TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 31, 2016 MINUTES. Municipal Complex, Building A, Public Meeting Room 1

Transcription

1 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 31, 2016 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Building A, Public Meeting Room 1 Members Present: Staff Present: Bob Brimmer, Joe Bustos, Mark Smith, Paul Gawrych. Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Kent Prause Mr. Brimmer called the meeting to order at 1:06 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from the October 3, 2016 meeting Mr. Smith moved for the approval of minutes. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Brimmer continued with the agenda. 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the October 19, 2016 meeting a. Request to rezone from Friendfield PD, Planned Development District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 0.63 acre parcel of land located at 1117 Bowman Road, identified by TMS No , and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book CA, Page Subject property to remain in the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Bustos asked if there is a storage facility near the proposed site. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative and stated that the current use at this site is a car wash. Mr. Fred Whittle, applicant, reviewed the request with the Committee and reviewed some site photos through a PowerPoint presentation for the Committee (attachment 2).

2 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Brimmer asked why the PD was not changed to allow the use. Mr. Whittle answered that with AB-2 they would have the best flexibility. Mr. Brimmer asked if this could be requested. Mr. Whittle answered that it could be possible, but it was thought that this was the fastest and best direction to pursue. Mr. Gawrych moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. b. Request to rezone from North Point PD, Planned Development District, to R-4, Medium Density Residential District, an approximately 0.12 acre parcel of land located at 1508 Village Square, identified by TMS No , and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book CF, Page 181. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Gawrych seconded the motion. All in favor. c. Request to remove from the HNB-VR-OD, Hungryneck Boulevard Venning Road Overlay District, an approximately 2.02 acre parcel of land located at 1013 Hungryneck Boulevard, identified by TMS No , and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book EE, Page 382. Also, request to amend the Building Height Plan Map by increasing maximum building height on the subject parcel to 55 feet. Subject parcel to remain zoned AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. She noted that the small triangular parcel across from Hungryneck Boulevard is not included in the request. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of both the height and removal of the property from the overlay district.

3 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Smith asked what hotel brand is proposed. Mr. Nathan Schutte answered that it would be a Marriott brand. Mr. Bustos asked where the residential property is located. Ms. Farrell indicated the residential property on the map for the Committee. Mr. Bustos asked about buffers. Ms. Farrell answered that if in the overlay district, there would be a 25 foot buffer with a fence required between residential and commercial property. She stated that since is abuts commercial property and a street, a minimum buffer would be required. Mr. Bustos asked about the road above the parcel. Ms. Farrell answered that Freeman Scott is a dirt road. Mr. Smith asked what uses are adjacent to the nearby parcels. Ms. Farrell answered that the surrounding properties are predominantly commercial and located in Charleston County. Mr. Smith asked about the parcel next to it. Mr. Tom Hund answered that it is a drainage parcel. Mr. Pagliarini answered that condemnation for Hungryneck Boulevard did affect that parcel. Mr. Gawrych moved to recommend to Town Council approval of both the height request and the request to remove it from the HNB-VR-OD. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote, with Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gawrych in favor; Mr. Bustos opposed. d. Proposal to amend Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations, Section (C)(2), Park and Recreational Areas and various sections of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, to provide a uniform method of calculating open space for the development of property that does not include freshwater and saltwater wetland property in such calculations. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Gawrych moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. All in favor.

4 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 4 of 9 e. Proposal to amend Section of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, providing for a temporary suspension of approval for Accessory Dwelling Units in the area commonly known as the Old Village and Old Mount Pleasant. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. She stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. Mr. Smith asked the number of ADUs currently within the Town in the proposed area. Ms. Farrell answered that there are currently 24 within the Town and 5 within the OVHD for a total of 29 ADUs within the proposed area. Mr. Smith asked the total permitted within the Town. Ms. Farrell answered that there are 161 permitted, with 113 receiving certificate of occupancy (CO). Mr. Smith asked the difference between a carriage house and an ADU. Ms. Farrell answered that they could be very similar, particularly if there is a bathroom and kitchen in the carriage house. Mr. Smith stated that he does not support this request as there is no problem or issue with ADUs and the request should not be tied to the drainage study. Mr. Gawrych asked if Town Council would consider final reading at the November meeting. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Gawrych suggested that those already under review for building permit be allowed to proceed through the approval process in order to obtain their building permit. Mr. Bustos suggested that the drainage study should be completed before allowing any additional subdivisions or construction of ADUs in the area. He suggested that allowing construction to continue in the area and allowing subdivision of property would increase the impervious surface and essentially negate the study. He stated that construction has impacted the drainage. He suggested that a drainage plan should be established before any further construction is allowed. He agreed with Mr. Gawrych in regard to those requests under review and that they should be allowed to move forward through the process. He suggested that there

5 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 5 of 9 should be a viable drainage plan prior to a building permit being issued. He suggested that the process and issues should be determined and a solution outlined before moving forward. Mr. Bustos moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request with the recommendation that those ADU applications currently submitted and under review be allowed to move forward through the approval process with a building permit. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. Mr. Brimmer asked if a recommendation is required from the Committee. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with the request particularly with the unanimous denial from the Commission. He asked when the study would be completed. Ms. Farrell answered that when asked at the Planning Commission meeting that she stated it could take up to a year, but a definitive completion date is not known at this time. Mr. Brimmer asked if a deadline is known. Mr. DeMoura answered that it is not known at this time how long the study would take to be completed, but they intend to work as expeditiously as possible because of the drainage concerns. He suggested that it could take up to six months. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern that the drainage study would take almost a year as he would not like the suspension to be extended that long. He stated that he supports changes as needed, but is not sure what the best solution would be. He stated that to date, he is supportive of the motion and allowing those applications already submitted and under review to move through the approval process for a building permit. Ms. Saila Milja-Smyly, 1479 Kinloch Lane, stated that she submitted written correspondence and asked that it be entered as part of the record. She suggested that all of the evidence should be considered before a final decision is made. She suggested that there is no evidence that has been submitted that ties ADUs to the drainage problems. She suggested that other accessory uses have not been considered and that no further evidence has been submitted that ADUs cause more drainage issues than other accessory uses. She suggested that Town Council does not have the

6 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 6 of 9 authority to adopt the suspension as it is not necessary under state law and the Planning Act. She suggested that it is arbitrary and could be considered a regulatory temporary taking. She stated that another consideration is the Housing Task Force is contemplating recommendations on affordable housing including ADUs. Mr. Bustos asked if there are draft recommendations from the Housing Task Force. Ms. Farrell answered that the Task Force is working on the recommendations, but they have not been finalized. Linda Page, 1458 Short Street, thanked the Committee for recommending that those applications currently being reviewed be allowed to move forward. She suggested that the Task Force recommendations would be negated if the suspension moves forward. Mr. Bustos suggested that a deadline date be considered and asked staff to provide some information on a time frame for Town Council consideration prior to final reading. Mr. DeMoura stated that this could be accomplished. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern that if a time frame is determined but the study not completed. Mr. Bustos suggested that some information regarding the drainage issues should be known by the end of the time frame and a better idea of the magnitude of the issues will be known in order to make a decision going forward. Mr. Bustos suggested that a four month timeframe should be sufficient. Mr. DeMoura stated that the time frame is linked to several issues including being able to provide concrete recommendations. He stated that the study would have to be coordinated with SCDOT as well since many of the streets are state roads. Mr. Bustos agreed that there should not be an open ended time frame. He suggested that four months might be sufficient and asked staff to bring this information to the Town Council meeting.

7 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Farrell asked for clarification on ADU applications that have been received and if there is a time frame on the applications. Mr. Brimmer answered that his thought was that all applications submitted before final reading would be allowed to proceed. Mr. Pagliarini recommended that if desired, allowing all applications submitted to proceed would be the best course of action. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 2 vote with Mr. Brimmer and Mr. Bustos in favor; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gawrych opposed. f. Proposal to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations, by adding a new Section providing for a temporary suspension of approval for the subdivision of property in the area commonly known as the Old Village and Old Mount Pleasant. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. She stated that the Commission recommended denial by a vote of 7 to 1. Mr. Brimmer stated that he stands by his previous comments. Mr. Bustos moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request with the deadline time frame to be determined by staff and brought to Town Council for consideration. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. Mr. Smith stated that he has the same comments as with the ADU suspension request. He stated that he supports the drainage study being completed as included in the strategic plan and the budget. He stated that there has been inadequate drainage system in this area and supports working forward to determining solutions and addressing those problems. Ms. Milja-Smyly, 1479 Kinloch Lane, stated that she has submitted written correspondence concerning this issue and asked that it be included in the record. She suggested that the subdivision of property does not increase

8 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 8 of 9 impervious surface or affect drainage issues. She suggested that the ordinance bears no relationship to drainage. Mr. Gawrych asked about the next phase of Coleman Boulevard and if the work would entail increasing the drainage pipes in that area. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 2 vote with Mr. Brimmer and Mr. Bustos in favor; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gawrych opposed. 4. Request to annex an approximately 1.37 acre tract of land located at 1587 SC Highway 41, Mt. Pleasant, SC in Laurel Hill subdivision on the W Side Approx. 620 FT. S. Causey RD. as shown on a plat recorded in Book/Page B in the Charleston County RMC Office, bearing TMS No Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Gawrych seconded the motion. Mr. Albert Kohler, property owner, asked that the annexation be denied. He stated that he only petitioned for annexation in order to receive water and sewer. He asked that the petition be denied so that he can remain in the county, but be able to receive water and sewer from Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW). Mr. Smith stated that as chairman of the Water Supply Committee, there is a long-standing agreement with MPW for property that is not contiguous to the Town sign an agreement to have the property annexed once the property becomes contiguous to the Town. He stated that this is a goal of the Town and MPW is supportive of that goal. Mr. Gawrych asked about contiguity. Mr. Prause answered that it is contiguous through property across Horlbeck Creek.

9 Planning Committee October 31, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Mayor Page asked about the tap fee. Mr. Kohler answered that it would be approximately $8,500 and an additional septic would be needed because of the depth of the lot. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Kohler is welcome to be a part of the Town. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:12 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm

10 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL 31 October 2016

11 3.a BOWMAN ROAD Request to rezone from Friendfield PD, Planned Development District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Request: Subject property to remain in the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District. Location: 1117 Bowman Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): Type of Request: Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: 0.63 acres Plat Recording Info: Plat Book CA, Page 021 Application Link: Staff Report Link: Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the Action to be Taken: request. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP

13 ZONING MAP

14

15 3.b VILLAGE SQUARE Request to rezone from North Point PD, Planned Request: Development District, to R-4, Medium Density Residential District. Location: 1508 Village Square, North Point Subdivision Parcel ID (TMS No.): Type of Request: Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: 0.12 acres Plat Recording Info: Plat Book CF, Page 181 Application Link: Staff Report Link: Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the Action to be Taken: request. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

16 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP

17 ZONING MAP

18

19 3.c HUNGRYNECK BOULEVARD Request to remove subject parcel from the HNB-VR-OD, Hungryneck Boulevard Venning Road Overlay District; and Request: to amend the Building Height Plan Map by increasing maximum height on the subject parcel to 55 feet. Subject parcel to remain zoned AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Location: 1013 Hungryneck Boulevard (behind Mount Pleasant Chevy) Parcel ID (TMS No.): Type of Request: Rezoning and Building Height Plan Map amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: 2.02 acres (1.92 acres per Charleston County tax records) Plat Recording Info: Book EE, Page 382 Application Link: Staff Report Link: Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of Action to be Taken: both requests. These recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

20 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP

21 ZONING MAP

22

23 3.d. TEXT AMENDMENT OPEN SPACE Request: Type of Request: Public Hearing: Link to Draft Text: Staff Report Link: Action to be Taken: Proposal to amend Land Development Regulations Section (C)(2), Park and Recreational Areas, and various sections of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, to provide a uniform method of calculating open space for the development of property that does not include freshwater and saltwater wetland property in such calculations. Land Development Regulations (LDR) text amendment and Zoning Code (ZC) text amendment ZC text amendment: Required; held by Planning Commission. LDR text amendment: Required; held by Town Council (scheduled for ). Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

24 PROPOSED TEXT

25 PROPOSED TEXT

26 CURRENT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: ZONING CODE Planned Development - Conservation Design District With Rural Conservation Future Land Use designation, at least 50% of the entire site area shall be protected in perpetuity; in all other areas, at least 25% of the entire site area shall be protected in perpetuity. Open space can include high land and wetlands. Planned Development - Mixed Use District A minimum of 5% of total land area must be reserved for open space, which may be in the form of urban parks or squares. Cluster Development: For properties located within the Urban Growth Boundary, a minimum of 25% of the gross site area shall be maintained as open space in perpetuity; for properties located beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, a minimum of 50% of the gross site area shall be maintained as open space in perpetuity. (No reference to wetlands) Waterfront Gateway - Cooper and Wando Districts A minimum of 10% of the total project area shall be reserved as contiguous open space. Urban Corridor Overlay District A minimum of 8% of the development acreage, excluding the Activity Zone, shall be designated and utilized as open space and/or parks in the form of active and passive parks, plazas, or public gathering spaces for any development project containing residential dwelling units. MF, Multi-family District, and TH, Townhouse District A minimum 8% of net development acreage shall be designated for recreational usage.

27 CURRENT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS If the Zoning District does not otherwise specify, the LDR requirement below shall apply. For all residential subdivisions unless specified otherwise by the Zoning Code (applying to most single family subdivisions): Land for park and recreational uses required with subdivision: Five acres per 1,000 people as population illustrated by the following formula: Number of lots 5/ (household size) = amount of park land and which is expressed as the ratio of times the number of lots proposed for subdivision. The Planning Commission shall approve the appropriate location of the undeveloped park and recreational land during the subdivision process. The Planning Commission shall make its determination based upon topography, geology, access and location, with particular attention to significant physical features of the project area, such as the location of grand trees, scenic vistas, wildlife habitat and water access. Wetland areas are generally not to be included in area calculations.

28 3.e. TEXT AMENDMENT ADU SUSPENSION Request: Type of Request: Public Hearing: Link to Draft Text: Staff Report Link: Action to be Taken: Proposal to amend Section of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, providing for a temporary suspension of approval for Accessory Dwelling Units in the area commonly known as the Old Village and Old Mount Pleasant. Zoning Code text amendment Required; held by Planning Commission. Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

29 PROPOSED TEXT

30 ADU STATISTICS SEPT 30, 2016

31

32 3.f. TEXT AMENDMENT SUBDIVISION SUSPENSION Request: Type of Request: Proposal to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations, by adding a new Section providing for a temporary suspension of approval for the subdivision of property in the area commonly known as the Old Village and Old Mount Pleasant. Land Development Regulations text amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Town Council (scheduled for ) Link to Draft Text: Staff Report Link: Action to be Taken: Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council.

33 PROPOSED TEXT

34 ZONING STANDARDS Residential Zoning Districts in Old Mount Pleasant include: R-1 (10,000 square feet; 80 x 110) R-2 (8,000 square feet; 60 x 90) Special R-2 Overlay provides for a reduced front yard setback but no reductions in lot size or dimensions R-3 (6,000 square feet; 50 x 70) R-4 (4,000 square feet; 40 x 50) Planned Development (as specified in the planned development ordinance) This analysis focuses on the R-1 and R-2 zoned lots. All R-3, R-4, and Planned Developments are built out and cannot be subdivided: Fox Pond, Pirates Cove, Saltgrass Point, Old Village Landing

35 SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS In order for a lot to be subdivided it must : Have direct access to a public street Meet all minimum size and dimensional requirements of the Zoning District May not exceed lot depth to width ratio unless a Waiver is approved by the Planning Commission Excessive lot depth in relation to lot width shall be avoided, as a general rule, the depth of residential lots in all districts shall not be less than one nor more than 2-1/2 times their width.

36 DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS Total Lots meeting size and dimensional requirements Lots that can be subdivided without waiver for depth to width Lots that can only be subdivided with waiver approval for depth to width Total Developed Lots that meet size and dimensional requirements Total Vacant Lots that meet size and dimensional requirements R R Totals Lots that be subdivided to create more than 1 new lot Total lots does not include lots that have been approved for subdivision but do not yet have a final plat. Over the last four years, approximately nine lots have been approved for subdivision to create eleven additional lots. Some of these lots have preliminary plat approval but may not have received final plat approval. This data analysis does not include lots that may be aggregated and then resubdivide to create additional lots, as there is not a way to anticipate or identify where such may occur.

37

38

39 HIGHWAY 41 Request to annex an approximately 1.37 acre tract of land located at 1587 SC Highway 41, Mt. Pleasant, SC in Laurel Hill subdivision on the W Side Approx. 620 FT. S. Causey RD. as shown on a plat recorded in Book/Page B in the Charleston County RMC Office, bearing TMS No

40 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP

41 ZONING MAP

42

43 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL 31 October 2016

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60