on private property I think there’s an aesthetic issue. We’ve done some of that already through here that we were concerned about aesthetics from house to house within a neighborhood so I don’t know that people would be happy with having a political sign up always. Therefore I thought let’s put a time limit on it. Thirty (30) days, sixty (60) days, it’s my opinion that Tega Cay is a savvy enough community that they can live with thirty

-22-


Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters:

(30) days and be informed. That’s just tan opinion. Politicians may have a different thought on that. They’ll get to make the final call.

I just want to tell you that you did a great job on this. I had some things that I was going to add but you basically captured them in your newest revision. I am glad to see that you put two (2) instead of one (1) on this special events signs because I helped put up the Easter Egg Hunt signs and we had three (3) actually that we put up on Tega Cay Dr. I suppose we could go with two (2), I don’t know.

Well, on Tega Cay Dr. you’d only get one (1) major one.

You say two (2) right here. If you’re only talking one (1), we need more than one (1). It’s for kids.

One at the entrance and one at the event site.

But what about the two (2) other ones?

Oh you get the two (2) other separate ones, the smaller ones.

I was talking about no more than two (2) main special event signs ….so I was assuming that would be two (2) of them, one maybe coming and one maybe closer to the event but if you’re saying only (1), then I think we need to look at that just a little bit more because that’s a long drive out through there.

That’s the way we currently do the concert series as a thought. We’ve got this main big thing at the entrance to the City so that’s lets everybody know what’s going on and then you really don’t see any other concert signs. That was the main thing I was getting at is let’s do one big display at the entrance to the City and then I actually thought at some point and time maybe the Stonecrest area. Then I was actually thinking well what about ….

What about Dam Rd.? Shouldn’t we be able to put something up out there, Easter Egg Hunt?

I was under the impression that it said one (1) each and I was thinking that was at each entrance so you could put one at Tega Cay Dr. and Stonecrest, one at each entrance. Do we need to make sure that we say the word ‘each’ entrance or as opposed to development entrance. I don’t remember what page it’s on.

-23-


Commissioner Cullen: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen:

I think each entrance.

I’ll tell you how I did it and there’s probably a better way to say it.

What page?

Page #65. I said no more than two (2) main special event signs, only one (1) at each location, maybe erected at any one (1) time. For each special event, two (2) additional smaller six (6) sq. ft. in area. Signs may be placed and again you can’t put them in the ROW of state maintained roads.

This already says Tega Cay Dr. and along Stonecrest, so we could change that to each because that way as other entrances are developed the word ‘each’ makes it understanding. These are just the only two (2) right now.

Okay so give me that wording. Jerry, do you want to go with more than six (6) sq. ft. in area? Again, you can’t put them in ROW.

You’re talking about the smaller ones, six (6) sq. ft.?

Yes.

I think that’s fine. It’s the banner signs that I’m talking about.

The City sign is a lot bigger than a 4 x 8 sign. Now the City can still put their bigger sign up, correct?

Here we’re saying thirty-two (32) sq. ft.

Well that’s a 4 x 8. I don’t think it’s worth getting stuck on right now but we should may be change the ‘each’.

Under D, #2, Off Premise (A)-a main city approved special event sign may be placed at each entrance and then that would eliminate Item C because right now there are two (2) main entrances but that doesn’t mean it will always be like that.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. I like that.

I agree with that. I’ve got something on political signs. There are a couple of reasons I’ve got some issues with political signs. Not that I believe everything that Mr. McMaster says, but on this one I agree with him. He’s the one that said that thirty (30) days, there are a ton of things that is unconstitutional about thirty (30) days on here. One of the caveats here that says typically a traditional election seasons are by

-24-


Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Cullen: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Cullen:

the court was viewed as starting Labor Day and continuing through Election of November, a period of approximately eight (8) to nine (9) weeks. That is a typical, obviously there are elections that are not in that time frame, but the point was that thirty (30) days in his opinion and a lot of courts’ opinion is too short of a time period. Particularly if there are anything other signs that are allowed to stay up more than thirty (30) days. If I recall correctly some of these real estate signs are allowed to stay up until the sale. They don’t take them after thirty (30) days. They’re allowed to stay up until the house sells.

That’s on premise.

Well, I’m just saying even on premise, you’ve got that issue. Off premise and on premise and if you look at this thing I sent out today. Did you read that? It’s pretty interesting. It says that cities do not like to be sued and that is one way to do it. Particularly think about this what if somebody opened up a campaign headquarters in Tega Cay and their candidate only has thirty (30) days to put the signs out in front of the headquarters. I don’t think that’s going to work. They’re probably going to sue us right off the back.

They could do wall signs.

Then that becomes commercial signs.

I’m just saying its things to think about. I think that at a minimum sixty (60) days. It’s my opinion. Based on what I’ve read and what other people have done and what some court decisions are, I think it would best suit the City to have it sixty (60) days and private property I’m not even sure you really want to go there because there are some free speech issues on private property that you could infringe upon. Walk very lightly.

There are enough good things in this document that if that’s the only issue for me. I’ll vote it and then take it up when it comes to Council.

The City Attorney, Bob McLeave, specifically said that if you’re going to dabble with political signs you might want to let me review it. It’s going to get a review by him. We could approach it a couple of different ways. I think we still need to do what the group wants to do and let him back us off from being aggressive with out limitations. I don’t know where the group is. I’m casting my vote for thirty (30) days and I hear two (2) sixties (60) so we ……

For the private property I’d say no limitation, that’s my feeling on that one. I have not feeling on the other.

-25-


Commissioner Burns: Commissioner Hayes: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters:

I’m definitely thirty (30) days on each.

Thirty (30).

That’s all right. This is only our first go round.

That’s right. That’s an easy one for politicians to work with and we’ll leave it as is for right now. All right, going forward.

Where do we stand on signs like ‘lost cat’, ‘welcome home’, those kinds of signs? We don’t have templates.

I think if you get something like that, you can’t get everything.

Well, where do we stand? According to this I don’t know that we can put it out.

Well, they’re not supposed to be out, but if they do go up. They’ll be in neighborhoods anyway and the neighborhoods are not being patrolled because the median is being patrolled.

Well, I’ve seen ‘wedding, this way’ as a directional sign.

It’s on private property.

It’s going to happen.

Maybe we have a sentence in there that says anything not…. Maybe we don’t speak to it because now it’s not in there. You can’t tell me it’s not illegal because it’s not listed.

That’s not a way to handle things like that.

It’s going to be a neighborhood center not being patrolled.

All right, moving on. I noticed something driving in today. If you go out on Saturday and look at yard sale signs, etc., most of them are in the median so you’re looking here at the signs. If you come up to a cross walk you’ll look up and see if there is anybody in the crosswalk but not we’re moving the signs over here so now I’m looking over here at the signs and by the time I look back to the crosswalk somebody come be in front of me. The problem now becomes a safety issue. It needs to be moved back a little bit from the crosswalks, at least fifty (50’) ft.

If they step out then we want to remove them gene pool. That crosswalk is there so that they can see your car coming.

-26-


Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Hayes: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen: Commissioner Church:

The crosswalk is there so that they can walk across without looking.(CHANGED FROM TAPE 1, SIDE 2, TO TAPE 2, SIDE 1). I’m just saying fifty (50’) ft.

If you travel in or out on Tega Cay Dr. that if you get five (5’) ft. off of edge of pavement and your sign can only be three (3’) ft. high from the ground up, the only places that really make a lot of sense, and also with directional signs, the only places that make a lot of sense is when you get near these intersections which are by the way where the pedestrians crosswalks are.

Well, not all of them have crosswalks. I looked at it today, but yes. We have a nice asset. I would like for us to be able to do something with. When there are specials at The Grande View we don’t have any way to advertise those. Wouldn’t it be nice to have something by the old police dept. or something just saying Grande View Grill this way, special today? I don’t know some people that don’t like signs might not like that but I think it’s a way to get some people there. Since we’re doing this can we do something where we can do something where we can allow something like that?

That’s a city-owned sign.

Well, we’ve got that bulletin board.

I know but we don’t have anything like that now and I don’t know if it’s because …

Well we kind of do we’ve got those telling us about yet another council meeting.

But I’m talking about something a little more.

The Grande View Grill has advertised on that sign in the past several years at the entrance into Tega Cay.

I don’t like where that sign is. I do not like the sign where it is. I liked it where it was before because you could see it for a longer distance and you could see it right at eye level. Now you have to look up and out and you’re passed it before you see what’s going on. I’m sorry.

It should be right in the middle of the median. Out in the middle of the road.

No.We can make a recommendation to the Golf Committee that they request to be on the bulletin board. There are a couple of them in town.

-27-


Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Commissioner Cullen: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Hayes: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Jim VanBlarcom: Chairman Weir: Jim VanBlarcom:

There are three (3) of them I think. Just because that one is hard to see, the people who go into Lakeshore are the ones who need to be reminded that there are specials there.

Okay, I’m just throwing that out there.

I think the City should advertise it.

We’ll make a recommendation to the Golf Club. A member lives across the street from me, I’ll tell her.

What else? Other comments? Reggie, you followed all of this?

Yes.

I’d like to make a motion.

Well, let’s get some public comments.

Don’t we have to make a motion and then they comment?

No, let’ go ahead and get it first. We’re opening up to public comments? Name?

4017 Windward. A couple of things, you had indicated and I don’t have a copy of this so I’m not really sure what’s going on but in the general provisions for all signs and I don’t know if that’s in the new ruling or not, it says ground type signs may be located in required buffer yards and yard set backs provided the minimum set backs will not be less than ten (10’) ft. from the streets right of ways. The way I interpret that, that means if you have a street right of way of five (5’) ft., that would be another ten (10’) ft. Have you changed that or is that still in the ordinance? That’s in the ordinance now under general provisions for all signs. Page #50, Section D, it says location ground type signs, etc., so you’re talking fifteen (15’) ft. You don’t want to have conflicting language if you’re going to say only five (5’) ft. It is still in there.

But the difference is on #51 of our original ordinance, if you’ve got a booklet. This deals with permanent signs.

I thought it said, I’m sorry, in your notes it said general provisions for all signs. It doesn’t say general provisions for all signs here but I think the general provisions for all signs is probably implied, but that’s just me.

-28-


Chairman Weir: Jim VanBlarcom: Commissioner Cullen: Chairman Weir: Jim VanBlarcom: Chairman Weir: Jim VanBlarcom:

What do you think it needs to do?

Well as far as I’m concerned you leave it in there but in the area where you said five (5’) ft. from the right of way, or the right of way is five (5’) ft. and you can’t be in the right of way. You actually have to add the extra ten (10’) ft. to it or reference back to that provision. That’s probably the best way to do it. It just says general provisions for all signs. Now there is another section in the existing ordinance, Section F, Page #54, which states signs will be a minimum of eleven (11’) ft. off the asphalt surfaces or edge of the road base in case of gravel and will not create a site hazard for motorists. So there is conflicting language, and I don’t where that is in the new one. It’s F-6, E, and that actually refers to temporary planned development zones, that’s just temporary, okay that’s out. But again by referencing back to your general provision that wouldn’t equate. One shouldn’t be eleven (11’) ft. and the other one is ten (10’) ft.

The one you’re referring to now has been scratched out.

Look on our Page #68, it’s still in there. You’re seeing it scratched out because it moved locations. But that’s for a temporary planned development sign.

But it doesn’t agree with your general provisions for signs, that’s the only thing I’m bringing up there.

But I’m probably okay with that one.

That could be okay because it’s more. It’s greater than the ten (10’) ft. that you’re saying off the right of way on the first one. The other question about elections is that we have at least three (3) elections each year here and who knows, sometimes, this year there can be as many as six (6) elections. You have your primaries, runoff, you have the regular elections and you could have runoffs after that. If we allow sixty (60) days for each election we could have signs up almost ten (10) months of the year. It gets very long. The final thing that I would like to say is that I would like to see something passed on to the Council because at the last Council meeting the Mayor brought up the fact about what do we do about signs on Tega Cay Dr.? The Council’s opinion and I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it was to let the Planning Commission come back to us with something. So please let the Planning Commission come back with something. Let’s not parse words and let’s not try to get every language exactly right. You take all the responsibility away from our illustrious Council.

-29-


John Dervay: Chairman Weir: John Dervay: Chairman Weir: John Dervay: Chairman Weir: John Dervay:

I think the eleven (11’) ft. is a typo by the way. We don’t catch them all. I’m serious. The ten (10’) ft. came from SCDOT. They would not let me put a permanent sign closer than ten (10’) ft. off the road right of way and that’s where that all came from. A lot of our development signs are on #160, Gardendale and I think it was simply a typo we never caught. Secondly, on your list out where you first started off, did you list July 4th because I didn’t here it?

It’s Independence Day.

The next thing is that you referenced Stonecrest Blvd. over and over again. The (?) do not apply to Stonecrest Blvd. Stonecrest Blvd. is a PDD. The sign regulations are in the PDD. No matter what you’re doing here today ….Ord. #77 is no application to Stonecrest so I would recommend dropping Stonecrest out of the language. I’ve got a problem with the fact that most people when you say Stonecrest Blvd. they think of Wal-Mart and it’s not. If we pass these regulations in order to implement them in the Stonecrest PDD we’ve got to do the zoning change. I just want to make sure that we all understand that. Why use Stonecrest Blvd. when you can use Windward or Tega Cay Dr. from the fire station?

When I’m referencing Stonecrest Blvd. with the one exception about the special events sign, but when I’m referencing Stonecrest Blvd. I kind of do it specifically; it’s not in the same category as Windward or Windjammer. It’s an arterial divided highway and my intent of spelling it out …we’re trying to communicate what we want and I want to put in a little bit of laymen’s terms as best as I can but yet still reference the State Code, etc. There is a fine blend in there that I wanted the folks to understand that when you’re looking at #77, we’re talking about signs which you can’t put up signs on Stonecrest Blvd. That was why I did it. It was a communication thing.

Again, I think looking from a layman’s standpoint; I’ve not gone through these regulations over and over again. So I’m just hearing it for the first time and the first thing I think of when you said that is Wal-Mart. The next thing is that I know better. It doesn’t apply to them.

I know that.

So if I’m going to get confused, most people will get confused. It’s going to bring up issues. If there’s another way of substituting a different street in there, I’d just make that recommendation. I’m not here to debate.

-30-


Vice-Chairman Masters: John Dervay: Chairman Weir: John Dervay: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Cullen: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Church: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir:

I don’t that most of the residents would realize that Stonecrest doesn’t apply. They think of it as an entrance into and your point of it is to let them know that signs are not allowed on the entrance into the main roads.

I also wrote down Gardendale. I must’ve heard something about Gardendale. I think Gardendale doesn’t have a PDD zoning. I don’t recall that signage. It’s got a PDD zoning but I don’t think there is signage in it. I don’t remember any. So we’re clean on that one.

Yes, so it’s okay to reference Orchard Way? That’s pretty neat; we’re bringing in new communities here.

Going to my next one, removing the political signs twenty-four (24) hrs. after the election, you get so smashed election night, you don’t even get up until 1:00 the next day. Twenty-four (24) hrs. is not enough time to remove all those signs. I am speaking from experience. It may not apply to the Mayor, but it certainly does apply to Dervay. Most of my signs were removed the very next day; I’ll admit that, I didn’t do it. But Thursday which was within forty-eight (48) hrs. I drove every street in Tega Cay to make sure that I had all my signs picked up. There were signs that were missed. I spent six (6) hrs. driving around and that’s after the signs had been picked up. Forty-eight (48) hrs. makes a lot more sense to me than twenty-four (24) hrs. Those are my opinions.

Any other comments?

I’d like to make a motion that we send our recommendations to Council on the sign ordinance with the changes as discussed in this meeting, and I think there were four (4).

I second that motion.

I have a motion and a second. One of the one was changing the eleven (11) to ten (10) is that one of yours?

That to me is so minor; I would let Council do that.

Are we going to note the changes in your…..

Well, Tom you wrote them down.

I’ll go through and note them so we’ll know that we’re done with our action. Let’s go back to those general provisions for all signs. This is time for comments. Page #53-(public talking-couldn’t understand).

-31-


Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Church: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir:

A ground type sign if you look at the definition, a sign affixed to the ground by a solid base not less than the width of the message area in which the height of the sign does not exceed two (2) times the width. So it leads itself to be a permanent sign. That’s what we’re talking about here. A permanent ground type sign may be located in acquired (?) buffer yards.

I thought this is for all signs not just permanent signs.

Let’s drop in the word ‘permanent’, or say ‘location permanent ground type signs may be located’.

Does that mean the Lions Club sign has to be moved or not?

Okay, let’s drop in the word ‘permanent’ in front of ground type signs. To go through the changes to what we have done tonight, I’ll just go through those real quick. (A) Definition of streets; Definition #62, the last sentence under the state maintained highway now reads ‘unless otherwise designated street ROWs for state maintained highways is five (5’) ft. beyond the edge of pavement/back of curb on both sides. On the (C) portion of that same definition, it will now read ‘city owned street instead of city maintained street’ and goes on to read public streets that have been accepted by the City of Tega Cay per (?). Moving on, we’re back to that general provision for all signs of a location, so drop in the word ‘permanent’ in front of ground type signs. Under (G) Temporary Sign – under the following conditions shall apply to all temporary signs dealing with a template shall now read approved city signs standard template information with directional off premise yard sale and real estate signs will be provided by City. Under Special Events Signs – under off premise under (A) – it now reads a main city approved special events sign may be placed at each entrance and then under (C) underneath that same off premise is now deleted and what’s deleted currently reads no more than two (2) main special events signs, only one (1) in each location, maybe erected at any one (1) time, that’s gone now. Under temporary signs which a zoning compliance is required under (F) there is temporary planned development signs and then under (6) in that section will now read ‘the signs will be a minimum of ten (10’) ft. off the asphalt surface’. Kathy, I believe those were the changes that you spoke to in your motion?

Yes.

Any further discussion? All in favor say “AYE”, “AYE”. None opposed. That is unanimous! As our liaison, there are a couple of steps whenever you’re doing something major like this, we could do a workshop. You can have me spell it out or you can go straight to the

-32-


John Dervay: Chairman Weir:

public hearings. Have you thought through enough and have a feel for it…….?

I’ll get back to you on that. (couldn’t understand)

For the tape, Liaison Dervay will let us know the next step. Our liaison has one exception to these last changes but he’ll probably have that very soon. Moving on, next item up is General Public Comments.

#4. Public Comments: Chairman Weir:

There being none, Commissioner’s Comments?

#5. Commissioner’s Comments: Commissioner Hayes: Chairman Weir: Vice-Chairman Masters: Commissioner Burns: Commissioner Church:

I want to thank Kathy for push, push, and push! I agree. Thank you. I have no comments. No comments. It’s been a long road but I think we’ve finally come to something that I’m not disappointed in at all.

#6. Chairman’s Comments: Chairman Weir: #7. Staff Comments: Chairman Weir: Commissioner Cullen:

I do have something that I’ve picked up on by visiting the last Council meeting. Now that they’ve figured out that we’ve got a lot of spare time on our hands, sale of City Hall, as I understand it is headed towards being a PDD. That means that Planning Commission takes a pretty heavy lead in some of that. They’re going to be in just as big of a rush if not more so than they were for signs with the sale of City Hall so I would anticipate that we would be getting together mid-month. I don’t know how long it will take the developer and/or whomever to get something we can start working on but I would expect that we may be getting together mid-month or we may start meeting on a regular basis. Just anticipate that and watch your email and we’ll see what happens. That’s all I have. Any Staff Comments, Grant do you want to add anything to the PDD discussion or anything? There being none, I’ll accept a motion. I make a motion we adjourn.

-33-


Vice-Chairman Masters: Chairman Weir:

I’ll second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There being none. All in favor say “AYE”, “AYE”. This meeting is adjourned.