TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

Transcription

1 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC ************************** MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014 Police, Judicial, and Legal Committee Transportation Committee Recreation Committee Finance Committee Economic Development Committee Bids and Purchases Committee Annexation Committee Public Services Committee Fire Committee Water Supply Committee Planning and Development Committee 8:30 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:15 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 12:45 p.m. 1:15 p.m. 1:45 p.m. 2:30 p.m. **************** The following Committee will not meet: Human Resources Committee 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

2 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE POLICE, JUDICIAL, & LEGAL COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :30 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Police matters a. Presentation by Charleston County Consolidated Dispatch b. Request approval to apply for South Carolina Department of Public Safety grant c. Request approval to apply for Justice Assistance grant 3. Judicial matters No agenda items 4. Legal matters a. Consideration of public safety agreement with the College of Charleston 5. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

3

4

5

6

7 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :15 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the November 4, 2013 meeting 2. Impact fee credits for bus shelters 3. Request to name Mathis Ferry/Walt Miller Roundabout Armory Circle 4. Charleston County Transportation Sales Tax and CTC annual project selections 5. Update ongoing projects 6. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

8

9

10

11

12 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE RECREATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :00 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Facility Rental Request a. Park West Track 1. Christ Church March 1st or March 8th, Request approval to apply for South Carolina Park and Recreation Development grant 4. Program/projects update 5. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

13 RECREATION COMMITTEE PROGRAM REPORT JANUARY 1, 2014 ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION REPORT FOR DECEMBER 1. Youth Basketball 2013 = 1, = 1, Youth Cross Country 2013 = = Youth Football 2013 = = 606 (33) 4. Youth Wrestling 2013 = = 46 (3) TOTAL YOUTH 2013 = 1, = 1, Adult Basketball 2013 = = 297 (113) 6. Adult Flag Football 2013 = = Adult Soccer 2013 = = TOTAL ADULTS 2013 = = 734 (87) 8. Tennis 2013 = = PROGRAMMING PARTICIPATION REPORT FOR DECEMBER 1. Swim Lessons 2013 = = 207 (13) 2. Senior Center Members 2013 = 2, = 2, UPCOMING EVENTS IN JANUARY a. January 16 Free Skateboarding Day at the R. L. Jones Center b. January 20 Sock Hop at the Town Hall Gym FACILITY STATUS a. All Town/other fields are currently closed. PROGRAM/ATHLETIC REGISTRATIONS January 12 27, Spring Sports Registration

14 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE FINANCE COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :15 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Request by Moultrie News to support 50 th anniversary celebration 3. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

15

16

17

18

19

20 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :45 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Overview of Economic Development Strategy 3. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

21 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE BIDS AND PURCHASES COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :15 a.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Award of Wando Park Boulevard improvement project 3. Procurement process and procedures 4. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

22 REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION (12/18/13) To: From: Project Manager: Bids and Purchases Committee Jill Callihan, Purchasing Agent Gary Ponder, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Re-bid of Long Point Road & Wando Park Boulevard Intersection Improvements IFB # JC BACKGROUND: This project was originally advertised under Invitation for Bids # JC, but no bids were received. Staff followed up with bidders to determine why no bids were submitted for this project. In discussion with potential bidders and Charleston County, we were able to determine that there was a large number of construction projects advertised during this period and that contractor s existing construction commitments were not conducive to bidders being able to submit a bid. Purchasing re-bid the project with a bid opening date of December 5, One bid was received from Gulf Stream Construction Company Inc. in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Four and 88/100 ($269,304.88) Dollars. Construction time for this project will be ninety (90) calendar days from the start date which will be established in the Notice to Proceed. Purchasing and Transportation Staff reviewed the Bid and our determination is that Gulf Stream Construction Company, Inc. is a responsive and responsible Bidder. RECOMMENDATION: Purchasing Staff recommends entering into a contract with Gulf Stream Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Four and 88/100 ($269,304.88) Dollars which is within budget. Thank you for your consideration. cc: M. Smith K. Glasson G. Santos C. Potts B. Morrison J. Crates R. Griles G. Ponder File

23 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :00 p.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the November 4, 2013 meeting 2. Request to annex an approximately 0.60 parcel of land comprised of approximately 0.35 acres of high land and 0.25 acres of marsh land, known as Lot 21, Block E located at 1812 Omni Boulevard in Raven s Run subdivision and identified by TMS No Request to annex an approximately 1.68 parcel of land known as Lot 3, located at 530 Commonwealth Road, Commonwealth II subdivision and identified by TMS No Request to annex thirteen parcels of land comprising approximately acres, located on Harry Robinson Road at or near its intersection with Six Mile Road, and identified by TMS Nos , , , , , , , , , , , , and Harry Robinson Road, a 50-foot, unimproved, private right-of-way is proposed to be incorporated into the development. 5. Presentation on Annexation Plan to include performance measures 6. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77 Town of Mount Pleasant Annexation Plan 2013 The Town of Mount Pleasant Four Year Strategic Plan includes a goal to promote annexation of unincorporated properties as a means to solidify the community, create service efficiencies, and ensure fairness among taxpayers. The Town s Comprehensive Plan for includes a similar goal to guide annexation policy to promote efficient service provision, to foster an inclusive and diverse community, and to consider strategic implications regarding the growth of other nearby municipalities. The purpose of this document is to establish a plan to achieve those goals outlined by both Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Preamble The Town of Mount Pleasant understands that a moderate and manageable rate of residential and business growth is necessary and desirable to provide those services which are common to an orderly society and that also provide for the health, welfare, and prosperity of citizens and businesses within the corporate limits. The Town land use policies and comprehensive plan seek to provide uniform planning to foster a healthy pattern of land uses related to livability, transportation, and public health. Undeveloped areas around Mount Pleasant will develop in time, whether they are in the Town or in the unincorporated areas. The Town seeks to include these areas within the umbrella of our comprehensive planning to achieve a consistent and well-ordered land use pattern. We believe that our residents expect future development in and around Mount Pleasant to meet our high development standards. That can only be assured if the area is within our land use planning jurisdiction and particularly within the corporate limits of the Town. Additionally, the Town is effectively prevented from expanding its borders to the east, west, and south due to geography and political boundaries. The only option for long term healthy expansion for the Town is to the north and northeast along US Highway 17 North. As the Town has grown, pockets of land have not been annexed because of restrictive state laws that make involuntary annexations difficult. A result has been inconsistent service delivery throughout the area. One property may enjoy all municipal services, while an adjacent property may not because it lies outside of the municipal corporate limits. Mount Pleasant has become a regional market economically. As a result, the Town will have to continue to expand services for its citizens, visitors, and those who simply are passing through the Town on a daily basis. The majority of the costs for providing services and infrastructure fall primarily upon the residents and businesses of the Town. For costs of services and facilities to be shared in the most equitable manner, it is important that any city broaden the base of tax support as the demand for service increases. Certainly, a planned and thoughtful expansion of the Town s boundaries through annexation is one primary means of expanding that tax base, and thus strengthening the ability of the municipality to pay for services for an area greater even than its corporate limits. Demand for such services may include, water and sewer

78 facilities, police, fire and emergency services, all of which generally do not respect political boundaries. The Town of Mount Pleasant annexation plan, when adopted, will provide a policy road map for the Town Council and it will detail the basic strategies that the Town staff will follow in soliciting annexations. While it is not the intention of the Town to usurp the rights of individual property owners through a purposeful annexation strategy, it would be irresponsible for municipal officials to not consider the broader long term view of municipal services delivery and cost; and the security of present and future residents. A well thought out annexation strategy is a critical tool for the development of a comprehensive planning process, particularly in a rapidly urbanizing area. Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan Goals The Town s Four Year Strategic Plan addresses annexation as a means to solidify the community, create service efficiencies, and ensure fairness among taxpayers. Likewise, the Town s Comprehensive Plan for addresses a need to have an annexation policy in order promote efficient service provision, to foster an inclusive and diverse community, and to consider strategic implications regarding the growth of other nearby municipalities. Efficient and Equitable Service Residents of the Town of Mount Pleasant benefit from a variety of high quality services, including water and wastewater services, fire and emergency medical response, police, recreation, stormwater drainage services and facilities, sanitation services and general public works and maintenance. Many of the services provided by the Town of Mount Pleasant have been awarded or accredited as confirmation of their proven high quality. However, the Town s planning area is comprised of a patchwork of incorporated and unincorporated properties, some located on the periphery of the current Town boundary and others completely encircled by the Town in unincorporated pockets located within more urban, developed areas. Residents and businesses located in either these outer edges or within these pockets are not served uniformly. Some County residents receive police and fire protection services from the town through contracts between the county and the town. Other County residents receive these services from the County Sherrif s department or the County s Consolidated Awendaw Fire District. These conditions pose different issues with respect to efficiency and equitability of service provision. County residents that do not pay taxes to the Town nevertheless still place burdens upon the Town s infrastructure. Continuing to work towards a compact and contiguous area for the provision of urban services is one area where additional efficiencies can be gained. By annexing unincorporated areas, the Town will improve the efficiencies of service provision and add to the tax base for the Town. Efforts to annex these unincorporated pockets will also solidify the community as described in the Strategic Plan. As it stands now, one

79 property owner may receive Town services while an adjacent property owner does not. Clearly it is more efficient, effective, and a better use of resources to have neighboring properties served by the same jurisdiction. In order to best accomplish this, it will be increasingly important to coordinate land use designations at jurisdictional boundaries to ensure land use compatibility with adjoining local governments, as disparate land uses may encourage jurisdictional shopping and act as an impediment to annexation. Annexations on the edge of Town should be considered carefully for their potential impacts on public services provided. The Town is currently planning for some areas that are intended to stay rural in nature, and consideration may be given to limiting the extension of certain types of infrastructure beyond the urban growth boundary line. A large area is designated as Rural Conservation land, covering all of the planning area outside the Urban Growth Boundary including the Ten Mile and Beehive Communities and the new areas of Cat Island, Paradise Island, and Woodville. Areas designated as Rural Conservation are intended for either agricultural or rural residential uses, with very low densities. Inclusive and Diverse Community Another aspect relative to annexation as provided in the Comprehensive Plan is the recommendation for a diverse and inclusive Mount Pleasant where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed and invited to participate in the community. The Town embraces an open door policy with respect to annexation. A specified challenge and opportunity is to better integrate traditional African-American communities into the Town of Mount Pleasant. Several of these communities have existed for generations in what remained essentially rural areas with few or no services. Suburban growth has migrated to these former rural areas, which now provides an enhanced opportunity for annexation. Over time, entire communities such as Remley s Point, Greenhill and Whitehall Terrace have been annexed into the Town, as well as portions of the Snowden, Four Mile and Six Mile communities, enabling their residents to now enjoy the full range of high-quality public services offered by the Town. The plan therefore encourages the annexation of these developed unincorporated communities in order to provide them with enhanced neighborhood services, while recognizing the importance of maintaining the physical and cultural aspects of traditional African-American communities found in the planning area. Strategic Implications of the Growth of Nearby Municipalities A number of properties within the Town s planning area are under Charleston County jurisdiction. Since the Town is located entirely within the boundary of Charleston County, a strong need for coordination on both land use and public service provision is necessary. Because of the patchwork of incorporated and unincorporated areas within the Town s planning area, it is particularly important to ensure a continuity of land use policy and avoid land use conflicts across jurisdictional boundaries.

80 The Town of Mount Pleasant is also affected by the land use, transportation, and environmental decisions made by other governing authorities in the area. For example, development in the adjacent Town of Awendaw is likely to have potential traffic impacts along the US 17 corridor and beyond. In general, the Town should take an active role in regional and Charleston County planning efforts to coordinate land use, transportation, and environmental decision making whenever multiple jurisdictions have overlapping interests in the Town of Mount Pleasant planning area and beyond. Moreover, more specifically, the Town of Mount Pleasant must remain cognizant of the implications of expansion of the adjacent municipalities comprising the City of Charleston and the Town of Awendaw. Current state annexation laws constrain the expansion of municipalities to contiguous properties. Once a municipality has annexed certain territory, it cannot then be utilized to provide contiguity for an adjacent municipality. Because of the physical location of the existing corporate limits of the Town of Mount Pleasant in relation to those of the City of Charleston and Town of Awendaw as well as corresponding geographical constraints, the expansion of one or both of the adjacent municipalities can have the practical effect of cutting off any future expansion of the Town of Mount Pleasant. The Town of Mount Pleasant should, therefore, vigorously defend against this possibility and ensure that annexation endeavors by the adjacent municipalities that could have this effect are accomplished in full compliance with all legal requirements.

81 Annexation Plan Specific Policy and Strategies The Town of Mount Pleasant Annexation Plan details those strategies that the Town staff will follow in pursuing annexations and it provides specific policy for the Town Council. The implementation strategy, over time, will address most, if not all, issues addressed in the preamble to the annexation plan. A well thought out annexation strategy is a critical tool for accomplishing those goals set forth in both the Strategic and Comprehensive Plans. Existing strategies and policies must be further enhanced while new ones are also established and actively pursued by the Town. In order for the Town to be successful with its annexation plans, we must continue to develop and implement specific policies and additional tools that enhance our efforts. It will be the policy of the Town that all types of annexations will be pursued to include commercial and residential, developed and undeveloped, and annexations involving one or multiple properties and property owners. The staff and Council will follow all applicable state and local rules in reviewing and processing annexation petitions, and will expect surrounding jurisdictions to do likewise. The town will utilize all means available to protect its interests, including the consideration of legal action, if necessary. The Town of Mount Pleasant will endeavor to solicit the annexation of all properties until such time that all properties lying within the Town s Planning Area become part of the corporate limits of Mount Pleasant. This is not necessarily intended to impose a strict limitation upon the Town s annexation endeavors to this area and Council may consider annexations of properties beyond the specified planning area boundaries. Council s actions in response to any request for annexation into the Town shall be predicated upon their determination of what is in the best interest of the Town s residents. The Planning staff will assist with implementation of the plan via the Comprehensive Plan and the Town zoning code, by assisting Council with strategic analysis associated with potential annexations. It shall be the intent of the Town to provide all regular town services available to current citizens immediately upon annexation, except where travel distances may cause a reasonable delay for the provision of those services. A plan will be developed to address any expected delays in the delivery of normal daily services. The Town will coordinate land use and other planning efforts with nearby jurisdictions in an effort to safeguard that those actions by adjacent jurisdictions do not negatively impact the residents and businesses of the Town, to ensure compatibility with the standards of the Town, and to reduce jurisdictional shopping. The Town will fully utilize the existing favorable property tax advantage available in certain segments of the Town to encourage annexations. Because of diversified revenue streams and efficient management of its fiscal resources, the Town of Mount Pleasant has been able to keep taxes from rising. In some cases, the current tax structure actually provides for a lower property tax levy for a qualified residence in the Town compared with unincorporated Charleston County. Access to the

82 Town s high-quality services for less property tax makes annexation onto the Town more appealing. o Recently Charleston County Council voted to raise the property tax millage rate by four mills from 28.9 to 32.9 mills for the 2012 tax year for properties located in its Consolidated Awendaw Fire District. This is 5.4 mills less than the Town of Mount Pleasant millage rate of 38.3 mills. Because of the Local Option Sales Tax Credit factor for the Town, Town of Mount Pleasant taxes are actually less than County taxes for a qualified 4% residential property located in the Awendaw Consolidated Fire District. However, it should be noted that for those properties located in the East Cooper Fire District, the millage rate is only 19.1 mills The Town staff will develop an annexation component on its online website that in addition to an explanation of benefits, will provide an accessible and user-friendly on-line tax calculator so residents and businesses can easily compare taxes between jurisdictions. o Town staff has created an Excel spreadsheet calculator that compares taxes between the three fire tax districts. This will make it easy and convenient for property owners to compare taxes between the districts. This calculator will be posted on the Town s website so that property owners can easily compare taxes between jurisdictions. The Town will analyze contract service areas for greater efficiency and equity, in particular, the East Cooper Fire District and review those contracts with Charleston County within the next year. o The Town currently provides fire and first responder medical assistance services to portions of unincorporated Charleston County through a contract. As previously mentioned, the millage rate for East Cooper Fire District is 19.1 mills while the Consolidated Awendaw Fire District millage rate is 32.9 mills, a difference of 13.8 mills. County residents in the East Cooper Fire District enjoy the same fire protection services as residents in the Town and better than their counterparts in the Consolidated Awendaw Fire District at fraction of the cost to both. Specific annexation strategies which have already been incorporated as part of the Town s efforts include cooperation and coordination with Mount Pleasant Waterworks regarding the provision of sewer service and the rate structure charged for this service as well as a credit for Town of Mount Pleasant business license fees. Both of these strategies have proven to be successful tools for the Town of Mount Pleasant. Provision of Sewer Service and Rates: Section of the Town Code of Ordinances regarding Public Works provides that contiguous properties are either required to annex as a condition of sewer service provision, or Council may deny annexation and allow service without annexation. This is a Council decision made after a review and recommendation from its Annexation Committee. Non-contiguous properties, as a general rule, will be provided sewer service if the intended development is in compliance with the Town s Comprehensive Plan

83 recommendations. If the proposed development is not in compliance with the Town s Comprehensive Plan recommendations, service may be provided if supported by the Town Council through a review and recommendation from its Water Supply Committee. Prior to sewer service provision, owners of noncontiguous properties must record a covenant agreement that runs with the land to annex the property if it becomes contiguous in the future. Also, as requested by the Town to facilitate annexation, Mount Pleasant Waterworks revised its rate structure, charging a higher rate for sewer service for unincorporated properties. The rates are slightly higher for 4% assessed properties, but are double for 6% assessed properties. An example of a recent annexation resulting from implementation of this strategy was the annexation of a 256 unit condominium complex which was located in unincorporated Charleston County on a large tract of land centrally located within the Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Area. Business License: As an incentive for annexation, the Town has already adopted into the Code of Ordinances a provision allowing that any existing business on a property newly annexed into the town is exempt from business license fees for the license year in which the property is annexed, in addition to an exemption for the subsequent full license year. This also has proven to be a successful tool in further accomplishing strategic annexations and serves as an important incentive in encouraging existing businesses operating in unincorporated Charleston County to annex into the Town. For example, the Town annexed an established and successful gas station that was operating in unincorporated Charleston County. For this business, the annexation in to the Town resulted in a savings of over a year s worth of business license fees. Conclusion It is our hope that successful implementation of the strategies outlined in this Annexation Plan will solidify our community, create service efficiencies, and ensure fairness among taxpayers. Successful implementation will also ensure that future generations possess sufficient land to naturally expand as a community.

84 Town of Mount Pleasant Annexation Plan Performance Measurements Created: September 2013 INTRODUCTION In December of 2012, Mount Pleasant Town Council approved the Town s 2013 Annexation Plan. The plan provides clear directions to elected officials and staff members who are charged with this effort. For decades, Mount Pleasant, along with many other municipalities in the state, has recognized the importance of expanding municipal boundaries through annexation. However, the State of South Carolina s restrictive annexation laws have made success in this endeavor difficult to achieve. The current state law dictates that a municipality must have the property owner s consent, with few exceptions, to annex the property into the municipality. While this law serves to protect the individual property owner, it does so at the expense of the rest of the community. The limitations imposed by this law have been the main deterrents of local government growth and home rule capabilities for many years. As a result of the significant impact of this law on a local government s ability to protect its own citizens and assets, 270 incorporated municipalities combined their voices and resources to establish the Municipal Association of South Carolina in The range of subjects has increased beyond just annexation these days, but the association still operates by their founding principle of providing local governments with the tools and knowledge they need in order to provide efficient and effective services to their citizens. Mount Pleasant officials and staff have undertaken significant efforts to assess potential properties and to contact property owners about the benefits of annexation. Regardless of the effort put forth and the availability of some of the best benefits and incentives, some property owners are still reluctant to annex their properties into the Town while still others face challenges making annexation difficult. It is unlikely that state law will change in the near future and therefore, the Town of Mount Pleasant established this Annexation Plan as a means to promote annexation as the necessary act that it is. Through the successful annexation of certain properties, the Town will be able to provide better protection of assets and service efficiencies to residents. The Town of Mount Pleasant Annexation Plan identifies several goals of annexation, which are outlined in the Town s Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan. These goals are listed below. Goals of the Annexation Plan: 1. Solidify the community. 2. Ensure fairness among tax-payers. 3. Create service efficiencies. 4. Foster an inclusive and diverse community. 5. Consider strategic implications regarding the growth of nearby municipalities.

85 It is important to measure the effectiveness of any plan. So, as called for in the Town of Mount Pleasant Strategic Plan, the following performance measures have been developed. The measures should be considered as important supplements to the Annexation Plan. They are both broad and specific in order to measure progress in an area in which the Town has limited authority. PERFORMANCE MEASURES Goal #1- Solidify the community. Definition: a solidified community is one in which all properties located within the geographic limits of the Town of Mount Pleasant are also part of the corporate limits of the Town of Mount Pleasant and therefore subject to the laws of Mount Pleasant and recipients of the Town s public services. Goal #1 Objective Inputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Solidify the community. Provide a dedicated Planning staff member who will be responsible for organizing and leading efforts to annex additional, and especially critical, properties into the Town of Mount Pleasant. Staff member, staff time and resources, technology, web capabilities. Active pursuit of the annexation of all properties located within the Town s geographic limits through increased efforts to educate property owners about the benefits of annexing into the Town. Property tax comparison module. Annexation webpage. Development of an annexation strategy which will identify the properties that will be pursued, and in what order. Outcomes/Impact Property owners are more informed about the benefits of annexing into the Town. Outcomes/Impact number of property owners contacted since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact number of tax assessment comparisons completed and sent to property owners as directed by the annexation strategy since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact number of annexation information packets sent to property owners since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact number of properties pursued since January 1 of the current calendar year. Goal #1 Objective Inputs Solidify the community. Target those properties located within the doughnut holes of the community by providing property owners with information about the benefits of annexation. Staff time and resources.

86 Outputs Tax comparison calculator and annexation webpage. Outcomes/Impact Property owners are more informed about the benefits of annexing into the Town. Outcomes/Impact number of doughnut hole property owners contacted since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact number of tax comparisons completed and sent to property owners of doughnut hole properties since January 1 of the current calendar year. Goal #2- Ensure fairness among tax-payers. Definition: fairness among tax-payers consists of an equitable share of the burden of cost for public services that are provided by the Town to its residents. Some of these services include: once per week trash and garbage pick-up, public safety from nationally accredited police, fire, and building departments, reduced fees on recreation and business licensing, and many more. The costs for other services, such as water and sewer connections, transportation infrastructure, and public utilities should also be shared equitably among tax-payers. Those individuals who receive these services but do not pay for them because they have not annexed into the Town, create the disparity among tax-paying service recipients. Goal #2 Objective Inputs Outputs Outputs Ensure fairness among tax-payers. Ensure that no sewer connections are established by Mount Pleasant Waterworks to properties which are not part of the Town, without MPWW first obtaining a signed covenant wastewater agreement by the property owner. Staff time and resources, legal review. Town s Legal Department to send revised covenant document to MPWW. MPWW requires all noncontiguous property owners sign a covenant and have the covenant approved by the Town s Legal Department before establishing a wastewater connection to the property. Town of Mount Pleasant Legal Department received number of signed covenant agreements since the approval of the covenant. Outcomes/ Impact Outcomes/Impact MPWW provided sewer connections to number of noncontiguous properties since the approval of the agreement form. Goal #3- Create service efficiencies. Definition: The Town of Mount Pleasant continuously seeks ways to provide public services in more effective and efficient ways to its residents. Unincorporated properties which are located within the Town s planning area, particularly those which are otherwise surrounded by incorporated Town of Mount Pleasant properties, create contiguity issues between Town properties and affect the efficient provision of service. Because the unincorporated properties may hinder the ability of Town staff and officials

87 to provide efficient service to its residents, the Town will pursue the annexation of all properties located within the geographic limits of Mount Pleasant in order to establish a contiguous area of properties. Goal #3 Objective Inputs Outputs Outputs Create service efficiencies. Review the public safety service contracts. Planning, Legal, Executive, and Administrative staff time and resources. Creation of annexation maps to better identify critical properties. Map 1: public service districts Map 2: jurisdictional boundaries Map 3: doughnut hole properties within the Town s limits Town of Mount Pleasant Staff to make a list of proposed changes to public safety service contracts. Outcomes/Impact Town staff hosted number of meetings with Charleston County to discuss the proposed changes to public safety service contracts, particularly the East Cooper Fire District Contract. Outcomes/Impact number of annual calls Mount Pleasant staff has responded to under the public safety contracts. Total to be measured based on the fiscal year. Outcomes/Impact total cost of service for providing public safety to other jurisdictions based on the public safety contracts. To be measured by fiscal year. Outcomes/Impact total payment received by the Town for the provision of public safety to other jurisdictions. To be measured by fiscal year. Outcomes/Impact Creation of favorable conditions whereby Town Council can negotiate for changes in the public safety contracts which will then enable Town staff to provide more efficient and equitable service to its residents. Goal #4- Foster an inclusive and diverse community. Definition: The Town of Mount Pleasant seeks to foster an inclusive and diverse community through the preservation of our historical and cultural assets. In order to cultivate a community that is welcoming to all citizens, the Town will work to accommodate the unique challenges and opportunities that accompany the annexation of different properties and communities into the Town. Goal #4 Objective Inputs Outputs Foster an inclusive and diverse community. Better integrate traditional African-American communities into the Town of Mount Pleasant. Town staff time, resources, and research. Creation of the zoning use table, which includes solutions to unique challenges, such as nonconforming uses, that properties within traditional African American settlement communities may encounter when attempting to annex into the Town of Mount Pleasant.

88 Outcomes/Impact Preservation of the cultural and physical aspects of the African- American communities by providing for more flexibility in the zoning code. Goal #4 Objective Inputs Outputs Foster an inclusive and diverse community. Collaborate with other agencies and organizations to overcome challenges that make annexing heirs properties into the Town of Mount Pleasant particularly difficult. Some of these challenges include: determining a list of all heirs to a particular property, locating all heirs, and acquiring all heirs signatures for annexation. Planning, Legal, and Executive staff time and resources in research, meeting time with outside agencies. Town staff should attempt to partner with recognized groups such as the Center for Heirs Property Preservation to better understand the challenges and opportunities facing heirs properties and work towards resolving some of the known issues that make the annexation of heirs properties difficult. Outcomes/Impact Find solutions to some of the known challenges regarding the annexation of heirs property, which will result in the annexation of more heirs property into the Town of Mount Pleasant. Goal #4 Objective Inputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Foster and inclusive and diverse community. Actively pursue the annexation of all properties including those commercial and residential, developed and undeveloped. Staff time and resources, printed material, technology. Business license fee incentive offered. Study of additional potential incentives to offer to businesses that locate within the Town (to be completed as part of the Business Development Strategy). Planning staff to compile cost comparisons for commercial, residential, undeveloped, and developed properties to determine the costs of living, working, developing, and conducting business in the Town of Mount Pleasant as opposed to other areas. Outcomes/Impact Since January 1 of the current calendar year: number of commercial properties annexed. number of residential properties annexed into the Town. Outcomes/Impact Since January 1 of the current calendar year: number of undeveloped properties annexed. number of developed properties annexed into the Town. Outcomes/Impact Number of property owners for each category contacted and provided with information about the benefits of annexation since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact The Town of Mount Pleasant will be more inclusive of a more diverse group of properties.

89 Goal #5- Consider the strategic implications regarding the growth of nearby municipalities. Definition- The restrictive state laws that regulate a municipality s ability to annex property have significant impact on the Town s ability to provide efficient and equitable service to all citizens. It also limits the Town s ability to protect its citizens and its assets from the impact that occurs as a result of the development of a neighboring municipality. It is therefore critical that the Town monitor annexations of neighboring municipalities and make every attempt to coordinate land use across jurisdictional boundaries as much as possible. Goal #5 Consider strategic implications regarding the growth of nearby municipalities. Objective Challenge the annexations of other municipalities that may not have been conducted in full compliance with the state laws. Inputs Significant legal, planning, and executive staff time. Town money in legal fees. Outputs Review of all annexations that occur in areas of close proximity to the Town s legal boundaries. Outputs Challenge the legality of the annexation of any properties located in close proximity to the Town s jurisdictional boundaries, which may not have been conducted in full compliance with the state laws. Outcomes/Impact Ensure that all annexations which may significantly impact the Town s ability to grow have been conducted in full compliance with all state and local laws. Goal #5 Objective Inputs Outputs Outputs Consider strategic implications regarding the growth of nearby municipalities. Coordinate land use designations with neighboring municipalities and counties. Planning staff time and resources. Attend meetings between the Town of Mount Pleasant, the Town of Awendaw, Charleston County, Berkeley County, and the City of Charleston to review land use designations of properties in close proximity to Mount Pleasant and to discuss upcoming developments, challenges, and opportunities. Staff conducted number of strategic analyses for potential annexations. Outcomes/Impact Better coordination of land use designations so as to create similar uses of the land and minimize the negative impact that may occur as a result of dissimilar development patterns. Land use coordination will also discourage jurisdictional shopping. Outcomes/Impact number of annexations completed and zoned to a land use designation other than the one suggested by the Comprehensive Plan since January 1 of the current calendar year.

90 Outcomes/Impact Planning staff to create and present to the appropriate body a document that indicates the total number of acres annexed into the Town since January 1 of the current calendar year. Outcomes/Impact Increased protection of Town residents, property, and assets.

91 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :45 p.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Employee years of service recognition 3. Discussion regarding trash and garbage collection 4. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

92 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE FIRE COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :15 p.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Employee years of service recognition 3. Presentation of site plan, layout, and illustrations of new Fire Station Six 4. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

93 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE WATER SUPPLY COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :45 p.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 4, 2013 meeting 2. Mount Pleasant Waterworks change in meter routes 3. Mount Pleasant Waterworks reducing penalty charges for late payment 4. Follow up to the Mount Pleasant Waterworks presentation at the last Water Supply Committee meeting 5. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

94 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, JANUARY 6, :30 p.m. Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the December 2, 2013 meeting 2. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the December 18, 2013 meeting a. Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to R-3, Medium Density Residential District, an approximately 0.30 acre parcel of land known as Lot 93, Mount Pleasant Heights, located at 744 Atlantic Street and identified by TMS No b. Request to amend the Watermark Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by adding automotive uses, such as garages or shops for the repair and servicing of motor vehicles, equipment, or machine parts, as an additional permitted use on two parcels of land, one comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-A, located at 1314 Stuart Engals Boulevard, and identified by TMS No ; the other comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-B, located at 1320 Stuart Engals Boulevard and identified by TMS No Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

95 c. Request for approval for a project identified as Six Mile Subdivision i. Request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation of the fifteen parcels of land described below from Community Conservation to Medium Density Neighborhood. ii. Request to zone RPH, Patio House Residential District, thirteen parcels of land comprising approximately acres, located on Harry Robinson Road at or near its intersection with Six Mile Road, and identified by TMS Nos , , , , , , , , , , , , and These thirteen parcels of land are requested to be excluded from the SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. Harry Robinson Road, a 50-foot, unimproved, private right-of-way is proposed to be incorporated into the development. Also request to rezone from CC, Community Conservation District, and SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, two parcels of land described as follows: (1) an approximately 2.95 acre parcel of land known as Lot 1, Part Parcel B, Liberty Hill subdivision, located on Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No ; and (2) an approximately 1.41 acre parcel of land known as Lot 2, Part Parcel B, Liberty Hill subdivision, located on Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No iii. Request for Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan approval. 3. Request to amend the Watermark Development Agreement by adding automotive uses, such as garages or shops for the repair and servicing of motor vehicles, equipment, or machine parts, as an additional permitted use on two parcels of land, one comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-A, located at 1314 Stuart Engals Boulevard, and identified by TMS No ; the other comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-B, 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

96 located at 1320 Stuart Engals Boulevard and identified by TMS No Review of proposed text amendments to the Town of Mount Pleasant Sign Ordinance (Ord. No ) 5. Review of Shem Creek dredging project by US Army Corps of Engineers representative 6. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

97 DISCLAIMER: These minutes are considered a draft until reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2013 DRAFT MINUTES Present: Staff: Roy Neal, Chair, Alice Richter-Lehrman, Ben Bryson, Bob Brimmer, Nick Collins, Cheryll Woods-Flowers, Howard Chapman, Phil Siegrist, Todd Richardson Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Brad Morrison, Kent Prause, Kelly Cousino, Kevin Mitchell, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes A. November 7 special meeting B. November 20 regular meeting Ms. Richter-Lehrman moved for approval of the minutes from the November 7 th and Nov 20 th meetings. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Correspondence A. Update on Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Chapman asked about the recommendations to the Sign ordinance. Ms. Cousino answered that it was deferred. Ms. Farrell stated that it would be on the January 2014 Planning Committee agenda. B. Correspondence and General Public Statements Ms. Cousino stated that one additional item of correspondence was received prior to the meeting and distributed this to the Commission. Ms. Sally Simmons, 943 Kincade Dr., expressed concern with removal of trees at Warrick. She also expressed concern with the property being in the flood zone and having to be built up and impacting an existing drainage problem. Mr. Ed Bartko, 126 Hibben St, expressed concern with the Earl s Court project and asked the Commission to deny the request. He expressed concern with sight line issues at the intersection of Mary and Hibben streets. He suggested that because it has been approved in phases, there was not an opportunity to see the overall impact of traffic. Mr. Bernard Mazyck, 1265 Six Mile Road, expressed concern with the project on Harry Robinson Road. He asked if there would be adequate sewer and water services. He expressed concern with development in the Six Mile community and increased impact to traffic and drainage. Mr. Tom Utsey, 813 Pitt St, expressed concern with the Earl s Court project. He suggested that the citizens should not have to plead with the Commission to be reasonable and not approve the project. He stated that he understands that Earl s Court is a done deal, but expressed frustration with the Commission who are citizen volunteers elected by Town Council and seemingly not listening to the residents.

98 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 2 of 24 Mr. Jeff Kirkland, 817 Pitt St, stated that he has read in detail the UC-OD, supporting documentation, and the many violations of the developer for Earl s Court. He stated that there was a conference call regarding these violations and that the town attorney has endorsed almost all of the violations. He stated that the parking plan is in violation of SCDOT regulations. He stated that even though these violations have been brought to the Town s attention, a stop work order would not be issued and expressed concern with this. He suggested that it was wayward of the Town to allow that much liability to be assumed by the developer and the Town. Ms. Carmen Scott, 506 Royall Ave, stated that there are several issues with the proposed parking plan and sketch plan for Phase 3 and whether the parking can be accommodated. She stated that there are several safety issues related to the parking. She suggested that the angled parking would not be approved by SCDOT. She suggested that the determination of the ordinance regarding delay of the project is that the Commission must act and suggested that issues with the parking is a sufficient reason for deferral. Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 207 William St, expressed concern with the number of violations with Earl s Court and suggested that if allowed to go forward, it would be a travesty. He stated that he feels ignored and frustrated. He suggested the Commission should not approve Phase 3 and should uphold the wishes of the residents. Ms. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend St, expressed concern with Earl s Court and expressed concern with pedestrian safety. She stated that the intersection is already dangerous and additional buildings will add to the visibility problems. She suggested that Phase 3 should be denied. Ms. Ann Edwards, 100 Venning St, expressed concern with Earl s Court and agreed with Mr. Bagwell that there should be representation of the residents. She expressed concern with narrowing of Whilden Street. She thanked the Commission for listening to the residents concerns. Mr. James Scott, 506 Royall Ave, concurred with other comments regarding the Earl s Court project. He stated that there have been over 1, 000 signatures in opposition of this project. He agreed with Mr. Brimmer s comment that this project has been approved in phases and there has not been an opportunity to look at the project comprehensively. He suggested that this project should be looked at as a whole. Mr. Greg Fisher, 212 River St, stated that he recently purchased his home and was aware of the Earl s Court project and that it would be similar to I On and was not opposed to that. He stated that later on he learned of the commercial and parking issues and expressed concern with pedestrian and child safety. He suggested that this would change the character of the Old Village and asked that this be considered. Mr. Jim Raih, 39 Cameron Blvd, IOP, suggested that the Commission has done a good job in upholding the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that in moving forward, the Commission should take their time in making any changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Alys Campaign, 43 Vincent Drive, stated that there was ample opportunity to make comments on the UC-OD and she looks forward to future development and implementation of the UC-OD as it would be more pedestrian friendly.

99 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 3 of 24 Mr. Miles Martschink, 959 Pitt St, stated that the residential component of Earl s Court is not as disturbing as the commercial aspect and the lack of parking for the commercial uses. He stated that based on the proposed commercial, approximately 60 spaces would be required. He stated that the Old Village is not set up for on-street parking. He suggested that this project is not in character with the Old Village. He stated that he is in favor of the UC-OD, but not in favor of the amount of commercial use without sufficient onsite parking. Mr. Richardson moved amend the agenda to have item 4A out of proper order behind 5H so that they may be heard in order. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked if this was a proper motion. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative and stated that it must have a 2/3 majority vote. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 3. Old Business A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for a portion of Earl s Court, 6 residential lots and 1 commercial lot, all zoned AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-CBS, Coleman Boulevard-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District, to be located on an approximately acre parcel of land known as Lot 67, Block 4, located at 414 Whilden Street, and identified by TMS No DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 23 rd and NOVEMBER 20 th MEETINGS. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Sketch plan for Earl s Court was approved on 11/16/2011 and included five parcels totaling acres. Preliminary plat for Phase 1, which included six residential lots, was approved on 01/18/2012. In February 2013, the Commission approved a modification to the on-street parking requirements. Original approval required provision of on-street parking prior to final plat approval for any portion of the development; modified approval allows on-street parking to be provided when the commercial portion of the project develops. On-street parking will require an approved encroachment permit from the S.C. Department of Transportation. Applicant acquired an additional parcel (TMS No ) that was incorporated into the development via Planning Commission approval of a revised plan on 07/24/2013. Applicant acquired an additional parcel (TMS No ) that was incorporated into the development via Planning Commission approval of a revised plan on 08/21/2013, increasing the total development acreage to approximately 1.31 acres. New acreage yields a maximum density of 26 DUs. Preliminary plat for Phase 2 was approved on October 23, PROPOSAL The current request is for approval of the preliminary plat for Phase 3, located on TMS No (corner of Whilden Street & May Lane). Phase 3 is comprised of 7 residential lots/units and an existing commercial building. STAFF COMMENTS

100 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 4 of As reflected in the draft minutes, the Commission voted to defer this item again in order for the Town to define the parking backing out onto Whilden Street with the construction being over 50%. 2. No specific code section was referenced in the motion; however Zoning Code (C)(2) appears applicable as it requires that any non-conforming building or structure that is renovated, repaired, altered or otherwise improved by more than 50% of its reasonable replacement value at the time of renovation, repair, or alteration shall be brought into conformance with all applicable sections of the zoning code, including parking. A copy of the specific code wording is provided below for reference: NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. (C) Repairs, alterations, and maintenance. (2) Any nonconforming building or structure that is renovated, repaired, altered or otherwise improved by more than 50% of its reasonable replacement value at the time of renovation, repair, or alteration shall be brought into conformance with all applicable sections of this zoning code. This shall include the upgrading of the site to meet landscaping, buffering, parking, stormwater, and other applicable requirements. 3. The parking requirements applicable to this property are those the Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements division of Chapter 156 or those of Zoning Code 329, UC- OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District. 4. Zoning Code (A)(2), Area and Paving Requirements prohibits parking or maneuvering area in any public right-of-way; however (M)(3)(a) and (b) specifically allows on-street parking in the UC-OD, which by nature requires maneuvering area within the public right-or-way. The on-street parking provisions of the UC-OD do not specify any design requirements, but do require town and SC DOT approval of a parking plan to include detailed design guidelines for the spaces, specifying items such as paving materials and the manner in which the spaces shall be marked. 5. Because the existing perpendicular parking to the abutting Whilden Street right-of-way uses the public right-of-way as a maneuvering area to access the parking spaces, these parking spaces are non-conforming with respect to the standards of (A)(2) as well as the SCDOT Highway Design Manual Section If and when the existing commercial building is renovated, repaired, altered or otherwise improved by more than 50% of its reasonable replacement value at the time of such events, it must be brought into conformance with all applicable provisions of the parking regulations, either on-street or off-street. 7. Unless the existing building is improved beyond the 50% threshold, the existing nonconforming perpendicular parking may remain in its current condition; however, any additional parking required due to improvements less than the 50% threshold must meet current requirements. 8. As reflected in the record of the proceedings thus far, it is not known if the existing building will be improved beyond the 50% threshold. Reference has been made to adding residential dwellings above the commercial space depending upon the structural condition of the building and adding additional commercial square footage to the building. If either, or both of these conditions results in improvement beyond the 50% threshold, compliance with all applicable requirements, including parking, must be met. 9. Improvements to the existing building below the 50% threshold do not affect the balance of the lot; however, any approvals concerning the remaining portion of the lot are subject to all current regulations. OCTOBER 2013 STAFF COMMENTS

101 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 5 of The preliminary plat complies with the approved sketch plan. The only difference is that a lot was added at the eastern corner of the property (Lot 21). The location of the infrastructure, i.e., the private street, did not change so a revised sketch plan is not required. 2. Earl s Court is permitted to have a total of 26 dwelling units. The preliminary plat shows two residential units on Lot 7 and up to two residential units above the existing commercial building. Applicant is in the process of determining whether the commercial building can structurally support two dwelling units. If two units are constructed above the commercial building, then only one dwelling unit may be constructed on Lot Plat shows a 23 DBH laurel oak proposed for removal. The arborist report identifies this as a 27 DBH laurel oak and notes that it is in poor condition. The arborist report recommends removal, as the tree has a large cavity, severe decay due to the cavity, and the entire crown has broken off. Mitigation is required and will be handled through the design review process. Two historic live oaks are located adjacent to the commercial building and are proposed to remain. 4. According to the approved sketch plan, there are nine existing off-street parking spaces for the existing commercial building, which exceeds the UC-CBS parking requirement by one space. Parking for all residential units will be accommodated off-street. If two residential units are constructed above the commercial building, at least one additional parking space will need to be added to serve the second residential unit. 5. Since not all lots have frontage on May Lane, the access easement must be named and the name must be shown on the plat. The proposed name, Spooner Lane, was shown on the revised sketch plan approved in August 2013, and has been approved by Charleston County A supplemental staff report addressing minor staff comments has been provided to the applicant. Mr. Neal asked for clarification of tonight s request. Mr. Pagliarini answered that (C) and (D) allows for consideration within 60 days and read these sections for the Commission. He stated that the intent is that action must be taken within 60 days with either approval, denial, or conditional approval. He stated that an application can be deferred in order to meet Town requirements; otherwise, a determination must be made within the 60 days. Mr. Brimmer asked if Phase 3 includes Lot 7. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Ms. Woods-Flowers stated that it could be deferred based upon meeting any Town requirements and would only apply for the approval of Phase 3. She suggested that the issues with other phases would not be considered. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative and stated that only Phase 3 is being considered at this time and could only be deferred if not meeting Town requirements. Mr. Chapman thanked staff for explicitly explaining the parking issues and any renovations over 50%. He stated that in regard to the parking on Whilden St, there is a no parking sign on Whilden St. approximately 30 feet from the intersection. He stated that he contacted SCDOT about moving that sign further back to include the area in front of the existing commercial building. He further suggested that angled parking would not be allowed due to the narrowing of the street because there would not be a sufficient drive aisle. He asked about the off-street parking and asked to see the sketch plan. Mr. Prause showed the approved sketch plan. Mr. Chapman stated that there are parking spaces within the previous phases that would be above

102 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 6 of 24 and beyond the underneath residential parking. Mr. Chapman stated that many of the parking spaces previously approved provide additional residential and commercial parking. Mr. Siegrist asked about handicapped parking and if this would be required. Mr. Prause answered that the commercial improvements would require ADA compliance. Mr. Siegrist asked if handicap parking would be allowed on a public street. Mr. Morrison answered that SCDOT has requirements regarding handicap parking that would have to be adhered to. Mr. Brimmer asked if seven lots are proposed. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richardson moved for approval. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson stated that after lengthy review of this submittal and the ordinances, the Commission is required to look at the ordinances objectively and suggested that this project meets all of the requirements. He stated that in regard to the parking, if the commercial building is improved, and if it exceeds the 50% rule, the parking would have to come into compliance with current Town and SCDOT requirements. Mr. Neal thanked staff for their efforts and research. He stated that the parking compliance will be based on if the improvements of the commercial building meet the 50% rule or not. He stated that he is confident in staff s ability to review and oversee this. Ms. Woods-Flowers stated that the Commission cannot issue a stop work order and must look at this application as it was submitted. She agreed that improvements to the commercial building will most likely require compliance with the parking. She stated that the Commission must consider the application as it was submitted and cannot consider other phases of this project in relation to the phase before the Commission. Ms. Richter-Lehrman stated that the Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that this is an opportunity for the public to provide input on recommended changes. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. The Commission convened for a short break at 6:10 pm and reconvened at 6:18 pm. 4. Requests A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for Copahee Landing, 27 detached single-family residential lots zoned PD-CD, Planned Development-Conservation Design District, to be located on an approximately 9.27 acre parcel of land located at 1256 Lieben Road and identified by TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Subject property is located at 1256 Lieben Road. The property contains an existing house that is to remain and occupy one of the lots within the PD. Property also contains an existing pond that will be improved as a neighborhood amenity. Property was cleared in the past, and the only trees remaining are located on what will be the HOA amenity area. HISTORY

103 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 7 of 24 Final Reading by Town Council for annexation and zoning (PD-Conservation Design District) occurred on September 11 th, The sketch plan was submitted as part of the PD zoning request. Refer to July 2012 minutes from Planning Commission, August 2012 for First Reading Town Council, and September 2012 for Final Reading Town Council minutes. STAFF COMMENTS 1. The Owner and Inspecting Engineer Certificate needs to be signed by the owner. 2. Addresses and Charleston County E-911 street name verification need to be provided. 3. The required 25% Open Space is not clearly shown on the Preliminary Plat. 4. Staff recommends showing the pathway inside Lieben Road right of way as shown on the approved Sketch Plan. SCDOT is requesting the Town take maintenance responsibilities of the sidewalk for this section. The pipe culvert will need extending to make the pedestrian connection. There are no sidewalks along this side of Lieben Road, but staff is recommending installation of sidewalks to link to future development. 5. Additional comments pertaining to the stormwater management plan were separately provided to the applicant. Mr. Mitchell stated that the soil report was received after the staff comments were completed and staff recommends an environmental report be completed to determine if there are any contaminants and that this be referenced on the final plat. Mr. Chapman asked about the sidewalk on Copahee Landing Way and why it is only on one side. Mr. Mitchell answered that it is addressed in the PD and links to the pedestrian trails and amenity area. Ms. Cousino stated that for developments under 3.5 units per acre, the ordinance only requires sidewalks on one side. Mr. Jason Georgiades, HGBD, stated that the sidewalk complies with the PD requirements and staff s recommendation. Mr. Chapman asked why not have sidewalks on both sides of the road and asked that sidewalks be considered for both sides. Mr. Georgiades stated that if desired, this could be considered. Mr. Bryson asked how extensive the environmental study would be. Mr. Mitchell answered that a Phase 1 has been completed and there have not been any contaminants found. He stated that a more extensive study is being conducted. Mr. Brimmer asked why there is sidewalk behind Lots Mr. Georgiades answered that it would be a pervious path that would link the amenity area to Lieben Road. Ms. Cousino stated that pedestrian trails are required. Mr. Brimmer suggested that there might be a disconnect between what is required and the citizen enjoyment. Mr. Collins asked if there would be an HOA and if they would be responsible for the roadway. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would be a public street that would be dedicated to the Town once completed. Mr. Chapman moved for approval including all staff comments including the environmental study and requiring sidewalks on both sides with consideration for adjustment to the pedestrian trail to accommodate the sidewalk on both sides. Mr. Siegrist seconded the motion.

104 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 8 of 24 Mr. Pagliarini asked for clarification on the sidewalk requirement. Ms. Cousino answered that the conservation design PD requires a pedestrian trail system that may or may not include sidewalks. Mr. Neal asked if the motion includes sidewalks on Lieben Road. Mr. Chapman answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. B. REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to R-3, Medium Density Residential District, an approximately 0.30 acre parcel of land known as Lot 93, Mount Pleasant Heights, located at 744 Atlantic Street and identified by TMS No Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The property is located at 744 Atlantic Street. The plot plan submitted by the applicant indicates an existing lot comprised of a total of 13,043 feet in area with a width of approximately 68 feet and a depth of approximately 191 feet. A single story house with a gravel driveway is located on and addresses the Atlantic Street portion of the lot. HISTORY The subject lot assumed the R-2 Low Density Residential District zoning classification with the adoption of the 1979 Zoning Code. This zoning district classification was accorded to most lots in what is known as the Old Village and the various subdivisions in the old Mount Pleasant area bounded by the Shem Creek, Charleston Harbor, the ICWW and Coleman/Ben Sawyer Boulevards. The exception was for R-1 Low Density Residential District zoning on larger lots located on Ellie, King, Bank and Ferry Streets. (The Deer subdivision was rezoned to R-1 in 1987 as a result of petition from the residents.) A total of three other lots on Atlantic Street have been rezoned from R-2 to R-3 District zoning classification, two at the corner of Hills and Atlantic in 2007 and another mid-block in 2012; all for the purpose of subdividing lots with frontage on Hills and Atlantic Streets. PROPOSAL The purpose of the rezoning is to allow the subdivision of the lot to create two lots. STAFF COMMENTS 1. The minimum lot size requirement for R-2 Low Density District Zoning is 8,000 square feet, whereas the minimum lot size for R-3 Medium Density District Zoning is 6,000 square feet. Since the lot comprises 13,043 square feet, it cannot be subdivided under the R-2 zoning classification. 2. Low Density Neighborhood land use has a maximum density of three units per acre, whereas Medium Density Neighborhood has a maximum density of six units per acre. 3. Permitted uses for the R-3 Medium Density Residential District zoning classification include: Any use permitted in the R-1 District, subject to the requirements of that district; and Duplex dwellings. (C) Special exceptions. The following uses may be allowed in accordance with the provisions contained in (A)(3)(a)-(e): any special exception allowed in an R-1 Residential District, subject to the requirements of that district. 4. As a matter of information, an accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use in the R-3 Residential District.

105 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 9 of No depiction of the proposed subdivision is shown; however, the existing lot can accommodate two lots meeting the minimum area and dimensional requirements for the R-3 Medium Density Residential District. 6. The lot is not large enough to support more than one duplex building on the undivided lot or more than one duplex building on two lots (with the dividing lot line centered on the common wall of the duplex building) as both of these scenarios require a minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for each duplex building. Mr. Chapman asked if there was another property that was subdivided. Mr. Prause answered that the property next to the subject property was subdivided. Mr. Neal asked if a duplex could be constructed on the lot. Mr. Prause answered in the negative and stated that it would have to be zoned R-3. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Ms. Woods-Flowers stated that there has been a growing concern with subdivision of property and increasing density in the old Mount Pleasant neighborhoods. She stated that she is opposed to the request. Ms. Richter-Lehrman suggested that this should be done during the Comprehensive Plan update and suggested that this is not consistent with the old Mount Pleasant neighborhoods and would be out of character. Mr. Richardson moved for approval. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson stated that there are other lots that are consistent with this zoning request. Mr. Collins agreed and suggested that it would be a minimal impact to subdivide the property. Mr. Chapman suggested that this would bring vitality to the neighborhood. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 3 vote with Ms. Richter-Lehrman, Mr. Brimmer and Ms. Woods-Flowers opposed. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to amend the Watermark Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by adding automotive uses, such as garages or shops for the repair and servicing of motor vehicles, equipment, or machine parts, as an additional permitted use on two parcels of land, one comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-A, located at 1314 Stuart Engals Boulevard, and identified by TMS No ; the other comprising approximately acres, known as Lot 3-B, located at 1320 Stuart Engals Boulevard and identified by TMS No Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The properties are located at 1314 and 1320 Stuart Engals Boulevard. The 1314 Stuart Engals Boulevard property has frontage on Chuck Dawley Boulevard, but no access. Its access is provided through the 1320 Stuart Engals property which fronts Stuart Engals

106 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 10 of 24 Boulevard. The 1314 property is an older metal building that has housed various automobile repair businesses over the years. The 1320 property was annexed and zoned to specifically construct an import automobile facility. That use has been vacated and other uses have been conducted on the premises in recent years. HISTORY Both properties were formerly zoned AB, Areawide Business District or AB-2, Areawide Business 2 District with automotive repair uses approved either as a Conditional Use or Special Exception. Other uses have been conducted on the premises over the years. However, both properties were rezoned in 2009 from AB-2 to Planned Development District under the Watermark PDD ordinance (Ord. No ) with Economic Development Hotel uses. Since the automobile repair uses have lapsed and the zoning classification has changed, these uses cannot be reinstated without a zoning amendment. PROPOSAL The current property owner now desires to amend Section 14.1 of the Planned Development District zoning ordinance to add automotive uses, such as garages or shops for the repair and servicing of motor vehicles, equipment, or machine parts, to the permitted uses for the subject properties. STAFF COMMENTS 1. The Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map indicates a Commercial land use recommendation for the subject properties. 2. Under the current zoning code provisions the requested uses are only allowed in the AB- 2, Areawide Business 2 District zoning classification with Special Exception approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals under the following specific conditions: (2) Garage for the repair and servicing of motor vehicles, provided that: (a) All operations are conducted within a fully enclosed building or buildings; (b) There is no open storage of wrecked vehicles, dismantled parts or supplies; (c) No sound, vibration, fume, light, or electrical disturbance created as a result of such repair or service operation is perceptible beyond the premises; and (d) Screening, buffering and public safety measures that are deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are in place. 3. Both properties are also subject to the Watermark Development Agreement which also requires amendment; however, these amendments will only affect the subject properties and none of the other Watermark properties. Mr. Chapman asked what would be next to the proposed property. Mr. Prause answered that it is a hotel. Mr. Collins asked what is currently on the property. Mr. Prause answered that it has had several uses over the past years. Mr. Collins asked if it is currently zoned to allow a garage use. Mr. Prause answered in the negative and stated that, if approved, it would allow garage uses without any further approvals necessary. Mr. Collins asked what would normally be allowed. Mr. Prause reviewed the conditions under the AB and AB-2 zoning and stated that if approved, unless stipulated, the use would be allowed without further approval. Mr. Chip McQueeney, representative for the owner, stated that they would like to use the existing buildings at their highest and best use until the hotel is built. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing.

107 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 11 of 24 Mr. Collins asked if a hotel is allowed under AB-2. Mr. Prause answered that they are not proposing to change the zoning. Mr. Collins asked if the property were sold, could there be a hotel use on the property. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative and stated that the garage uses would be allowed as a use of right. Ms. Farrell asked if the applicant was amenable to this being a special exception use. Mr. Prause answered that he understood that the applicant is requesting that the use be subject to the conditions outlined without needing special exception approval. Mr. Chapman moved for approval with the following requirements or conditions: All operations are conducted within a fully enclosed building or buildings; There is no open storage of wrecked vehicles, dismantled parts or supplies; No sound, vibration, fume, light, or electrical disturbance created as a result of such repair or service operation is perceptible beyond the premises; and Screening, buffering and public safety measures that are deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are in place. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor. D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for Carolina Park Phase 6, 75 detached single family residential lots zoned PD, Planned Development District, to be located off of Carolina Park Boulevard near its intersection with Anacostia Avenue on an approximately acre portion of an approximately acre parcel of land identified by TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Carolina Park PD was last amended on April 10 th Land Use map designates this area as CPR, Low Density Residential Development. Sketch Plan was approved by Planning Commission September 18, PROPOSAL The proposal is for seventy-five (75) residential detached lots, dedication of a public road, dedication of public storm drain system, and 2.36 acres of HOA open space. STAFF COMMENTS Staff comments have been addressed showing the ADA ramps at the intersections, tree grading, and correct open space calculation. Engineering design details are standard. Mr. Collins moved for approval. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. E. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan for Carolina Park Phase 7, 82 detached single-family residential lots zoned PD, Planned Development District, to be located on an approximately acre portion of an approximately acre parcel of land located near Anacostia Avenue and identified as a portion of TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Proposed development connects to existing Carolina Park Phase 3 and provides connections to various phases for future development. HISTORY

108 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 12 of 24 The most recent update to the Carolina Park PD occurred on December 10, The Carolina Park Land Use Map designates this area as CPR, Low Density Residential District. PROPOSAL The proposal is for eighty-two (82) detached single-family lots, dedication of public roads, dedication of public storm drain system, and acres of open space. STAFF COMMENTS 1. It is recommended to conceptually show the connection with Coastal Crab Road in Darrell Creek with this phase. As additional phases become approved and built, the collector road will become more difficult to adjust for this connection. 2. Conforms to intended land use The proposal is for detached single-family lots and meets the lot dimensional requirements of the Carolina Park PD for CPR development. 3. Lot layout Special setbacks are required for lots along the cul-de-sac where the minimum lot width is not met at the street. 4. Street/sidewalk design It is not clear where the transition occurs changing Bourne Crossing to Killick Street. 5. Open space Open Space is master planned for a total of 80 acres within the CPR land use area. This phase contains acres; however, acres of this is wetlands and wetlands buffer. 6. SW detention Four new wet ponds are planned. Ponds have good visibility from the road and are accessible from multiple locations. 7. Buffers/landscaping Required wetland buffer is shown. No other buffers are required. 8. Sketch Plan checklist Checklist items are complete. Mr. Chapman asked about the stubbed out road. Mr. Mitchell answered that it is intended to connect to Phase 8. Mr. Neal asked if Darrell Creek is amenable to the connector road. Mr. Mitchell answered that interconnectivity is desired to help alleviate traffic. Ms. Cousino stated that Coastal Crab Road was built with a temporary turn around and was intended to connect to a future roadway. Mr. Collins asked if the conceptual road is being approved at this time. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative and stated that it is a conceptual alignment for the future connector road. Ms. Sarah Moore, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates stated that they are open to discussing this connection and what the best route should be and that it is pedestrian friendly. Mr. Brimmer asked what road would connect with the stubbed out road. Ms. Moore answered that the road connection has not been defined to date. Mr. Brimmer moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. F. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan for Watermark Townhomes, 36 attached single-family dwelling units zoned PD-TND, Planned Development-Traditional Neighborhood Development, to be located on an approximately 3.45 acre parcel of land known as Tract 2-3, Parcel A, Watermark subdivision, located at 1365 Bowman Road, and identified by TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows:

109 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 13 of 24 HISTORY December 2013 development standards changed December 2005 Amendment to PD-TND Ordinance and adoption of Development Agreement (DA) Ordinance September 2005 Rezoned from Multi-family to PD-TND December 1999 Rezoned from R-1 to MF PROPOSED USE Thirty-six (36) attached residential lots, five (5) HOA lots, and dedication of right of way. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Conforms to intended land use The development agreement allows for residential use on this property if economic development does not occur within seven (7) years from the date it was adopted (2005). Residential townhouse standards are met. Rear yard setback is 25 feet as the development does not include rear parking. 2. Lot Layout Lots meet the minimum width of 18 feet as set forth in the latest amendment to the PD. There are no standards for lot depth specified within the PD, so the Town Land Development Regulations ( Blocks and Lots) control with regard to the width to depth ratio. A ratio of 2.5 applies unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission for extenuating hardships. As a matter of information, the Town s RTH, Residential Townhouse District, also does not provide a minimum lot depth, seemingly because 2.5 times the narrow 18 foot lot width would only yield 45 feet or an 810 sq ft lot. The RTH District requires a minimum lot size of 1500 square feet, so lot widths would have to be 25 feet in order to accomplish 1500 square feet. Consideration should be given to the applicant in this instance, as it appears the Town s width to depth ratio requirement may need to be modified for townhouse lots. Lot 20 does not have access to the right-of-way, as it is blocked by HOA Area 3. A 20 foot side yard setback is required between rows of townhouses and should be graphically depicted. The setback widths should be labeled. It appears that the rear yard setback is drawn at 20 feet, but should be 25 feet pursuant to the PD standards. 3. Street/sidewalk design A single access is provided onto Bowman Road. Minimum sight distances and line of sight obstructions are to be verified prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street as required and will connect to the existing sidewalk on Bowman. The on-street parking is not to be publicly owned, maintained, or enforced. It is recommended the final plat indicate the parking maintenance and enforcement be the responsibility of the community HOA. 4. Open space The PD requires 8% of the gross area be retained as open space. Development exceeds the minimum area; however, no stormwater detention is shown on the plan which may reduce the amount shown. 5. Stormwater detention The outfall location will need to be researched by the design engineer and approved prior to submitting for a preliminary plat. Additional comments will be provided during engineering review. 6. Buffers/landscaping Required buffers are shown. A tree assessment is required for all trees greater than 8 DBH and must be submitted with the preliminary plat. Protected trees on Lots 2 and 17 are proposed for removal; sketch plan indicates both trees are in poor health. It appears that only 24 and larger trees are shown on the sketch, so it is unclear which other trees are proposed for removal. 7. Sketch Plan checklist Checklist items are complete. Mr. Chapman asked if there is a turning lane. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Chapman asked if there are sidewalks on both sides of Bowman Road. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative.

110 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 14 of 24 Mr. Collins asked if any improvements to Bowman would be necessary. Mr. Mitchell answered that this would be determined during site plan review. Mr. Collins asked about interconnectivity. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would not be required. Mr. Siegrist moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. The Commission convened for a short break at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST; IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST; ZONING/REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation of the fifteen parcels of land described below from Community Conservation to Medium Density Neighborhood. Also request for Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan approval. Also request to annex and zone RPH, Patio House Residential District, thirteen parcels of land comprising approximately acres, located on Harry Robinson Road at or near its intersection with Six Mile Road, and identified by TMS Nos , , , , , , , , , , , , and These thirteen parcels of land are requested to be excluded from the SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. Harry Robinson Road, a 50-foot, unimproved, private right-of-way is proposed to be incorporated into the development. Also request to rezone from CC, Community Conservation District, and SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, two parcels of land described as follows: (1) an approximately 2.95 acre parcel of land known as Lot 1, Part Parcel B, Liberty Hill subdivision, located on Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No ; and (2) an approximately 1.41 acre parcel of land known as Lot 2, Part Parcel B, Liberty Hill subdivision, located on Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No Ms. Woods-Flowers recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Richardson stated that he has had previous discussion with a potential buyer regarding this property, but it did not come to fruition; therefore he has no conflict of interest. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Thirteen of the subject parcels are unincorporated and zoned S-3, Special Management-3 District, in Charleston County. The other two parcels were annexed into the Town in 1995, and are zoned CC, Community Conservation District and SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The fifteen subject parcels are generally located near the intersection of Six Mile and Rifle Range Roads. The unincorporated parcels include all parcels with frontage on unimproved Harry Robinson Road. The incorporated parcels are located on Rifle Range Road and back up to several of the parcels on Harry Robinson Road. All adjacent unincorporated parcels are zoned S-3; all adjacent incorporated parcels are zoned CC. Most of the parcels are undeveloped. PROPOSAL

111 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 15 of 24 Current request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of all parcels from Community Conservation to Medium Density Neighborhood. Request is also to annex the thirteen unincorporated parcels and zone them RPH, Patio House Residential District, and to rezone the incorporated parcels from CC and SB-OD to RPH. The unincorporated parcels are located within the boundary of the SB-OD, but are requested not to be included in the overlay district. The other parcels are requested to be removed from the SB-OD. Also request for impact assessment and conceptual plan approval. GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS 1. For reference, the Charleston County S-3 District allows crop-related agricultural uses, detached single-family homes, manufactured homes, family day care homes, utility uses and limited civic uses as uses of right. Other uses, such as animal production and boarding, beauty salons/barber shops, and bed & breakfasts, are conditional or special exception uses. The S-3 District allows a maximum density of 3 units per acre. Minimum lot size is 14,500 square feet, unless public water or sewer is available in which case the minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. 2. The Town s RPH District allows single-family dwellings and accessory uses. Minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet. According to the proposed Conceptual Plan, each lot is a minimum of 5,760 sq ft (48 feet by 120 feet). 3. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map recommends Community Conservation land uses for the subject parcels, which allows a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. The requested Future Land Use classification is Medium Density Neighborhood, with a corresponding density of six units per acre. Based on the acreage, a maximum of 116 dwelling units could be constructed on the property though the proposed Conceptual Plan reflects 82 dwelling units (approximately 4.23 units per acre). a. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the primary purpose of the Community Conservation land use is to protect and recognize the importance of the unique development characteristics of historic African-American areas in the planning area and sustain the strong sense of community found therein. Future development in these areas should be compatible with the existing land uses and development patterns, with residential density limited to three units per acre. Also per the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the Medium Density Neighborhood land use designation is to provide for and/or sustain medium density neighborhoods. This designation is for medium density, single-family residential areas typical of urban neighborhoods with small lots, or attached residential structures like duplexes and townhomes, limited to six units per acre. b. Table 2A on page 47 of the Comprehensive Plan lists recommended zoning districts for each of the Future Land Use designations. The RR, Rural Residential District; CC, Community Conservation District; and R-1, Low Density Residential District are recommended as being compatible with the Community Conservation land use designation. c. The purpose of the CC zoning district is to preserve and protect the unique development characteristics of early residential settlements, and to sustain the sense of community inherent therein. d. The purpose of the RPH zoning district is to provide for quality, high-density, single-family detached residential development on lots having an area of 4,000 square feet or more; to allow smaller yards and spacing between dwelling units, and allow for maximum development of land, without generating high traffic flows in areas of lower-density development; and to discourage unwarranted and blighting encroachments by prohibiting commercial and industrial uses of land, and to

112 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 16 of 24 disallow any other use that would substantially interfere with the development and continuation of high-density residential development. 4. Section D of the Impact Assessment notes the number of vehicle trips the development is expected to generate; however, the figures provided are from the original traffic analysis which was based on 108 dwelling units. The traffic analysis was updated at staff s request, since the proposed conceptual plan includes only 82 dwelling units. 5. Section K of the Impact Assessment indicates that the site contains a total of 150 significant trees (16 DBH and greater) and that only one historic tree is proposed for removal. As indicated on the Conceptual Plan, the historic tree proposed for removal is a double stem (17 /18 DBH) oak and is located within a travel lane. 6. Section I of the Impact Assessment notes which schools neighborhood children will attend; however, the information provided conflicts. The narrative portion includes Jennie Moore ES and Laing MS, but the list containing the number of students include Park West schools. 7. The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request. Encourage the annexation of unincorporated communities to provide enhanced neighborhood services. Continue to seek the annexation of unincorporated areas within the Mount Pleasant planning area. Recognize the importance of the physical and cultural aspects of traditional African- American communities found in the planning area. Recognize the significance of historic, traditional, rural, and planned communities, and maintain their desirable characteristics such as prevailing densities, building types, and quiet streets. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian connectivity plan that links to all of the Town s existing and planned nodes, as well as parks and schools. Promote street connectivity and alternate routes to limit congestion on the Town s major roadways. Denser development should occur closer to the US 17 corridor where there is greater transportation infrastructure. Provide a mix of housing types in a variety of price ranges, including rental housing options, to meet the needs of the wide range of Town residents and workforce and to promote Mount Pleasant as a lifelong community. STAFF COMMENTS ON CONCEPTUAL PLAN 8. Two entrances into the neighborhood are proposed- one on Six Mile Road and one on Rifle Range Road. Opportunities for future connectivity to adjacent parcels are provided in two locations. Consideration should be given to providing a connection through proposed Lot 25 as well. a. In all locations where opportunities for future connectivity are provided, the street should be constructed to the property line so that it is clear to future residents that the street will eventually connect to other parcels. b. In one location (between Lots 28 & 29), a double stem live oak is located within the right-of-way. It appears that the tree is located outside the travel lanes and behind the curb; however, if that is not the case and construction of the street will require removal of the tree, adjustments should be made so that the tree can remain. c. The right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac should be extended to serve the vacant lot on the corner of Six Mile and Rifle Range Roads. The probability of these streets

113 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 17 of 24 continuing should be explored, and provisions should be in place to ensure they do not remain as dead-end streets. d. The probability of these streets continuing should be explored, and provisions should be in place to ensure they do not remain as dead-end streets. 9. The Conceptual Plan shows a pedestrian path along the property boundary on Rifle Range Road. It appears the path is proposed to be located in the right-of-way, which will require encroachment permits from the Town and SCDOT. The path should be extended so that it connects with the existing sidewalk at the intersection of Six Mile Road. No sidewalks currently exist on either side of Rifle Range Road north of its intersection with Six Mile Road, so this foot path will be a valuable addition to the pedestrian and bicycle network in this area. 10. Sidewalks should be extended around the cul-de-sac in front of Lot 55, Lot 56, and the pond. 11. Ponds, parks, and other open space areas are dispersed throughout the neighborhood and easily accessible to all residents. The ponds, as well as the two park areas (between Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 18 & 19), should have signage and/or improvements such as walking paths and benches in order to visually indicate to future neighborhood residents that these are neighborhood amenities. 12. Direct access to Rifle Range Road from Lots 49 through 54 should be restricted. 13. Any open ditches should be piped or filled. 14. Conceptual Plan Checklist items: a. TMS No is missing from list of project parcel numbers. b. Note states that open space is not required; however, open space is required pursuant to the provisions of Land Development Regulations (Just over one acre is required, 1.26 acres is proposed.) c. Provide land use/zoning of adjacent parcels. d. All other checklist items are complete. Mr. Morrison reviewed transportation staff comments as follows: 1. The traffic analysis for the proposed development assumed the following land use: 82 Single Family Dwelling Units The use is anticipated to generate the following New/Primary trips. 875 Daily trips 67 AM peak hour trips 88 PM peak hour trips 2. Primary access to this property is provided by Six Mile Road, which has direct access Rifle Range Road, Sweetgrass Basket Parkway and US 17. A secondary direct access to Rifle Range Road is also provided. 3. The trip distribution and background traffic was coordinated with staff. This included the traffic from the recently approved Oyster Point subdivision as well as a 2% growth in background traffic. 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:

114 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 18 of 24 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) 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 Six Mile Road and Sweetgrass Basket Parkway. 6. Year 2016 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. Rifle Range Road/Six Mile Existing, 2016 No-Build and 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are

115 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 19 of 24 LOS B with assumed improvements for the NB Six Mile approach that are required as part of the Oyster Point development approval. US 17/Six Mile Existing, 2016 No-Build and 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are LOS B or better. IOP Connector/Hungryneck Boulevard/Sweetgrass Basket Parkway Existing, 2016 No-Build and 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are LOS B. Six Mile/Sweetgrass Basket Parkway Existing, 2016 No-Build and 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are LOS C or better. Six Mile/Project Access 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are LOS B. Warrant analyses for auxiliary turn lane indicate they are not warranted. The access approach to Six Mile Road should be designed to accommodate left and right-turn lanes. Rifle Range Road/Project Access 2016 Build levels of service for the AM and PM peak are LOS C. Warrant analyses for auxiliary turn lane indicate they are not warranted. The access approach to Rifle Range Road should be designed to accommodate left and right-turn lanes. Mr. Collins asked about level of service and what action would be taken when it falls to a LOS F. Mr. Morrison answered that the improvements are based on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) recommendations, which are considered based on traffic data, population counts, etc. Mr. Neal asked about connectivity. Mr. Morrison answered that interconnectivity is always desired. Mr. Neal asked about connectivity through Lot 25. Mr. Morrison showed the location on the aerial for the Commission and stated that the future connection would be desired in the event the adjacent property is redeveloped. Mr. Richardson asked about the signalization of Sweetgrass Basket Parkway at Six Mile Road. Mr. Morrison answered that it would be done in the future, but is currently not a funded project. Mr. Chapman asked about potential transportation impact fees. Mr. Morrison answered that it is approximately $1,000 per house. Ms. Cousino stated that based on the impact assessment, the transportation impact fees would be approximately $84,0000. Mr. Richardson asked the procedure for significant changes and subsequent approvals. Ms. Cousino answered that there is flexibility with changes from the conceptual plan to the sketch plan. She stated that if there were additional units added, an update to the impact assessment would be required. Mr. Chapman asked if there are any issues with removing these properties from the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District (SB-OD). Ms. Cousino stated that, if not removed, they would have to meet the Community Conservation (CC) District zoning requirements and could not be zoned to Residential Patio Home (RPH). Mr. Neal asked what the density would be for the property if developed in the county. Ms. Cousino answered that it is currently zoned S-3 and would allow 3 units per acre as well as some different commercial uses.

116 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 20 of 24 Mr. Chris Donato, Sitecast, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that they are amenable to interconnectivity and was one reason for showing the stubbed roads short of the property line to ensure no encroachment onto adjacent properties. Mr. Neal asked if the sidewalks and amenities as commented by staff could be accomplished. Mr. Donato answered in the affirmative. Mr. Chapman asked about MPW water line access. Mr. Donato answered that it would be from Six Mile Road. Mr. Neal asked if with the stub out at Lot 25, would the request still be for 82 lots. Mr. Donato answered in the affirmative. Mr. Jim Raih, 39 Cameron Blvd, Isle of Palms, stated that the developer has worked hard on this project to get the property aggregated and have a smart development. Mr. George Freeman, 1450 Bowman Rd, expressed disappointment that more residents of the community were not in attendance. He stated that the Hwy 17 Committee worked extensively to create the SB-OD. He suggested that if this is approved, it will be out of character of the SB- OD and would be a detriment to the community. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal asked about the tree at Lots 28 and 29 and how the tree would be preserved. Mr. Donato answered that the tree could be saved by moving the alignment of the road. He stated that if healthy, the tree would be preserved. Mr. Richardson moved for denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson suggested that the SB-OD intent of 3 units per acre should be maintained. Mr. Brimmer stated that he did not see a compelling reason to change the density and that is the reason for supporting the motion. He stated that there have been some other requests in this area and suggested that if desired, the changes should be completed through the Comprehensive Plan update process. Mr. Neal asked how this motion would affect the other aspects of the request. Ms. Cousino answered that it would keep the density at 3 units per acre. Mr. Neal asked what is the proposed density. Ms. Cousino answered that it is approximately 4.2 units per acre. Mr. Neal asked what the total units would be at 3 units per acre. Ms. Cousino answered that it would be approximately 57 units. Mr. Collins asked what the incentive would be for staying in the county. Ms. Cousino stated that the density would not change. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 5 to 3 vote, with Ms. Richter-Lehrman, Mr. Bryson, and Mr. Collins opposed and Ms. Woods-Flowers abstaining.

117 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 21 of 24 Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the annexation and zoning request and approval of the 13 parcels of land to be excluded from the SB-OD. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson stated that he is in favor of being more efficient with the lots as it will provide more open space and is in favor or interconnectivity. He stated that this would allow 3 units to the acre, but could do smaller lots that are not 12,500 square feet. Mr. Collins asked if this would provide more open space. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Ms. Richter-Lehrman asked if this would allow the desired number of lots. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor, with Ms. Woods-Flowers abstaining. Mr. Richardson moved for rezoning and exclusion from the SB-OD, Lot 1 part B and Lot 2 part B. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. All in favor with Ms. Woods-Flowers abstaining. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the impact assessment and conceptual plan including all staff comments with the developer being amenable to preservation of tree at Lot 28. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. All in favor, with Ms. Woods-Flowers abstaining. H. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan for Warrick Oaks, 12 detached single-family residential lots zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, and UC-CBS, Coleman Boulevard-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District, to be located at 1317 Warrick Lane, also known as Lot 3-4-A, and identified by TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Two lots on Warrick Lane were rezoned from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, in the mid-1980s. A portion of one lot was incorporated into the adjacent lot, creating an L-shaped lot which now comprises the subject property. The remainder of the second lot was developed as a dentist s office a number of years ago. The subject property is undeveloped. Sketch Plan was denied during the October 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The preliminary plat was deferred during last month s meeting and appears as Old Business Item 4a on this month s agenda. PROPOSAL The current request is for sketch plan approval. The request is for 12 detached single-family residential lots, to be developed pursuant to the postage stamp lot provisions permitted in the UC-CBS. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Please refer to comments for Old Business Item 4a. 2. The sketch plan and preliminary plat are consistent. Mr. Brimmer asked if pervious concrete would be used. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that it would be a private road and drainage system. Mr. Chapman asked about the width of the road to Units 10 and 11. Mr. Mitchell answered that he was not sure, but fire access would be through hoses.

118 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 22 of 24 Ms. Woods-Flowers asked if the tree could be preserved. Mr. Mitchell answered that DRB approved the removal of the tree. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked what mitigation would be. Mr. Prause answered that the mitigation would be 100%. Mr. Mark Bennett, developer, stated that they would be making a donation to the tree bank as mitigation for the tree. Mr. Chapman asked the width of the road at Units 10 and 11. Mr. Bennett answered that it is 16 feet. Mr. Chapman asked the width at Unit 8. Mr. Bennett answered that it is 16 feet. Mr. Richardson asked the width of the entire roadway. Mr. Bennett answered that it will be 16 feet. Mr. Neal asked about the alignment of the road at Unit 3. Mr. Bennett answered that it would be shifted to accommodate the roadway. Mr. Neal asked about access to Units 10 and 11. Mr. Bennett answered that the roadway is proposed to be a future one way road and will connect to the adjacent property. Mr. Chapman asked if the property would be fenced. Mr. Bennett answered in the affirmative and showed the location of the fence for the Commission. Mr. Chapman asked the construction of the units. Mr. Bennett answered that it would be a slab foundation. Mr. Brimmer asked if the road would be connected to the adjacent property. Mr. Bennett answered that it is allowed for future connectivity, but would currently function as a driveway. Mr. Brimmer asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the roadway. Mr. Bennett answered that the HOA would be responsible for the roadways and maintenance. Mr. Collins asked if each home would be on its own parcel. Mr. Ron Denton, architect, answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richardson asked if the units would be sprinkled. Mr. Denton answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richardson asked if there would be window penetrations. Mr. Denton answered that he was not sure. Mr. Neal asked if there would be any access issues with the fire truck access. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative and stated that the fire trucks access to the station is from McCants Drive, with Warrick Lane being access for employee parking. Mr. Chapman moved for denial of the request. Ms. Woods-Flowers seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman stated that the reason for denial is because of a lack of available turning radius. He also stated that the driveway for Unit 1 is too close the egress/ingress into the subdivision. He suggested that there is a safety issue with access to the driveway for Unit 1. Mr. Richardson asked for clarification and if the turning radius is for a passenger car. Mr. Chapman answered in the affirmative.

119 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 23 of 24 Mr. Pagliarini referenced (B) and asked if the turning radius meets the requirements and if so, could it be mitigated during future approvals. Mr. Mitchell answered that this was not brought up during staff review to be an issue. Mr. Richardson asked what the turning radius was for the private drive. Mr. Denton answered that it was 25 feet as required. Mr. Chapman stated that there is still concern for the turning radius of Unit 11. Mr. Mitchell answered that there are no residential parking requirements. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 4 to 5 vote, with Ms. Richter-Lehrman, Mr. Bryson, Mr. Collins, Mr. Neal and Mr. Richardson opposed. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the request. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Richardson suggested that there are no grounds for denial. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 5 to 4 vote, with Mr. Brimmer, Ms. Woods- Flowers, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Siegrist opposed. I. Item 4A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for Warrick Oaks, 12 detached single-family residential lots zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, and UC-CBS, Coleman Boulevard-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District, to be located at 1317 Warrick Lane, also known as Lot 3-4-A, and identified by TMS No DEFERRED FROM SEPTEMBER 18 th, OCTOBER 23 rd, and NOVEMBER 20 th MEETINGS. Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Two lots on Warrick Lane were rezoned from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, in the mid-1980s. A portion of one lot was incorporated into the adjacent lot, creating an L-shaped lot which now comprises the subject property. The remainder of the second lot was developed as a dentist s office a number of years ago. The subject property is undeveloped. Sketch Plan was denied during the October 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The preliminary plat was deferred during last month s meeting. PROPOSAL The current request is for preliminary plat approval. The request is for 12 detached singlefamily residential lots, to be developed pursuant to the postage stamp lot provisions permitted in the UC-CBS. STAFF COMMENTS 1. A new sketch plan has been submitted and appears as New Business Item 5h on this month s agenda. The preliminary plat and sketch plan are consistent. OCTOBER 2013 STAFF COMMENTS 1. The preliminary plat does not have a sketch plan approved. 2. Fire and Emergency accessibility has been satisfied. Staff initially was concerned with access clearance bypassing a large oak. Its removal was approved through the design review process, which eliminated the concern and the plan allows for adequate accessibility. The other concern was the location of the underground detention

120 DRAFT MINUTES - Planning Commission December 18, 2013 Page 24 of 24 chambers. Underground detention is typically used in commercial parking lot areas. This project will be the first to have this type of stormwater management underneath a roadway. The developer is proposing to locate the chambers outside of the primary emergency access area. Infrastructure, such as the stormwater detention system, roadway, water and sewer systems are to be operational prior to a final subdivision approval. 3. The drainage easement is planned along the abutting property line adjacent to Units 11 and Stormwater management plan satisfies Town requirements and does not impact adjacent property or exacerbate the existing flooding problem on Kincade Drive. The developer is proposing a no-discharge system that will rely on soil infiltration. Staff is in receipt of a soil study for this site and the engineered design system incorporates the percolation rates into the stormwater model for achieving the minimum volume required for storage. The system shall be privately owned and maintained by the Property Owners Association. Construction inspections shall be conducted by a manufacturer representative and certified complete prior to the final plat being approved. 5. Town Encroachment Permits are required for on-street parking and improvements within the Warrick Lane right of-way. Mr. Collins moved for approval with removal of parking space 15. Mr. Bryson seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman moved to amend the motion to include elimination of Units 10 and 11. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 5. Other Business A Development Agreement Report Mr. Prause reviewed the Development Agreement report with the Commission. B. Approval of 2014 Meeting Schedule. Mr. Cousino reviewed the 2014 meeting schedule with the Commission. Ms. Richter-Lehrman moved for approval. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn

121

122

123

124

125

126 1 of 2 11/20/ :24 AM Planning Commission Application ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY 11:59 p.m. ON THE DEADLINE DATES. It is highly recommended that the property owner and/or their representative meet with staff prior to submitting an application. Nature of Request & Fees Check all that apply:* Rezoning Planned Development Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan Sketch Plan Preliminary Plat Other Fee Schedule: For areas greater than acres the fee is $400 + $2 per additional acre. Please select the appropriate fee below and if over acres please enter acreage amount over acres in the quantity field below:* 0-5 Acres - $ acres Quantity (total acreage - 100)= Requirements All supplemental information must be scaled to 8 ½ x 11 sheets and submitted in a portable digital format (pdf) with this application and appropriate fee. The following supplemental information is included with this application(please list):* Subject Property / Properties Information TMS #:* Address:* Acreage / Sq. Feet:* Owner:* Present Use of Property:* Request:* Comprehensive Plan Amendment (only fill out if Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested) Present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Description of Proposed Structure and Use of Property: Applicant Information

127 2 of 2 11/20/ :24 AM Name:* Address:* Phone:* Please attach supplemental information outlined above: Ex A Legal Description.pdf * I, the undersigned, serve as the owner or owner's representative and certify the information contained herein to be true and accurate. If an application is found to be incomplete, the primary contact will be notified and the application will be removed from the agenda. I further certify that the tract(s) or parcel(s) of land to which this approval request pertains: * is restricted is not restricted by any recorded covenant that is contrary to, conflicts with, or prohibits the activity for which approval is sought as provided in SC Code of Laws Section , and the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances and I agree that all terms and information are true to my knowledge:* I agree Information of person completing electronic signature: Name:* Address (if different from above): (if different from above): Phone (if different from above): * indicates required fields.

128

129

130

131

132

133

134 1 of 2 11/21/ :03 AM Planning Commission Application ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY 11:59 p.m. ON THE DEADLINE DATES. It is highly recommended that the property owner and/or their representative meet with staff prior to submitting an application. Nature of Request & Fees Check all that apply:* Rezoning Planned Development Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan Sketch Plan Preliminary Plat Other Fee Schedule: For areas greater than acres the fee is $400 + $2 per additional acre. Please select the appropriate fee below and if over acres please enter acreage amount over acres in the quantity field below:* Acres - $ acres Quantity (total acreage - 100)= Requirements All supplemental information must be scaled to 8 ½ x 11 sheets and submitted in a portable digital format (pdf) with this application and appropriate fee. The following supplemental information is included with this application(please list):* Subject Property / Properties Information TMS #:* Address:* Owner:* Present Use of Property:* Request:* Acreage / Sq. Feet:* Comprehensive Plan Amendment (only fill out if Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested) Present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Description of Proposed Structure and Use of Property: Applicant Information Name:* Address:* Phone:* Please attach supplemental information outlined above: Six Mile Impact Assessment pdf *

135 2 of 2 11/21/ :03 AM I, the undersigned, serve as the owner or owner's representative and certify the information contained herein to be true and accurate. If an application is found to be incomplete, the primary contact will be notified and the application will be removed from the agenda. I further certify that the tract(s) or parcel(s) of land to which this approval request pertains: * is restricted is not restricted by any recorded covenant that is contrary to, conflicts with, or prohibits the activity for which approval is sought as provided in SC Code of Laws Section , and the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances and I agree that all terms and information are true to my knowledge:* I agree Information of person completing electronic signature: Name:* Address (if different from above): (if different from above): Phone (if different from above): * indicates required fields.

136 Kelly Cousino From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chris Donato Thursday, November 21, :59 PM Kelly Cousino RE: Six Mile Kelly, This is correct is part of this project. Christopher D. Donato, Jr. P.E. SITECAST, LLC 1250 Fairmont Ave. Mt. Pleasant SC, (843) (843) fax From: Kelly Cousino [mailto:kcousino@tompsc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, :10 PM To: Chris Donato Cc: brianharvin@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Six Mile Hi Chris: Please confirm that TMS No is included in the request. An annexation petition and zoning application were submitted for this parcel, it just wasn t in your list below. Thanks! Kelly From: Chris Donato [mailto:cdonato@sitecastsc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, :26 PM To: Kelly Cousino Cc: brianharvin@yahoo.com Subject: Six Mile Kelly, There was not enough room on the online form to list all of the TMS number so I thought I would them to you

137 Christopher D. Donato, Jr. P.E. SITECAST, LLC 1250 Fairmont Ave. Mt. Pleasant SC, (843) (843) fax 2

138 DATE NOVEMBER 19, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL DEVELOPED BY: AMERICAN STAR DEVELOPMENT 1022 CAROLINA BOULEVARD ISLE OF PALMS, SC DESIGNED BY: SITECAST, LLC 1250 FAIRMONT AVENUE MOUNT PLEASANT, SC (843)

139 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. General Description... 1 II. Existing Site Conditions... 2 III. IV. Impact Assessment A. Wastewater... 2 B. Water Supply... 3 C. Drainage... 3 D. Transportation... 3 E Police... 4 F. Fire Protection... 4 G. Recreation... 4 H. Solid Wastes... 4 I. Education... 5 J. Cultural and Archaeological Resources... 5 K. Environmental Resources... 5 L. Fiscal Considerations... 5 M. Housing... 5 Appendices 1. Charleston County Tax Map 2. Site Survey 3. Exhibit 4. Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey by S&ME, Inc. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis Summary prepared by SRS Engineering, LLC

140 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION American Star Development has contracted to purchase a total of acre along Harry Robinson Drive, which is the combination of 15 different parcels (See Appendix for representative Tax Map) for the development of an 82 lot single family subdivision. 13 of the 15 parcels are in Charleston County and will be annexed into the Town of Mount Pleasant. American Star Development wishes to develop this property as a Medium Density Zoning neighborhood. An Exhibit Plan of Six Mile Road Subdivision (See Appendix) indicates a small pocket of wetlands thus driving the location of vehicular access and development within the site. This site is accessed via Harry Robinson Boulevard, currently an unimproved dirt road within a 50-foot right-of-way. The road will be partially relocated and improved to a curb and gutter 2-lane asphalt public roadway within a 50-foot right-of-way with 4-foot sidewalk along both sides of the road. A second access will also be off of Rifle Range Road. Along with the second access, a pedestrian walkway will be extended along Rifle Range Road. Two other access points have been stubbed out to neighboring parcels for future connectivity. There are no archaeological or historical sites known to be located on the property. A Historical and Archaeological Properties Survey has been previously created for this area (see Appendix). All building and siting specifications within this development are to comply with Federal Flood Insurance Regulations. Phasing/Schedule: Two phases are expected for the overall development: Total Tract Area: Phase I (spring 2014): Initial 40 lots at entrance Phase II (fall 2014): 42 lots located in both the northeast corner of the site and south of Phase I lots acres highland 0.36 acres freshwater wetlands 1.17 acres pond acres total By utilizing this tract for medium density, single family housing, the development is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map but it does meet a number of the Plan's stated goals. These goals would be fulfilled through the conservation of natural resources, projection of an aesthetically pleasing community presence, optimization of investments in existing infrastructure, and prevention of premature development of outlying lands. By providing housing opportunities in close proximity to existing shopping, businesses and schools, vehicular trips can be minimized. Further, other following goals and strategies are addressed: Level of Service: o Creation of development closer to the U.S. Hwy. 17 corridor where there is greater transportation infrastructure. o Development of infill property, including those tracts to be annexed into the Town of Mount Pleasant (approx. 17 acres), appropriately scaled to utilize infrastructure already in place. o Provides interconnectivity with two currently non-connected parcels. Also providing two access points with one on Six Mile Road and the other on Rifle Range Road. 1

141 o Creates growth in an area of improved transportation infrastructure (U.S. Hwy. 17 and Rifle Range Road) Natural Resources: o Public access will be available to the parks and open space within the property which is more than what is required. Also, pedestrian access will be added to Rifle Range Road where there is currently a sidewalk does not exist (See Exhibit, Appendix). Harmony with Nature o Protection of environmentally sensitive areas, such as the freshwater wetlands, grand trees and other open spaces II. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Elevations on the acre site range from Elev along the Six Mile Road to Elev along its northernmost boundary. A small freshwater wetland occurs in the site, totaling approximately 0.36 acres. According to F.I.R.M. Panel # 45019C0535J, dated November 17, 2004, this property is located in Flood Zone X. The development must comply with applicable FEMA and Town of Mount Pleasant requirements. The site is bounded by Six Mile Road and Rifle Range Road along its southern and eastern boundaries, with single family homes sharing and the SC District of Assemblies of God along the western and northern property line. Vegetation on the site consists of hardwoods and pines, with areas cleared for the existing Harry Robinson Road. A tree survey of the site (See Appendix) indicates a total of 150 hardwoods 16" and greater in dbh which includes 36 historic (24"+ dbh) historic hardwoods and 114 significant (16"-23" dbh) hardwoods. Existing public facilities such as wastewater, water, police, and fire protection, will be impacted by this development and will be mitigated for through impact fees and taxes generated. Further explanation of these impacts and the means by which these costs will be funded are found in the Impact Assessment portion of this report. Impacts on existing roadways through increased traffic demands are outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis Summary (Appendix) and in the Impact Assessment section. A full analysis is included under separate cover. Transportation Impact Fees generated by this development are further discussed in the Impact Assessment III. IMPACTS ON FACILITIES, SERVICES AND RESOURCES (for Impact Assessment) Note: The following Impact Assessment fees are based upon 88 single family units: A. Wastewater The projected average daily wastewater to be generated by the development is calculated as follows: LAND USE QUANTITY WASTEWATER GENERATION RATIO WASTEWATER GENERATED (GPD) Single Family Units 88 total 300 gpd / lot 26,400 gpd total Phase 1: 40 12,000 gpd Phase II: 44 13,200 gpd 2

142 This is the equivalent of 88 REU's (Residential Equivalent Units, one REU equates to 300 gpd) for the single family use. Based on the current impact fee structure of $4, per REU, this development will generate $396, in sewer impact fees at build-out. Sewer service is available from an existing 8" gravity sewer main located along Six Mile Road 1,500 feet from the entrance to the site. All sewer main construction shall be in accordance with Mt. Pleasant Waterworks' requirements, and the system will be deeded to Mt. Pleasant Waterworks for ownership and maintenance upon completion and acceptance. B. Water Supply The projected average daily water demand for the development is 88 REU's, same as the wastewater generation. Based on the current impact fee structure of $2, per REU, this development will generate water impact fees in the amount of $193, at build-out. Water service to the site will be extended from two locations to provide a necessary loop. Connections will occur from existing 8" mains located at Six Mile Road and at Rifle Range Road, with 8" mains to extend into the proposed development. Fire hydrants will be located throughout the project to provide adequate coverage to all portions of the development. All water main construction shall be in accordance with Mt. Pleasant Waterworks' requirements, and the system will be deeded to Mt. Pleasant Waterworks for ownership and maintenance upon completion and acceptance. C. Drainage The site currently drains directly to the existing drainage easement and wetlands inside the site. The post-developed site will maintain these drainage patterns utilizing ponds in appropriate locations to assist with water quality prior to outfalling into these areas. The nearest receiving waterbody, Copahee Sound, is considered to be in good condition by the US EPA. To address water quality on site, silt fence, construction entrances, and other best management practices will be utilized throughout construction. To address permanent water quality the proposed ponds will be designed to meet Town's permanent water quality standards. No repetitive flood losses appear to have been documented by FEMA for this site. These issues and information regarding the sub-watershed area are addressed in Appendix of this report. A Schematic Master Drainage Plan is attached and is hereby made a part of this Development Impact Assessment (see Appendix No.5.) The drainage facilities design for the development must be approved by the Town of Mount Pleasant and SCDHEC-OCRM. All construction must be in accordance with Chapter 155 of the Town of Mount Pleasant Land Development Regulations. Building and siting specifications shall comply with Federal Flood Insurance Regulations. D. Transportation Six Mile Road Subdivision project at build-out can be expected to generate 1,120 total trips on a daily basis with 85 trips during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour a total of 113 can be expected. A Traffic Impact Analysis Summary has been prepared by SRS Engineering for the project, addressing access to the development, existing and proposed traffic volumes and distributions, and the effects of the project on the adjacent roadways (see Appendix). 3

143 Based on the Town's current impact fee structure, this development will generate the following transportation impact fees: LAND USE QUANTITY IMPACT FEE RATE IMPACT FEE Single Family Units 88 $958.05/unit $84, E. Police The Mount Pleasant Police Department will provide police protection for this development. Taxes and fees generated from this development and its residents will fund any required additional personnel, as well as any equipment, facilities, etc. added. Based on the current Municipal Services Impact Fee for police service, this project will generate $6, in fees. F. Fire Protection The development will be served by an existing Fire Station No. 4 located on Six Mile Road, with secondary service provided by Fire Station No. 5 located on Dunes West Boulevard. Impact fees and taxes generated by the development will fund any required additional costs. The fire department portion of the Municipal Impact Fees total $20, for this development. G. Recreation Recreation within the site encompasses a wide range of possibilities. In addition to sidewalks located along rights of way, a pathway will be constructed along Rifle Range Road which currently has no pedestrian access. Also, two parks are proposed inside the developed inside the developed. The development will generate $31, in Recreation Fees for this project at build-out based upon a rate of $ for each single family lot. H. Solid Wastes (Public Services) Solid wastes generated by the development will be collected at each lot by Town of Mount Pleasant Public Services The development will generate $17, in Public Services Fees at build-out based on $ for each unit. I. Education The future residents of Six Mile Road Subdivision will send their children to Jennie Moore Elementary, Laing Middle School and Wando High School and include the approximate number of new students to each (based on standard CCSD calculations): Laurel Hill Elementary - 8 Pinckney Elementary -8 Cario Middle School - 8 Wando High School -10 4

144 J. Cultural and Archaeological Resources There are no known historic sites located in these properties (See Appendix). K. Environmental Resources The project site includes mostly hardwoods and pines with minor cleared areas for road access. A tree survey of all hardwoods 16" and greater dbh yielded 150 trees, including 38 historic (24"+ dbh) hardwoods, and 114 significant trees 16"-23" dbh. Care was taken with this plan to develop around the existing freshwater wetland and around most of the trees. There is one instance where the need for access or for expected grading of the low site will necessitate the removal of one tree. As indicated on the Exhibit, a one historic tree needs to be removed. This tree was given a grade of "C" by a certified arborist. L. Fiscal Considerations Based on total estimated value of $350, per lot, a 4% tax collection ratio and current millage rates (181.0 county millage rate; 38.6 Town millage rate), the 88 homes in this development will generate gross annual property taxes of approximately $223, for Charleston County and $47, for the Town of Mount Pleasant. Building permit fees and plan review fees are expected to total $139, for this project. A summary of the previously described impact fees to be generated by the development is as follows: Fee Totals Sewer Impact Fees $396, Water Impact Fees $193, Transportation Impact Fees $84, Municipal Services Impact Fees $75, Total $749, M. Housing As evidenced by an upswing in the demand for new housing in the Mount Pleasant area, this proposed development is expected to help fill this need. It is expected at this time that prices for homes within this development will range from the low $300-$400, for single family units within the site. 5

145 6

146 TMS EXHIBIT 1 SHEET OF 1 SIX MILE ROAD EXHIBIT

147

148 EXHIBIT 1 SHEET OF 1 SIX MILE ROAD EXHIBIT

149 October 23, 2013 Peak Media, LLC 1022 Carolina Boulevard Isle of Palms, SC Attention: Reference: Mr. Brian Harvin Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey Harry Robinson Road Property Charleston County, South Carolina S&ME Project No Dear Mr. Harvin: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME), on behalf of Peak Media, LLC, has completed a Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey (HAPS) of the Harry Robinson Road Property. The Project Area is an approximately 20-acre tract in Charleston County, South Carolina (Figure 1). This report supersedes and replaces a previous report issued by S&ME on October 9, 2013 and includes additional client provided maps of the Project Area, attached as Appendix A. S&ME staff completed this study in general accordance with S&ME Proposal Number , dated September 19, We performed the background research and field investigation in general accordance with the standards and guidelines established in the Guidelines for Historic & Archaeological Properties Survey Conducted for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) s Coastal Zone Consistency Certification (CZC), developed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). PROJECT BACKGROUND Peak Media, LLC is preparing to develop the Harry Robinson Road Property for residential development. The proposed development will subdivide the Project Area into 83 residential lots, and will include roadways, ponds, green space, and standard utility connections (Appendix A). The proposed development will be designed to comply with the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances Title XV C(2) RPH; Patio House Residential. This zoning standard requires a buffer of 20 feet (approximately 6.1 meters) between a house and the rear property line. S&ME, INC. / 620 Wando Park Boulevard / p / f /

150 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina The Project Area is an approximately 20-acre tract located at the intersection of Six-Mile Road and Rifle Range Road in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The Project Area is located in the Lower Coastal Plain physiographic province. The topography is level, with an elevation of approximately 25 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Mixed hardwoods cover the majority of the property (Figures 2-5). The soils in the Project Area consist of moderately well-drained to somewhat poorlydrained Chipley loamy fine sand; poorly-drained to very poorly-drained Rutlege loamy fine sand and Scranton loamy fine sand and somewhat poorly-drained Scranton loamy fine sand (Figure 6). This study was designed to assist Peak Media, LLC comply with local and state regulations that require consideration of impacts to archaeological and historic resources. The Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances Title XV E(12)f Cultural, archeological and environmental resources requires proponents of some new construction projects to describe the impact of the proposed project on relevant cultural, archeological and environmental resources. This ordinance is particularly concerned with displacement or alteration of the resources that would result from drainage improvements and land disturbance for development. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control s Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) consults with the SHPO concerning the effect of projects on historic and archaeological sites in South Carolina s coastal zone. The goal of the HAPS was to assess the property s potential for containing significant resources, and to make recommendations regarding additional work or considerations that may be necessary to address effects that the proposed development may have on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This HAPS will serve as part of the due diligence efforts in advance of future planning and development. BACKGROUND RESEARCH On September 24, 2013, Patrick Morgan conducted a background literature review and records search. The background research indicated that there is one previously recorded archaeological site in the Project Area. Eight archaeological sites and five historic structures are located within 0.5-miles of the Project Area (Table 1 and Figure 1). Site 38CH943, located approximately 600 meters southeast of the Project Area, is a shell midden that contains prehistoric and historic remains. Artifacts recovered consist of metal, nails, glass, and an unidentified prehistoric pottery sherd. The site was recommended for additional work to evaluate its NRHP eligibility. Site 38CH953 is located east of the Project Area. The site consists of a 9,100 meter long by 15 meter wide, rifle trench with redans. The structure was constructed by the Confederate States of America during the United States Civil War. The site runs from 2

151 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Boone Hall Creek southeast to the Palmetto Fort, situated off Hamlin Sound. The intrenchment was laid out by General Robert E. Lee in 1861 to resist a land attack through Christ Church Parish north of Charleston (NRHP 1982). The site was listed in the NRHP in 1982 as part the Civil War Defenses of Charleston Thematic Resources (NRHP 1982; Appendix C). Researchers documented sites 38CH2426, and 38CH CH2434 during a 2012 study. Information about these sites is currently being processed by the South Carolina Institute for Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) and is unavailable at this time. Historic structures are late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century residential structures (Table 1). These houses are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The Six-Mile Canal, built in 1862 during the United States Civil War, is located approximately 520 meters northwest of the Project Area. The canal (Identified by SCDAH as Resource 5671) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. A review of historic maps indicates that European colonists, and presumably their enslaved laborers settled in Charleston County as early as the end of the seventeenth century. The part of the Edward Crisp s (1711) map depicting the area east of Charleston near the Project Area depicts the area as sparsely settled with no major estates in the vicinity (Figure 7). Mills Atlas (1825) indicates that settlement near the Project Area had not increased by the early nineteenth century (Figure 8). The Walker (1885) map depicts the location and general layout of the Christ Church Line intrenchment (38CH953). The Walker map also depicts a road that parallels the intrenchment on the interior (west) side of the fortification (Figure 9). The 1938 Charleston County Road Map indicates there were no structures within the Project Area (Figure 10). The 1959 USGS Fort Moultrie Topographic quadrangle identifies four structures in the Project Area (Figure 1). POTENTIAL FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, researchers have used various predictive models to identify areas having a high potential for containing archaeological sites (e.g., Brooks and Scurry 1978; Cable 1996; Scurry 2003). Recently these models have been revised based on data from Francis Marion National Forest (O Donoughue 2008). In general, the most significant variables for determining site location are distance to a permanent water source, proximity to a wetland or other ecotone, slope, and soil drainage. Prehistoric sites tend to occur on relatively level areas with well-drained soils that are within 200 m of a permanent water source or wetland. Historic home sites tend to be located on welldrained soils near historic roadways. 3

152 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Table 1. Resources Identified During the Background Research Resource Identification No. Component / Time Period NRHP Status Source 38CH943 Shell Midden, Unknown Not Eligible Espenshade & Poplin CH953 Civil War Rifle Trench, 1862 Listed National Register Nomination Form CH2426 Unknown Woodland; 18 th -20 th c. Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2429 Unknown Woodland; 18 th -19 th c. Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2430 Unknown Woodland; Unknown Historic Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2431 Unknown Woodland Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2432 Unknown Woodland Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2433 Unknown Woodland Not Evaluated Archsite 38CH2434 Unknown Woodland Not Evaluated Archsite 1128 Isaac Manigault House, 1921 Not Eligible 1129 Isaac Wright House, 1925 Not Eligible 1130 Wright House, 1935 Not Eligible 1131 Catherine Freeman House, 1875 Not Eligible Preservation Consultants 1988 Preservation Consultants 1988 Preservation Consultants 1988 Preservation Consultants Six Mile Canal, 1862 Not Eligible Salo et al The Project Area is in an upland setting near the historic roadway, which follows the current route of U.S. Highway 17 as well as the other secondary roads depicted in the historic maps. Based on the setting and its historic location, we characterized the Project Area as having a high potential to contain archaeological resources dating to the historic period. Based on the environmental setting, primarily poorly-drained soil types and lack of access to a nearby permanent water source, we characterized the Project Area as having a low potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. FIELD INVESTIGATION On September 25, 2013, Patrick Morgan conducted the fieldwork portion of this study. On October 15, 2013 Patrick Morgan and Aaron Brummitt, accompanied by representatives from Peak Media, LLC revisited the Project Area to review the lot layout design and survey plat (Appendix A). METHODS The field investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey along the dirt roads crossing the tract and other areas with exposed ground surfaces. Shovel test pits were approximately 30 cm in diameter and excavated to culturally sterile subsoil or to a minimum of 80 centimeters below the surface (cmbs) if no artifacts were recovered. Soil was screened 4

153 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. The field crew kept notes in a weatherproof field journal and recorded field conditions in the Project Area with digital photographs. In addition to the archaeological survey, the field crew conducted a limited architectural survey to determine whether there were any previously unrecorded aboveground historic resources in or adjacent to the Project Area. Results The field crew excavated 27 shovel test pits, ranging from 50 to 80 cm below the surface. All shovel test pits were negative for cultural deposits (Figure 11). A typical soil profile consists of 22 cm of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand (Ap horizon), followed by 37 cm (23 60 cmbs) of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand, overlying 10+ cm ( cmbs) of pale brown (10YR 6/3) loamy sand. The field crew interpreted the third soil stratum as the subsoil. Site 38CH953, (Christ Church Line), is visible from portions of the eastern boundary of the Project Area. The site as it appears near the Project Area consists of a parapet divided by a trench; the former rifle trench of 38CH953 currently serves as a drainage for the nearby properties (Figures 12-14). The parapet is approximately 2.0 to 2.5 meters tall from the base of the ditch. A limited architectural survey was conducted to assess whether the proposed development would affect aboveground historic properties. These efforts identified four above ground structures within the Project Area. Two of these houses, recorded as Resources and , are at least forty years old. Shovel testing in the vicinity of these houses did not recover items more than fifty years of age. Resource is located at the intersection of Six-Mile Road and Harry Robinson Road on the southern portion of the Project Area. The structure is a single-story house that measures approximately 10 meters by 7 meters. Information available from the Charleston County Tax Assessor indicates that this building was built in The building features six over six double sash windows with a gabled sheet-metal roof, and is covered with wood clapboard siding. The foundation and chimney are both made of brick (Figure 15; Appendix B). The building has wall penetrations used to connect modern utilities. At the time of this investigation Resource was in a dilapidated state and appeared unsafe to enter. Site is located in the northern portion of the Project Area and is accessed via Harry Robinson Road. Information regarding the date of construction is not available, however, it is not depicted on the 1938 County Map and is depicted on the 1959 USGS quadrangle. The structure is a single-story house that measures approximately 13 meters by 9 meters. The building features a gable roof, wood-paneled siding, and a concrete block foundation (Figures 16; Appendix B). The roof of the concrete quarter-length front porch is supported on wooden poles. The building has wall penetrations used to connect modern utilities. A modern shed sits near the structure to the west. 5

154 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Two additional structures are located in the eastern portion of the Project Area. However, these structures were less than forty years old and are not reported as historic resources (Figure 17). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The background research and field investigation did not identify archaeological remainin the Project Area. The field efforts identified two previously undocumented historic structures (Resources and ). One previously recorded archaeological site (38CH953) is located east of the Project Area (Figure 1). Resource and are both in poor condition. The houses retain the historic design but have been altered with the use of modern materials such as paint and finishes. Both houses were built prior to 1959 and are associated with the rural agricultural heritage of Mount Pleasant prior to its increased urbanization in the late twentieth century; however they have been subject to alterations in materials and setting since the original construction and more representative examples of this historic period exist in the area. As such, it is S&ME s opinion that Resources and are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No additional historic architectural resources were documented during this study. S&MEs opinion is that the planned development will not pose an adverse effect on 38CH953. This opinion is based on the fact that the site is outside the Project Area and will not be impacted by clearing, construction, or other ground disturbing actions. The proposed development will be required to comply with Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances Title XV C(2) RPH; Patio House Residential, which requires a setback of 20 feet from the rear of the principal building. 6

155 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina CLOSING S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide you with this report. If you have questions about the report, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Brummitt at (843) or via at Sincerely, S&ME, Inc. Patrick H. Morgan, RPA Principal Investigator Aaron Brummitt, RPA Senior Reviewer Attachments: Figures 1-17 Appendix A, Client Provided Design Drawings; Appendix B, Architectural Reconnaissance Form, and

156 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina REFERENCES CITED Brooks, Mark J., and James D. Scurry 1978 An Interstate Archaeological Survey of Amoco Realty Property in Berkeley County, South Carolina with a Test of Two Subsistence-Settlement Hypotheses for the Prehistoric Period. Research Manuscript Series Number 147. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. Cable, John 1996 A Study of Archaeological Predictive Modeling in the Charleston Harbor Watershed, South Carolina. Report prepared for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Charleston, by New South Associates, Irmo, South Carolina. Crisp, E A compleat description of the province of Carolina in 3 parts : 1st, the improved part from the surveys of Maurice Mathews & Mr. John Love : 2ly, the west part by Capt. Tho. Nairn : 3ly, a chart of the coast from Virginia to Cape Florida. London. Espenshade, Christopher T. and Poplin, Eric D Archaeological Survey and Testing, almetto Fort Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates: Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Mills, Robert 1825 Charleston District, South Carolina surveyed by Charles Vignoles & Henry Ravenel, Atlas of the State of South Carolina, Made Under the Authority of the Legislature; Prefaced with a Geographical, Statistical and Historical Map of the State. F. Lucas, Jr., Baltimore. O Donoughue, Jason 2008a Living in the Low Country: Modeling Archaeological Site Location in the Francis Marion National Forest, South Carolina. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Salo, Edward; Charles F. Phillips, Jr.; and Joshua N. Fletcher 2008 Cultural Resources Survey of the Hungryneck Boulevard Phase IV Project, Charleston County, South Carolina. Brockington and Associates: Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Scurry, James D Integrating Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Modeling: Validating Prehistoric Site-Settlement Models for the South Carolina Coastal Plain Using A GIS. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 8

157 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina South Carolina Department of Transportation 1938 Charleston County [map]. South Carolina Department of Transportation and the United States Federal Highway Administration. Walker, William A Map of Charleston and its Defences. Compiled from surveys of portions of St. Andrews and Christ Ch. parishes by Lieut. John Johnson, C.S. Engrs., the harbor, James Id., Folly Id., Morris Id., Sullivans Id., & Long Id., from U.S. Coast Survey, Johns Id., from Mills Atlas. Under the direction of Maj; Wm. H. Echols, C.S. Engr. Corps, by Wm. A. Walker, Draughtsman, C.S. Engr. Corps. Drawn by John R. Key, 2nd. Lieut., C.S. Engr. Charleston, S.C., Nov: 28th, Published in 1885 in Mayor Courtney s City Yearbook. 9

158 38CH2426 / CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH Legend Project Area 0.5 Mile Search Radius Archaeological Sites Historic Structures SCALE: MAP SOURCE: DATA SOURCE: Meters As Shown ESRI ArchSite Location of the Project Area and Reported Cultural Resources DATE: October 1, 2013 ESRI S&ME PROJECT # Harry Robinson Tract FIGURE # 1

159 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 2. View of typical vegetation in the Project Area, facing northwest. Figure 3. View of Harry Robinson Road in the Project Area, facing southwest. 11

160 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 4. View of powerline transmission corridor in the Project Area near Rifle Range Road, facing northeast. Figure 5. View of a ditch bisecting the Project Area, facing southwest. 12

161 SCRANTON / CHIPLEY CHIPLEY RUTLEGE SCRANTON CHIPLEY SCRANTON Legend CHIPLEY Project Area Soil Type SCALE: MAP SOURCE: DATA SOURCE: Meters As Shown ESRI SC DNR Soils Map of the Project Area DATE: October 16, 2013 ESRI S&ME PROJECT # Harry Robinson Tract FIGURE # 6

162 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 7. Edward Crisp s 1711 map. Approximate location of the Project Area is highlighted in red. Figure 8. Approximate location of the Project Area, highlighted in red, on a portion of Mills (1825) Atlas. 14

163 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 9. A portion of the Walker (1885) map depicting the location and general layout of the Christ Church Line intrenchment (38CH953), highlighted in red. Figure 10. A portion of the 1938 Charleston County Road Map. Approximate location of Project Area is indicated in red. 15

164 / Legend Negative Shovel Test Pits Project Area SCALE: MAP SOURCE: DATA SOURCE: Meters As Shown ESRI S&ME Location of Shovel Test Pits DATE: October 16, 2013 ESRI S&ME PROJECT # Harry Robinson Tract FIGURE # 11

165 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 12. View of 38CH953 parapet, facing northeast. Figure 13. View of 38CH953 trench bordering the Project Area, facing northeast toward Rifle Range Road. 17

166 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 14. View of 38CH953 earthwork bordering the Project Area, facing northwest. Figure 15. View of , located in southeastern portion of the Project Area, facing northeast. 18

167 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 23, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Figure 16. View of , located in northern portion of the Project Area, facing south. Figure 17. View of two modern residences located in eastern portion of the Project Area. 19

168 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 9, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Appendix A: Client Provided Design Drawing

169

170 !"# $"%& '()* &#+","- #(")*)$ '!"##$ %& '

171 Historic and Archaeological Properties Survey October 16, 2013 Harry Robinson Road S&ME Project No Charleston County, South Carolina Appendix B: Architectural Reconnaissance Forms, and

172 Statewide Survey of Historic Properties Control Number: U/19/6377 State Historic Preservation Office Status County Site No. South Carolina Department of Archives and History Quadrangle Name: Ft. Moultrie 8301 Parklane Road Tax Number: Columbia, SC (803) Reconnaissance Survey Form Identification Historic Name: N/A Common Name: Unnamed house Address/Location: 1292 Six Mile Road City: Mount Pleasant County: Charleston Vicinity of: Six Mile Road and Rifle Range Road Ownership: Private State Category: Building Corporate Federal Site City Unknown/Other Structure County Object Historical Use: single dwelling Current Use: single dwelling Date: 1950 multi dwelling commercial other multi dwelling commercial other SHPO National Register Determination of Eligibility: Eligible Not Eligible Contributes to Eligible District Contributes to Listed District Notes: Potentially Eligible Listed Determined Eligible/Owner Objection Removed from NR Other Designation: The structure is a single-story house, 10 meters by 7 meters, with a gable metal roof, wood clapboard siding, and brick foundation and chimney. Photographs Program Management Recorded by: Patrick Morgan Date Recorded: 9/26/2013

173 Statewide Survey of Historic Properties Control Number: U/19/6378 State Historic Preservation Office Status County Site No. South Carolina Department of Archives and History Quadrangle Name: Ft. Moultrie 8301 Parklane Road Tax Number: Columbia, SC (803) Reconnaissance Survey Form Identification Historic Name: N/A Common Name: Unnamed house Address/Location: Harry Robinson Road City: Mount Pleasant County: Charleston Vicinity of: Six Mile Road and Rifle Range Road Ownership: Private State Category: Building Corporate Federal Site City Unknown/Other Structure County Object Historical Use: single dwelling Current Use: single dwelling Date: 1959 or earlier multi dwelling commercial other multi dwelling commercial other SHPO National Register Determination of Eligibility: Eligible Not Eligible Contributes to Eligible District Contributes to Listed District Notes: Potentially Eligible Listed Determined Eligible/Owner Objection Removed from NR Other Designation: The structure is a single-story house, 13 meters by 9 meters, with gable metal roof, wood-paneled siding, and concrete block foundation. Photographs Program Management Recorded by: Patrick Morgan Date Recorded: 9/26/2013

174 November 25, 2013 Mr. Brian Harvin Peak Media, LLC 1022 Carolina Boulevard Isle of Palms, SC SRS Engineering, LLC 801 Mohawk Drive West Columbia, SC (803) fax RE: Traffic Impact Assessment Six Mile Residential: Mount Pleasant, SC Dear Mr. Harvin: As requested, SRS Engineering, LLC (SRS) has completed an assessment of the traffic impacts associated with the residential development to be located along Six Mile Road in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The following provides a summary of this study s findings: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is generally located along the east side of Six Mile Road, north of Rifle Range Road in the vicinity of Harry Robinson Road (unimproved roadway). The total site upland acreage is approximately 19.4-acres. A maximum of 82 single-family residential lots are proposed on site. For purposes of this report, a three-year buildout (2016) has been assumed. Two access drives are proposed for the subdivision; one each to Six Mile Road and Rifle Range Road. Details/recommendations for each of these access drives are provided in the Mitigation section of this report. Figure 1 provides a general site location map. Figure 2 presents the current site development plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS A comprehensive field inventory of the project study area was conducted in October of The field inventory included a collection of geometric data, traffic volumes, and traffic control within the study area. Todd E. Salvagin (803) Mike Ridgeway, P.E. (803) Matt Short, P.E. (803)

175 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 2 Traffic Volumes In order to determine the existing traffic volume flow patterns within the study area, manual turning movement count data was collected for the project study area as defined by Town of Mount Pleasant staff. The following intersections were cited for study: Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road; US 17 at Six Mile Road; Six Mile Road at Sweetgrass Basket Parkway; and Isle of Palms Connector at Hungryneck Boulevard. The existing geometry and traffic control for the study area intersections and roadways is provided in Figure 3. Figures 4 and 5 graphically depict the respective AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections. The summarized count sheets are included in the Appendix of this report. It should be noted that traffic volumes have changed significantly in the study area over the past couple of years, specifically along Rifle Range Road. This is due to added capacity recently provided to US 17, which has attracted traffic volumes away from Rifle Range Road during both commuter peaks. FUTURE CONDITIONS Traffic analyses for future conditions have been conducted for two separate scenarios: first, 2016 No- Build conditions, which include an annual normal growth in traffic, all pertinent background development traffic, and any pertinent planned roadway/intersection improvements; and secondly, 2016 Build conditions, which account for all No-Build conditions PLUS traffic generated by the proposed development. No-Build Traffic Conditions Annual Growth Rate Based upon an investigation of recent growth rates within the study area, a uniform 2-percent growth rate has been utilized for this report and approved by Town staff. Background Development In accordance with direction provided by Town of Mount Pleasant staff, all traffic associated with the Oyster Point project has been included as background traffic. The anticipated 2016 No-Build AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, which reflect the 2-percent background growth rate and all traffic associated with the Oyster Point project, are shown in Figures 6 and 7, which follow this report. Planned Roadway Improvements Discussions with Town staff indicate that there are roadway improvement projects that will provide additional capacity within the study area by the time the site reaches buildout. These improvement projects are discussed as follows:

176 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 3 Isle of Palms Connector Widening Project As part of the Charleston County RoadWISE program, the Isle of Palms Connector will be widened to create a consistent four-lane divided facility from US 17 to Rifle Range Road. This will result in two through lanes for each approach of the Isle of Palms Connector at Hungryneck Boulevard. Oyster Point Improvements: Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road As recommended in the traffic study for the Oyster Point project, the northbound approach of Six Mile Road will be widened, resulting in a separate left-turn lane and shared through/right lane for this approach. The southbound approach of Six Mile Road will be modified/improved to provide a separate left-turn lane and shared through/right lane. Adaptive traffic signal control will also be provided for this intersection, and the intersection will be linked via fiber-optics communications to the intersection of Rifle Range Road at the IOP Connector. Both of these improvement projects have been accounted for in all future-year (No-Build and Build) analyses. Site-Generated Traffic Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed additional development were forecasted using the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual, as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Land-Use Code #210 (Single-Family Residential), has been used to estimate site traffic. Table 1 depicts the anticipated site-generated traffic for the balance of site development. Table 1 PROJECT TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY 1 Six Mile Residential Time Period 82 Single-Family Residences Weekday Daily 870 AM Peak-Hour Enter 17 Exit 50 Total 67 PM Peak-Hour Enter 55 Exit 33 Total 88 1 ITE Trip Generation manual, 8th Ed. 2008, LUC 210. As shown, the project can be expected to generate a total of 870 two-way vehicular trips on a weekday daily basis, of which a total of 67 trips (17 entering, 50 exiting) can be expected during the AM peakhour. During the PM peak-hour, 88 trips (55 entering, 33 exiting) can be expected.

177 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 4 Trip Distribution The directional distribution of site-generated traffic on the study area roadways has been based on an evaluation of existing travel patterns within the study area. The arrival/departure pattern which was coordinated with Town staff and utilized for this project is provided in Table 2. Roadways Table 2 PROJECT TRIP-DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY Six Mile Residential Direction To/From Percent Enter/Exit US 17 East (Georgetown) 10 West (Charleston) 15 Hungryneck Blvd. West 60 Rifle Range Road East 5 West 10 Note: Based on the existing traffic patterns. Total 100 The site-generated traffic presented in Table 1 has been distributed along the study area roadway network by the distribution pattern depicted in Table 2. This has resulted in the site-generated specific volumes for the AM and PM peak hours as illustrated by Figures 8 & 9. Build Traffic Conditions The site-generated traffic volumes, as depicted in Figures 8 & 9, have been added to the respective 2016 No-Build traffic volumes (Figures 6 & 7). This results in the peak-hour 2016 Build traffic volumes, which are graphically depicted in Figures 10 & 11. These volumes were used as the basis to determine potential improvement measures necessary to mitigate traffic impacts caused by this development. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Analysis Methodology A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of Level-of-Service (LOS) to traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. The concept of Level-of-Service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A Level-of-Service designation provides an index to the quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six Levels-of-Service are defined for each type of facility (signalized and unsignalized intersections). They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.

178 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 5 Since the Level-of-Service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility may operate at a wide range of Levels-of-Service depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of a year. Analysis Results As part of this traffic study, capacity analyses have been performed at each study area intersection under both Existing and Future (No-Build & Build) conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS Six Mile Residential Time 2013 EXISTING 2016 NO-BUILD 2016 BUILD Signalized Study Area Intersections Period V/C a Delay b LOS c V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road AM B B B PM B B B IOP Connector at Hungryneck Blvd. AM B B B PM B B B US 17 at Six Mile Road AM A A A PM B B B Unsignalized Study Area Intersections Six Mile Road at Sweetgrass Basket Parkway AM 11.1 B 13.0 B 13.8 B PM 12.0 B 15.0 C 16.3 C Six Mile Road at Project Access 10.0 B 10.1 B Rifle Range Road at Project Access AM 16.9 C PM 24.1 C a. Volume-to-Capacity ratio. b. Delay in seconds-per-vehicle. c. LOS = Level-of-Service. GENERAL NOTES: 1. For signalized intersections, Delay is representative of overall intersection. 2. For unsignalized intersections, Delay is representative of the critical approach. As shown in Table 3, each of the study area intersections operate acceptably (LOS C or better) under 2013 Existing traffic volume conditions during each of the time periods studied. Operations for the intersection of Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road have improved significantly recently due to the shift of traffic to the improved US 17 corridor. A review of past and recent traffic counts indicates that significant traffic has shifted from Rifle Range Road to US 17 during both commuter peak periods. Under 2016 No-Build conditions, operations at all study area intersections are similar to that of Existing Conditions. The unsignalized intersection of Six Mile Road at Sweetgrass Basket Parkway degrades to LOS C during the PM peak hour; however acceptable operations are still anticipated. Under 2016 Build conditions, which account for specific traffic related to the Six Mile Road residential project, study area operations are expected to be similar to that of No-Build conditions with no changes in service levels expected. Both site access drives are expected to operate at acceptable service levels assuming implemented geometry and traffic control as detailed in the next section of this report.

179 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 6 Queuing Analysis A review of critical queues has also been conducted as part of this traffic study. The following should be noted: US 17 at Six Mile Road: The westbound left-turn queue is shown by Synchro output to exceed the 250- ft. storage length for the 95 th percentile queue for future PM 2016 conditions with or without the project. The project only adds 5 vehicles to this movement during the PM peak hour. The average or 50 th percentile queue is not expected to exceed the storage capacity for this movement. IOP Connector at Hungryneck Boulevard: The northbound left-turn queue is shown by Synchro output to exceed the 200-ft. storage length for the 95 th percentile queue for future PM 2016 conditions with or without the project. The project is not expected to impact this movement. The average or 50 th percentile queue is not expected to exceed the storage capacity for this movement and there is sufficient spill-back area within the median to accommodate periods of queue spillback. MITIGATION The final phase of the analysis process is to identify mitigating measures which may either minimize the impact of the project on the transportation system or tend to alleviate poor service levels not caused by the project. Measures considered necessary to mitigate roadway system deficiencies are discussed below as they relate to the impacts of the proposed project. Proposed Site Access Direct access to/from the site will be accommodated via two access drives; one each to Six Mile Road and Rifle Range Road. Recommendations for each access drive are provided below. Six Mile Road Access: This proposed access is to be located approximately 480-feet north of Rifle Range Road in the approximate location of the existing Harry Robinson Road (unimproved roadway). The following are recommended for this access intersection. Northbound (Six Mile Road) Approach: Based on the projected low volume of right-turns at this access location, a separate right-turn lane entering the project is not warranted/recommended. Southbound (Six Mile Road) Approach: Based on review of Figure 15.5G of the SCDOT ARMS Manual, a dedicated left-turn lane is not warranted. A copy of the left-turn nomograph is provided in the Appendix of this report. Westbound (Site Access) Approach: Construct westbound approach leg to provide a two-lane cross-section providing one lane entering the site and one lane exiting the site. Traffic Control: Intersection to operate under STOP sign control where for the minor street approach (site access) will be required to stop prior to entering the intersection. Rifle Range Road Access: This proposed access is to be located approximately 630-feet east of Six Mile Road. This access drive is not expected to service as much traffic as the Six Mile Road access. The following are recommended for this access intersection. Westbound (Rifle Range Road) Approach: Based on the projected low volume of right-turns at this access location, a separate right-turn lane entering the project is not warranted/recommended.

180 Mr. Brian Harvin November 25, 2013 Page 7 Eastbound (Rifle Range Road) Approach: Based on review of Figure 15.5G of the SCDOT ARMS Manual, a separate left-turn lane is not recommended for entering movements. Southbound (Site Access) Approach: Construct southbound approach leg to provide a two-lane cross-section providing one lane entering the site and one lane exiting the site. Traffic Control: Intersection to operate under STOP sign control where for the minor street approach (site access) will be required to stop prior to entering the intersection. As shown in Table 3, both access drives are expected to operate at acceptable service levels during both peak periods. Off-Site Study Area Intersections Review of the intersection analyses indicates that the proposed project has a relatively minor impact on the off-site study area intersections and therefore no off-site mitigation is recommended. Conclusions This Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared to review traffic impacts related to the proposed residential subdivision to be located along Six Mile Road in Mount Pleasant. As proposed, a maximum of 82 single-family residential lots are proposed with an expected buildout in Future analyses have accounted for the proposed Isle of Palms Connector widening project, and intersection improvements for the intersection of Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road as required by the Oyster Point project. All traffic related to the Oyster Point project was included in No-Build and Build traffic volume projections. Analyses indicate overall acceptable traffic operations within the study area for Existing Conditions. A review of past and current traffic volumes in the area indicates that a significant shift in traffic has occurred recently from Rifle Range Road to US 17, presumably due to the added capacity enhancements recently completed for US 17. This has significantly helped the intersection of Rifle Range Road at Six Mile Road. Future analyses indicate that operations will remain acceptable in the future with or without the Six Mile Road residential project studied within this report. Based on this information, no off-site mitigation is recommended to offset project impacts. With regards to the site access drive proposed for Six Mile Road, a review of projected volumes indicates that separate turn lanes for Six Mile Road for entering movements are not warranted based on SCDOT criteria. The Rifle Range Road access is not expected to service as much traffic volume as the Six Mile Road access, and based on projections separate turn lanes are not warranted/recommended for Rifle Range Road at this location either.

181

182 APPENDIX Figures Note: Full Appendix Including Capacity Analyses, Traffic Counts, & Queuing Analyses Provided to Town Transportation Engineer.

183 SITE N NOT TO SCALE Figure 1 SITE LOCATION Six Mile Residential: Mount Pleasant, SC

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194 1 of 2 11/20/ :24 AM Planning Commission Application ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY 11:59 p.m. ON THE DEADLINE DATES. It is highly recommended that the property owner and/or their representative meet with staff prior to submitting an application. Nature of Request & Fees Check all that apply:* Rezoning Planned Development Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan Sketch Plan Preliminary Plat Other Fee Schedule: For areas greater than acres the fee is $400 + $2 per additional acre. Please select the appropriate fee below and if over acres please enter acreage amount over acres in the quantity field below:* 0-5 Acres - $ acres Quantity (total acreage - 100)= Requirements All supplemental information must be scaled to 8 ½ x 11 sheets and submitted in a portable digital format (pdf) with this application and appropriate fee. The following supplemental information is included with this application(please list):* Subject Property / Properties Information TMS #:* Address:* Acreage / Sq. Feet:* Owner:* Present Use of Property:* Request:* Comprehensive Plan Amendment (only fill out if Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested) Present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Description of Proposed Structure and Use of Property: Applicant Information

195 2 of 2 11/20/ :24 AM Name:* Address:* Phone:* Please attach supplemental information outlined above: Ex A Legal Description.pdf * I, the undersigned, serve as the owner or owner's representative and certify the information contained herein to be true and accurate. If an application is found to be incomplete, the primary contact will be notified and the application will be removed from the agenda. I further certify that the tract(s) or parcel(s) of land to which this approval request pertains: * is restricted is not restricted by any recorded covenant that is contrary to, conflicts with, or prohibits the activity for which approval is sought as provided in SC Code of Laws Section , and the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances and I agree that all terms and information are true to my knowledge:* I agree Information of person completing electronic signature: Name:* Address (if different from above): (if different from above): Phone (if different from above): * indicates required fields.

196

197

198

199 Commercial Sign Committee Recommendations

200 Study Areas Committee identified the following items for further study: Digital signs Wayfinding signs A-frame signs Taller building signs & Increased building/free-standing sign area Corporate symbols/signature items Signs near overpasses Non-conforming signs

201 Digital Signs Committee Recommendation No changes to current regulations

202 Wayfinding Signs Committee Finding 3 Types Roadside Wayfinding Shopping Center/Retail Center Wayfinding Pedestrian Wayfinding

203 Wayfinding Signs Committee Recommendation Roadside Wayfinding Recommended not to pursue at this time

204 Wayfinding Signs Committee Recommendation Comprehensive Development Wayfinding Staff to develop design standards for consideration Number 2 for shopping center/office parks/mixed use developments over 40K, 1 for retail center Size maximum 20 square feet Illumination No illumination Design high level of design, uniform background and letter color. We do not regulate content Material meet sign ordinance requirements Readerboard No changeable letter signs Visibility Maintain visibility Permit Required Location Internal to site, not allowed at street entrance

205 Wayfinding Signs Committee Recommendation Urban Corridor Wayfinding Staff to develop design standards for consideration Pilot Program Limit to Coleman/Ben Sawyer Boulevard Location Intersections/centers with businesses along side streets not adjacent to boulevard Size maximum 20 square feet Illumination No illumination Design developed, installed, maintained by Town

206 A-frame Signs Committee Recommendations Enforce Current Regulations (H) A-frame/sandwich board Allowed in Urban Corridor Overlay, where property is in substantial compliance with activity zone requirements and in shopping centers Must be located within 10 feet of primary building entrance May not be internally illuminated May not exceed four feet in height or three feet in width. Definitions A-Frame Sign. A portable sign capable of standing without support or attachment. Also known as a Sandwich Board.

207 A-Frame Signs Committee Recommendation Staff develop additional design standards for consideration Size No larger than 4 feet tall, 3 feet wide Illumination No illumination Design high level of traditional design Such as: But not:

208 A-Frame Signs Committee Recommendation Staff to develop additional design standards for consideration Material no plastic material Readerboard No changeable letter signs, would not apply to chalk or dry erase boards

209 Taller Building Signs Committee Recommendations Anchor Tenant v. Small Tenants First Floor Tenant Band Treat as other shopping center/retail tenants in centers Anchor Tenant Allow signs in sign band near top of building or Projecting Wall signs. No signs for middle tenants.

210 Corporate Symbols & Signature Elements Committee Recommendations Incorporate back into sign ordinance and treat as sign, equitable to all businesses local and national

211 Signs Near Overpasses Committee Recommendations No Changes To Current Ordinance

212 Non-conforming Signs Committee Recommendations No Changes to Current Ordinance

213 Commercial Sign Regulations Issues

214 ORDINANCE NO STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 156 ) OF THE MOUNT PLEASANT CODE OF COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE ) DIVISION THEREOF REGULATING SIGNS TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT ) WHEREAS, a special Sign Committee was appointed by the Mayor as a result of concerns raised at the May 2013 meeting of the Mount Pleasant Planning Committee regarding signs; for the purpose of reviewing and making recommendations for changes to the current sign regulations; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Sign Committee s recommendations, Mount Pleasant Town Council now desires to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the division thereof regulating Signs; more specifically by amending Section , Purpose and Findings, by repealing and replacing (B)(3) and adding a new (B)(7); by amending Section , Definitions, by repealing and replacing the definition of Sign and adding a new definition for Directory Sign; by amending Section , Commercial Signs, Paragraphs (A), (B), (B)(1)(c), (B)(1)(g) 1. through 10, (B)(2)(a), (B)(2)(a)1. through 3., (B)(2)(b), (B)(2)(c)3., (C)(2)(a), (C)(7)(a), (F), (H)(4), and (H)(6) through (9); and adding a new Section Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program, (A)(1) through (4) and (B)(1) through (7); and WHEREAS, the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2013, to consider the amendments herein to the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Mount Pleasant Town Council is empowered with the authority to make amendments to the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances and believes it is in the best interest to now so act with respect to the matter described herein.

215 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Municipality of Mount Pleasant, in Council assembled, that Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the division thereof regulating Signs shall be and is hereby amended as stated herein above, to now read as follows: CHAPTER 156: ZONING CODE Signs PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. (B) Findings. Specific findings related to the following sections pertaining to signs are as follows: (3) The town also recognizes that the differentiation of what may be considered attractive or unattractive in the way of commercial identification is a highly subjective matter and must be treated with the utmost care and consideration, but is necessary to protect the visual appearance that contributes so much to the quality of life in the town. (7) The signature design elements described herein shall be considered signs for the purpose of determining the number and dimensional requirements of signs allowed according to these regulations DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. DIRECTORY SIGN. Signage allowed within a development project that identifies multiple tenants and/or their locations within the development. (This is not to be confused with directional signs, which merely indicate directional information such as enter, exit, parking, etc.) SIGN. In the reasonable opinion of the Zoning Administrator, any object or thing (whether or not it contains any copy, graphics, illumination, or color) that is used to attract the attention of others, or that is used to communicate an idea or information of any kind to the public, specifically including humans or animals attired and/or acting in a manner to attract attention to a place or product. Page 2 of 8 (Ord )

216 Signature design elements that have been approved pursuant to (E)(1)(l) or (1)(m) of this chapter shall be considered a SIGN for the purposes of calculating the number of allowed signs, or the dimensional requirements thereof, contained in this section COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS. The following provisions shall apply to all on-premises signs on commercially zoned properties, or commercial uses in planned development districts. (A) Number of freestanding signs. There shall be no more than one freestanding sign per platted lot, except as provided herein. (B) Number, size, height and additional requirements. (1) Freestanding signs. (c) Office parks and mixed use developments. Office parks and mixed use developments may erect a freestanding sign with a maximum total area of 35 square feet of sign area, no greater than eight feet in height, at the entrance to the development. (g) Additional allowances for Directory Signs for shopping centers, retail centers, office parks and mixed-use developments. 1. Size is limited to a maximum of 35 square feet of sign area and a maximum height of eight (8) feet; 2. All signs must utilize a uniform background color and a uniform font/logo color for all sign panels and may not be internally illuminated; 3. Materials must meet provisions of Commercial Regulations et seq.; 4. Readerboards and/or changeable copy signs may not be used, included, or incorporated into any portion of Directory Signs; 6. Must maintain visibility at all internal intersections as provided in (D)(2); Page 3 of 8 (Ord )

217 7. Signs must be located internal to property and may not be located at entrances or along street frontage; 8. Sign permit and required permit documents and drawings are required for all Directory Signs; 9. Shopping centers, office parks, and mixed-use developments equal to or greater than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable area may have a maximum of two (2) internal Directory Signs; and 10. Retail centers, office parks, and mixed-use developments with less than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable area may have one (1) internal Directory Sign. (2) Building signage. (a) anchor tenants. Freestanding buildings; anchor tenants; and multi-story 1. These may utilize any combination of projecting wall sign, roof-mounted sign, façade-mounted sign, window sign, awning sign, painted-wall sign, or any other sign(s) appropriately scaled to building or property (as determined by the Commercial Design Review Board, Zoning Administrator, or designee), with a maximum total area of one square foot per linear foot of building frontage of the primary building facade. 2. Anchor tenants in multi-story buildings may locate allowed building signage near the top of the building. 3. To qualify as an anchor tenant, the business must fully occupy the anchor space, as noted on the site plan provided in the Master Sign Program, and have a minimum 20,000 square feet of area. (b) Shopping center/retail center/mixed use/multi-tenant building tenant multi-story building tenant signs. Tenant space facade signs shall be located in a sign band pursuant to the provisions of (E)(8) and shall be determined by linear distance of frontage based on the chart below. Page 4 of 8 (Ord )

218 Linear Footage 0-60 feet feet 60 Square Feet of Signage (c) Additional allowances. 3. No building may exceed 150 square feet of front-lit internally illuminated signage per facade. (C) Master Sign Program. (2) General requirements. (a) A Master Sign Program is required for all shopping and retail centers and multi-tenant multi-story buildings. (7) Procedures. (a) A Master Sign Program shall be a condition of approval of any new signs within a shopping or retail center, or multi-tenant multi-story building project. (F) (H) Directional signs. (Not to be confused with Directory Signs.) A-frame or sandwich board signs. (4) May not be internally or externally illuminated. (6) May not exceed one A-frame sign per business. (7) Must employ a high level of traditional design and material. Examples of high level of design include, but are not limited to: Page 5 of 8 (Ord )

219 The following sign types are examples of signs that are not appropriate: (8) May not employ readerboard or changeable letter copy. design aesthetic prohibition does not preclude the inclusion of chalkboards. This Not allowed: (9) Plastic or similar material is not allowed. Page 6 of 8 (Ord )

220 Not allowed: PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN PILOT PROGRAM. (A) Findings. (1) Mount Pleasant Town Council recognizes the inten of the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District is too produce a vibrant pedestrian scale environment with corresponding activityy as evidenced by the implementation of pedestrian activity zones that provide opportunities for outdoor dining and outdoor display of retail merchandise. (2) In an effort to foster this endeavor Mount Pleasant Town Council has expended considerable tax money for improvements to Coleman Boulevard including the installation of on-street parking, landscapedd medians and underground utilities which are either planned or currently under construction. (3) The Town has recently completed Shem Creek Park as a pedestrian oriented destination. (4) Mount Pleasant Town Council has now determined that pedestrian wayfinding signss will enhance and facilitate the pedestrian utilization of the overlay district and now desires to establish this Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program. (B) Program specifics. (1) Town planning staff, in conjunctionn with the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission and Town Councill will develop the Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program, to be implemented once the Coleman Boulevard improvements have been completed. Page 7 of 8 (Ord )