TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2013 MINUTES

Transcription

1 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2013 MINUTES Present: Staff: Roy Neal, chair, Todd Richardson, Howard Chapman, Bob Brimmer, Henry Middleton, Alice Richter-Lehrman, Phil Siegrist, Cheryll Woods-Flowers, Nick Collins. Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Kent Prause, Kelly Cousino Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Chapman moved for approval of the minutes with the following corrections: Page 11, third paragraph from bottom remove "is" Page 16 change to "vote" not voted. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Correspondence and general public statements a. Update on Planning Commission recommendations. Ms. Cousino reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. Ms. Cousino stated that the rezoning request for 1203 Calais Drive has been withdrawn and noted that the same request cannot be made for at least one year unless Town Council grants a waiver. 3. Requests A. REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to LO, Limited Office District, an approximately 0.29 acre parcel of land located at 1203 Calais Drive, also known as Part Lot 1, Block B, Section 1, Heritage Subdivision, and identified by TMS No This request was withdrawn by the applicant. B. REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to rezone from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District an approximately 1.18 acre parcel of land located at 1603 US Highway 17 North, also known as Parcel 1, Four Mile Subdivision, also known as the former CVS site, and identified by TMS No Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: The property was acquired from CVS by the Town by eminent domain for the I-526 overpass construction and was subsequently conveyed to Doug McElveen as part of a settlement agreement as a result of condemnation proceedings for acquisition of a portion of his automobile dealership property for the same roadway project. In the interim it was used as the construction office for the overpass and Highway 17 widening projects. In order to use the property for automobile sales, rezoning to AB-2, Areawide Business- 2 District, and special exception approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals is required. The property is located in an area designated as commercial on the Town s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the AB-2 zoning district classification is appropriate for this recommendation.

2 Page 2 of 10 The following is a list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies and is provided so that they may be considered along with this request for rezoning. o Promote the growth of existing businesses and the recruitment of new businesses that are compatible with the Town s future vision. o Encourage appropriate commercial development to increase the property tax base and minimize the tax burden on homeowners. Mr. Chapman asked if there were any restrictions put on the site when the property was sold to McElveen. Mr. Pagliarini answered that to his knowledge there were no deed restrictions. He stated that there is currently a lease agreement between the Town and McElveen. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Chapman suggested that this was a good use. He suggested that access be restricted and only the existing McElveen access should be used for both sites. Ms. Cousino answered that it cannot be restricted through the zoning, but they would be required to apply for a special exception and this could be stipulated during that approval process if the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) feels it is warranted. Ms. Cousino stated that this would be passed along to the BOZA staff liaison. Mr. Collins moved for approval. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING; IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request to amend the Wilson Tract Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No ) as it pertains to an approximately acre portion of an approximately acre tract of land known as Towne Centre, located between Hungryneck Boulevard and US Highway 17 North and identified by TMS Nos , , , , , , and , by increasing the maximum height for a hotel use from 35 feet to 65 feet, measured to the eave; by increasing the maximum height for a parking structure from 35 feet to 42 feet; by modifying the required building and parking structure setback from Hungryneck Boulevard; and by allowing all parking spaces (beyond the maximum required) to be paved, rather than pervious. Impact assessment and conceptual plan approval also. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: History: The Wilson Tract Planned Development is a large Planned Development District that includes many of the subdivisions along Rifle Range Road and the Isle of Palms Connector, as well as Towne Centre and Lowes. It was originally approved in 1986 and was amended in 1995 and again in 1997 to add Towne Centre and Lowes. The current proposal is to amend the Planned Development District ordinance for certain development standards and also includes an Impact Assessment for a new hotel, the expansion of Belk, a parking garage, and additional retail space. Some of the information in the PD amendment request and the impact assessment submittal is overlapping. Staff comments below more clearly delineate those requests that pertain to the PD amendment and those that are relevant to the impact assessment. Current Request - Planned Development District Amendment:

3 Page 3 of 10 The current Planned Development District zoning permits AB, Areawide Business District, uses on all subject parcels. The proposed hotel and expanded retail uses are permitted uses. The maximum building height permitted for this property is 35 feet. The applicant is requesting 65 feet in height, measured to the eave, for the proposed hotel and 42 feet in height for the parking structure. The applicant is also requesting adjustments to setback and buffer requirements along Hungryneck Boulevard. The current buffer and setback requirements are a 10 foot buffer and a 20 to 30 foot build-to line from lot lines having street frontage. The request is for a 5 foot buffer; a 10 foot setback for the parking garage; and a 24 foot setback for all other buildings, with all requested buffer and setback reductions applying solely to Hungryneck Boulevard. By way of clarification, the 24 foot setback would already be permitted since the range of 20 to 30 foot is required by the Zoning Code. The proposed parking structure will cause the parking for the development to exceed what is allowed. The Zoning Code requires that excess parking be pervious. In light of the fact that much of this parking will be within a parking structure, the applicant is requesting that the excess parking be allowed as impervious (paved). Also, it should be noted that, for a period of time during construction, the shopping center will have less than the required amount of parking. The submittal document specifies 61,000 additional square feet of retail and 100 hotel rooms. The current ordinance does not provide specific square footages. If these numbers are provided in the PD, any deviation will require an additional amendment. As such, it may be appropriate to not include these numbers in the PD document but to instead let the impact assessment control. Current Request - Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan: The Impact Assessment addresses the proposed 100 hotel rooms and 61,000 additional square feet of retail. If the development is approved, coordination and refinement of the water quality plan with the Town Engineer will occur as the development goes through design and construction approval. The Fire Department has completed an initial review of the project but continued coordination will be required through design review, particularly with access to and within the parking structure. Lighting, particularly for the parking structure, will be a consideration during design review. The consideration will be to direct light away from the residential developments on the opposite side of Hungryneck Boulevard. The entire project is subject to commercial design review approval. Some elements of the conceptual plan may change as a result of this review. Transportation Comments: 1. The traffic analysis for the proposed development assumed the following land uses: 61,000 sf of additional retail space 116 room hotel The use is anticipated to generate the following New/Primary trips. 1,754 Daily trips 68 AM peak hour trips 154 PM peak hour trips

4 Page 4 of Primary access to this property is provided by US 17, Market Center Boulevard and Hungryneck Boulevard. 3. The trip distribution and background traffic was coordinated with staff. Note that a conservative estimate of 35% of the new retail trips is estimated to come from the existing traffic volumes along US 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard. Additionally, given the multitude of uses in Town Center to capture a portion of the hotel trips, a 20% internal capture rate was applied to these trips. 4. Staff input the proposed project trips into the QRS model and capacity spreadsheets to test for significance and adversity. Significance means the project trips on any link equal 2% or more of the LOS D roadway capacity. A roadway becomes adversely affected if a roadway link volume does not exceed the LOS D capacity with existing and approved project trips, but does exceed the LOS D capacity once the project trips are added. A project s trips must be both significant and adverse for consideration of operational improvements on a specific link. The QRS model includes all previously approved projects so that committed demand is reflected in the analysis. The model and capacity spreadsheets also reflect a three year window of improvements: Assumed roadway improvements in the QRS model consider CHATS programmed improvements, the Town s CIP and other projects with a high likelihood of being constructed within this timeframe. These improvements are listed below with major capacity improvements highlighted in bold and anticipated completion dates in parentheses. Roundabout Mathis Ferry Muirhead Rd (completed 2006) Bessemer Road Extension 2-lane from SC 41 to Park West Boulevard (completed 2006) New Road Hungryneck Boulevard Phase II (HNB II), 3-lanes from Phase I to Bowman Rd (2009) New Signal Bowman Hungry Neck Phase II (2012) New Signal Hungryneck Phase Hungryneck Phase II (2010) Roundabout Rifle Range Porcher Bluff Rd (2007) Improved Road/Access National Drive connection to Porcher Bluff (paved in 2007) Road Widening Whipple Rd, 3-lane from Long Point to Mathis Ferry (completed 2008) New Road - Wingo Way from current termini to Patriots Point Boulevard (completed 2008) Road Widening IOP Connector EB, 2 lane from US 17 to Rifle Range (completed 2006) Road Widening US 17, 6-lane from I-526 to IOP Connector (completed 2006) New Road Hungryneck Phase III, 3-lane from IOP to Six Mile Road (completed 2009) Road Widening Porcher Bluff, 3-lane from US 17 to Oakland entrance (completed 2006) Road Widening Bowman Road, 3-lane from Mathis Ferry to US 17 (2011)

5 Page 5 of 10 Road Widening Bowman Road, 5-lane from US 17 to HNB II (2013) New Road 2-lane frontage road from Porcher Bluff to South Morgans (completed 2006) Road Widening with Interchange JDB, 6-lane from Ravenel Bridge to I-526 (completed 2013) Road Widening with Interchange US 17, 6-lane from I-526 to HNB (completed 2013) Road Widening US 17, 6-lane from IOP Connector to Darrell Creek (completed 2013) New Signal US 17 at Porcher Bluff (completed 2007) New Signal US 17 at Lexington Drive (completed 2007) 5. During the testing, no links were flagged as requiring mitigation due to significance and adversity testing. Significance was found on US 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard. 6. Year 2015 AM and PM peak hour analyses were conducted to gauge the development s impact on critical intersections. Level of Service D is typically considered acceptable for peak hour traffic operations in urban areas. US 17/Market Center Boulevard LOS B. US 17/Belk Drive LOS B or better. US 17/Northern Full Access Drive Turns from US 17 into the private driveway have acceptable level of service for the Existing, 2015 No-Build and 2015 Build conditions. Turns from the driveway during the AM Peak are LOS C and LOS F in the PM peak for the Build condition. As over 90% of these turns are right-turns and sufficient width is present for a two lane approach, it is recommended that this approach be re-striped for left and through-right laneage. US 17/IOP Connector LOS C. Hungryneck Boulevard/Market Center Boulevard LOS A. Hungryneck Boulevard/Belk Access LOS D or better. The LOS D is for the Belk Access approach during the PM peak. Hungryneck Boulevard/Northern Full Access LOS C or better.

6 Page 6 of 10 Hungryneck Boulevard/IOP Connector LOS B. Capacity will be increased at this intersection when an additional westbound through lane is constructed within the next 12 months. Market Center Boulevard/Lowes-Town Center Driveway Analysis at this intersection was unavailable at the time of the staff report. Staff has requested this intersection be evaluated for level of service and a four-way stop control warrant. While it is suspected that level of service is acceptable, staff has requested consideration be given to the development of a modified/roundabout or minibout to facilitate side street movements at this location. At a minimum, pavement markings should be added to delineate turn lanes for approaches where sufficient width is available. Internal Circulation Comment The developer should retain the internal frontage road circulation toward the northern full access. It appears that repositioning the proposed building could easily accomplish this, as shown in the graphic below. Mr. Chapman asked if the 42 feet is for the proposed expansion. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked about the height of nearby hotels. Ms. Cousino answered that Comfort Inn on Hungryneck Boulevard is 35 feet as is Stockade Lane (proposed hotel site), Residence Inn and Hampton Inn on Isle of Palms Connector received a height variance for 43 feet, Homewood Suites in Seaside Farms is allowed 50 feet according to the development agreement, and Central Mount Pleasant is allowed 65 feet only for the hotel use. Mr. Stuart Whiteside, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, and Gar Muse, architect, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Whiteside stated that they have met with the Sweetgrass and Hidden Lakes HOAs and other surrounding neighbors regarding this request. Mr. Muse reviewed the height request. He stated that the parking garage would include 492 spaces. Mr. Neal asked where the recently-approved townhouse development on Hungryneck Boulevard is located. Ms. Cousino indicated the location on the rendering for the Commission.

7 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Siegrist asked about the shadow the hotel would cast and if it would affect any properties across the street. Mr. Muse answered that the hotel would be approximately 200 feet from Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Siegrist asked if the parking garage would be free of charge. Mr. Muse answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked about parking displaced during construction. Mr. Muse answered that they have a consultant currently reviewing this, but the parking would be completed first and construction would not begin until after the Christmas holiday with completion by fall of Mr. Siegrist asked about the traffic pattern for the hotel. Mr. Mike Ridgeway, traffic engineer for applicant, answered that it would come out of the garage onto Belk Drive or Market Center Boulevard to Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Siegrist asked if there would be direct access to Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Ridgeway answered in the negative. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked about free parking and suggested that there could be an issue if there is a charge. Mr. Ridgeway answered that there are no plans to charge for parking at this time in an effort to keep the project viable. Mr. Neal asked if the Commission has any purview over restricting charge of parking garage. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the negative. Mr. Brimmer asked if there would be designated parking for the hotel. Mr. Muse answered that he is not sure, but the second and third levels would be mainly used for hotel parking. Mr. Brimmer asked if there would be hotel drop-off in the front. Mr. Muse answered in the affirmative and stated that it would accommodate approximately two cars. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked about the possibility of a roundabout. Mr. Ridgeway answered that they have reviewed this and they are looking at Market Center Boulevard near Lowe s, but it does not appear to be warranted at this time. He stated that there are turn lanes for this area that would be striped and there is the possibility of a four-way stop. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with traffic safety at Market Center Boulevard and suggested that this should be a consideration as well. Mr. Ridgeway agreed and stated that the biggest concern would be going straight across the intersection because of the width. Mr. Neal stated that there would be an increase of traffic on Market Center Boulevard because of the Men s store and hotel. Mr. Ridgeway agreed and stated that this was included in the impact assessment. Mr. Brimmer asked if there would be an elevated walkway between the Belk buildings. Mr. Muse answered in the negative. Mr. Richardson asked if the weekend trips were reviewed. Mr. Ridgeway answered in the negative and stated that the peak hour traffic was reviewed as required. Mr. Chapman asked about the circulation in and out of the garage. Mr. Muse answered that there are four accesses to the garage. Mr. Chapman asked if there is direct access to Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Muse answered in the negative. Mr. Chapman asked about trees along Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Muse answered that they would remain. Mr. Chapman asked about retention. Mr. Muse answered that the existing pond would be changed to an underground

8 Page 8 of 10 retention and the pond area converted to parking. Mr. Chapman asked about bus stops on Market Center Boulevard and if bus shelters could be constructed on Market Center Boulevard and near the parking garage. Mr. Muse answered that this is not part of the current plan, but could be considered. Mr. Chapman asked if there would be any retail on the Hungryneck Boulevard side of the garage. Mr. Muse answered in the negative and stated that it would be used for deliveries and showed the proposed elevation to the Commission. Ms. Cousino stated that the parking structure will require design review approval. Ms. Richter-Lehrman asked how the trucks would access the loading docks. Mr. Muse showed the location on the site plan for the Commission and stated that it would be on the first floor of the parking garage. Mr. Middleton asked how many parking spaces would be displaced. Mr. Muse answered that 142 spaces would be initially displaced and with the garage having 492 spaces available when completed. He stated that the final count would be determined during design review approval. Mr. Collins asked if a hotel was already an allowed use. Mr. Whiteside answered in the affirmative and stated that only the additional height is being requested. Mr. Collins asked if retail square footage would increase. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative and noted that the planned development does not limit commercial square footage, but rather it would be controlled by the impact assessment. Mr. Neal asked about moving the building as suggested by Town Transportation Department staff. Mr. Whiteside answered that they are comfortable with staff comments. Mr. Neal asked about drainage and how it would affect the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Whiteside answered that they would work with staff to ensure that all drainage is maintained on site. Mr. Neal suggested that there should be a roundabout to help with traffic mitigation for Market Center Boulevard. Mr. Whiteside answered that they would work with Transportation staff on all these mitigation issues. Mr. Brimmer asked about the north elevation. Mr. Muse answered that this was to show the parking garage along with the hotel and does not show the existing retail building. Mr. Neal asked about the Hungryneck Boulevard elevation and if the surrounding neighborhoods have seen the elevations. Mr. Muse answered in the affirmative and they did not have any issues with the proposal. Mr. Richardson asked the distance from Belk to the hotel. Mr. Muse answered that it is over 200 feet. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Richardson asked if the items should be voted on separately. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the amendment to the planned development as presented including all staff comments. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson suggested that the requested height is not as dramatic as it first appeared particularly with the development of Central Mount Pleasant and suggested that the request is an

9 Page 9 of 10 appropriate use. He stated that it will still require design review approval and has confidence in staff. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the impact assessment and conceptual plan with all staff comments and exploration of further traffic data to include construction of a roundabout or mini-roundabout. Ms. Woods- Flowers seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman moved to amend the motion to include the construction of bus shelters on Hungryneck Boulevard and Market Center Boulevard. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor. D. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to amend the Bridgeside II Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No ) to allow for a modification of the build-to line requirement along Harry M. Hallman, Jr. Boulevard, specifically to allow for consideration of a building setback when public open spaces abut the street. This amendment applies to those portions of an approximately acre tract of land that abut Harry M. Hallman, Jr. Boulevard, which are located near the intersection of Patriots Point and Harry M. Hallman, Jr. Boulevards and are identified by TMS Nos , , , , , , , and Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: This request specifically pertains to build to lines and building setbacks along Harry M. Hallman Jr. Blvd. Currently the Bridgeside planned development ordinance requires a 20 to 30 foot build to line along Harry M. Hallman, Jr. Blvd. The purpose of the build to line is to achieve a strong relationship between the street, pedestrian areas, and buildings similar to the concept of the activity zone in the Urban Corridor Overlay District. With the building layout that was shown on the original concept plan for this development, the 20 to 30 foot build to line could be accomplished. As development plans are being refined and the buildings designed, it has become challenging to accomplish the 20 to 30 foot build to line, especially with the curvature of the road. The developer is now contemplating a public park area in between Hallman Blvd. and the buildings where the road curves. This necessitates a revision to the planned development ordinance to allow a setback rather than the requirement to build to the street. The text amendment proposed by the developer is as follows: o Define the Harry Hallman Blvd. build-to line as follows: build-to line shall be measured from the building to the back of curb. Where public open spaces abut the street, buildings may be set back to create a public realm as determined through the Design Review process. It is important to clarify further the intent of this request so that the build to line and building setback for public open space is appropriately applied along other portions of the boulevard. Where a public open space is created in between the street and the building, no parking shall be permitted and the open space area should be enhanced in a manner to make it clear that it is an area for use by the general public.

10 Page 10 of 10 An illustrative site plan has been provided solely for the purpose of illustrating the concept of the public open space setback. Mr. Brimmer asked if this request is an effort to resolve a problem. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative and stated that this would be to provide public open space along the right-ofway. Mr. Whiteside reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Chapman asked if there would be more open space behind the buildings. Mr. Whiteside answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Brimmer asked how this would affect the overall design concept for the area. Ms. Cousino answered that this is not zoned Waterfront Gateway, but the property on both sides of Harry Hallman are included in this planned development. She stated that it would still accomplish the goal of public open space. She stated that it would require design review approval as well. She stated that many of the Waterfront Gateway elements were included in the planned development. Ms. Woods-Flowers moved for approval of the request. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn