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, NOVEMBER 4, 2013 Annexation Committee Bids and Purchases Committee Recreation Committee Transportation Committee Police, Judicial, and Legal Committee Planning and Development Committee Building C Council Chambers 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 12:45 p.m. **************** The following committees will not meet: Economic Development Committee Finance Committee Fire Committee Human Resources Committee Public Services Committee Water Supply Committee 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

2 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :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 September 30, 2013 meeting 2. Request to annex an approximately 1.59 acre parcel of land known as Tract A, located at 1515 U.S. Highway 17 North, and identified by TMS No Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 1 of 2 9/26/ Hwy 17N (TMS No ) Copyright 2004 Charleston County GIS 4045 Bridge View Drive North Charleston, SC PARCEL NUMBER : PARCEL ID: STREET NUMBER: 1515 STREET NAME: N HIGHWAY 17 PROP UNIT: PROP CITY: PROP ZIP: SITE NAME: SPEEDWAY GENERAL USE: VCC MOBILE HOMES: 0 SUBDIVISION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT A LGL HI ACRES: 1.59 LGL MAR ACRES: 0 LGL WATER ACRES: 0 LGL SWAMP ACRES: 0 LGL TOTAL ACRES: 1.59 TAX DISTRICT: 26 JURISDICTION: CTA PLAT BOOK: V-58 OWNER ON 1ST: SSA SOUTH CAROLINA LLC OWNER2 ON 1ST:

12 Page 2 of 2 9/26/2013 CURRENT OWNER1: CURRENT OWNER2: SALE DATE: 7/11/2003 DEED BOOK: S WILL CODE: WILL DATE: C O NAME: SUNOCO INC - ATTN: TAX DEPT MAIL STREET NUMBER: 1735 MAIL STREET NAME: MARKET ST STE LL MAIL UNIT: MAIL CITY: PHILADELPHIA MAIL STATE: PA MAIL ZIP: MAIL COUNTRY: MAIL POSTAL CODE: SALE PRICE: 1 MULT LOT: 0 SPLIT CODE: MLOD GROUP: FINAL VALUE: BUILD COUNT: 0 AG USE VAL: 0 AG MARKET TOT: 0 LR APPROVE: N YEAR BUILT: 0 BEDROOMS: 0 FULL BATHS: 0 THREE QTR BATHS: 0 HALF BATHS: 0 TOTAL FINISH AREA: 0 LIVING AREA: 0 CONDO-BEDROOM: 0 CONDO FULL BATH: 0 CONDO H-BATH: 0 CAP LR VAL: 0 CAP ASSESSED VALUE: 0 CAP OTHER VALUE:

13 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE BIDS AND PURCHASES COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :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 September 30, 2013 meeting 2. Award recommendation for pine straw and mulch service 3. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

14 REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION October 29, 2013 To: From: Project Manager: Bids and Purchases Committee Natalie S. Cayouette, Purchasing Agent Jody Peele, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Pine Straw and Mulch Maintenance Services, IFB # NC BACKGROUND: During the Bid Opening held on October 24, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. the Town received three (3) Bids as follows: Company Name Total Bid Amount Southeast Spreading Company $384, Lawn-O-Green $333, Lowcountry Mulch Inc. $300, Purchasing Staff reviewed all Bids and determined Lowcountry Mulch, Inc. is the lowest, most responsive and responsible Bidder. The other two Bidders failed to bid the type of mulch identified in the addendum. Staff contacted the references submitted by Lowcountry Mulch, Inc. and each reference stated that they were responsive and reliable. Also, Staff reviewed the scope of work with the Bidder to confirm that they have a thorough understanding of the specific service requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests permission to enter into a contract with Lowcountry Mulch, Inc. in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Four Hundred Forty and 00/100 ($300,440.00) Dollars. Thank you for your consideration. cc: K. Glasson E. Carrier C. Rhyne C. Potts J. Crates R. Griles File

15 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE RECREATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :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 September 30, 2013 meeting 2. Facility Rental Requests a. Senior Center 1. Oceanside Baptist Fellowship Once a month on Sundays from November March, and December 24th from 6:00 to 9:00pm 3. Volunteer Recognition - Miriam Brown Flower Beds Donna Powell Tri-County Master Gardener Association Susan Seabrook Tri-County Master Gardener Association Jennifer Schlette Clemson Extension Agent, 4H 4. Program/projects update 5. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

16 RECREATION COMMITTEE PROGRAM REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2013 ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1. Youth Baseball 2013 = = Youth Cross Country 2013 = = Youth Football 2013 = = 606 (33) 4. Youth Soccer 2013 = = 526 (140) 5. Youth Volleyball 2013 = = TOTAL YOUTH 2013 = 1, = 1,780 (119) 6. Adult Flag Football 2013 = = Adult Soccer 2013 = = Adult Softball 2013 = = TOTAL ADULTS 2013 = 1, = 1, Tennis 2013 = = PROGRAMMING PARTICIPATION REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1. Swim Lessons 2013 = = Senior Center Members 2013 = 2, = 2, UPCOMING EVENTS IN NOVEMBER a. November 9 Old Village 5K at Alhambra Hall b. November 22 Sock Hop at the Town Hall Gym c. November 23 Cheerleading Competition at the Park West Gym d. November 27 Free Skateboarding Day at the R. L. Jones Center FACILITY STATUS a. All Town/other fields are currently open. PROGRAM/ATHLETIC REGISTRATIONS None at the present time.

17 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :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 September 3, 2013 meeting 2. Consideration of roadway pavement rehabilitation projects for current fiscal year 3. Sweetgrass Basket Parkway Phase 4A right-of-way acquisition 4. Update ongoing projects 5. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

18 Town of Mount Pleasant Pavement Management System (PMS) 2013 / 2014 (Program Year 1 Recommendations) 1. Rosemead Subdivision $135, Talisman Road Kilarney Road 2. Mallard Lakes Subdivision $169, Lake Mallard Road 3. Park West Boulevard $212, Section from Queensgate Way to Grey Marsh Road Total $516,413.12

19 Town of Mount Pleasant Pavement Management System (PMS) 2013 / 2014 (Program Year 1 Recommendations) Paving Recommendations Total Cost $516, Current 2013 / 2014 PMS Budget $568, Remaining Budget used for Charleston County (5%)? Management fee contingent paving costs or minor maintenance on additional roads $ 52, Schedule: Simple IGA to include Town of MP with Chas. Co. paving contract early 2014 County to Bid paving program - early spring 2014

20 Rosemead Subdivision Circa mid 1970 s No previous overlays Mallard Lakes Subdivision Circa early to mid 1980 s No previous overlays Rosemead and Mallard Lakes Subdivisions

21 Park West Boulevard Circa late 1990 s No previous overlays Multiple pot hole patches Park West Boulevard Park West Boulevard

22 SHEET NO. DESCRICPTION INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET TOTALS PLAN OF PROPOSED 1 TITLE SHEET 1 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 1 -N- 2A 3-3E MOVING/REMOVAL/DISPOSAL ITEMS & NEW FENCES TYPICAL SECTIONS 1 6 IMPROVEMENTS 4-4A RIGHT-OF-WAY DATA 2 4B PROPERTY STRIP MAP 5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 5B REFERENCE DATA 1 5C PLAN INDEX SHEET 1 1 SWEETGRASS BASKET PARKWAY, PHASE 4A 5D 5E UTILITY REFERENCE UTILITY LEGEND 6-11 ROADWAY PLANS (HAMLIN TO PORCHERS BLUFF) ROADWAY PROFILES TOP OF CURB PROFILES 12 D01-06A DRAINAGE PLANS 12 PM01-PM06 PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS 6 FROM: HAMLIN ROAD TO PORCHERS BLUFF ROAD SN01-SN07 SIGNING PLANS 7 TR01-TR06 TREE REMOVAL PLANS 6 EC01 EC02 X1-X49 EROSION CONTROL NOTES EROSION CONTROL DATA EC03-EC08 EROSION CONTROL PLANS 6 CROSS SECTIONS TOTAL 127 PROJECT FEATURES GRADING, DRAINAGE, CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK, ASPHALT PAVING, SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. SITE NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION VICINITY MAP NTS -N- NPDES Disturbed PORCHERS BLUFF ROAD Area = Acre(s) Approximate Location of Connector / Hamlin Road Intersection is: Longitude Latitude 32 50' 56" N 79 47' 45" W HAM LIN ROAD END PROJECT STA RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT? BEGIN PROJECT SWEETGRASS BASKET PARKWAY, PHASE 4A YES / NO STA CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas 3955 Faber Place Drive Suite 300 North Charleston, SC TRAFFIC DATA SWEETGRASS BASKET PKWY., PH. 4A (843) SBP_ 4A_ Title_ Sheet.dgn 10/29/ TRUCKS ADT ADT 3 DAYS BEFORE DIGGING IN SOUTH CAROLINA CALL PALMETTO UTILITY PROTECTION SERVICE 4 % LOCATION MAP SCALE: NTS PREPARED FOR TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA C MOUNT RESC PLEASANT O CONSULTANT - PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

23 MB 1SBD DB D425 PG DB M521 PG DB G465 PG 182 DB M521PG 889 DB B591PG MATCHLINE STA SEE PLAN SHEET 11 C41' NEW 55' R/W C41' C42' ' 12' 12' 12' 150' STORAGE 6.00' ' TAPER F31' 36"WD 18' F31' F28' CONC GRASS ' F32' 2PINES PRES. R/W 25' SHRUBS HW HW 3'WD HW SCDOT DOCKET ' ' HW SHRUBS F49' OBTAIN NEW 45' X 50' " " HW PED. RAMP W/ DET. WARN. SURF. (TYP.) ' CONC 1SF HTR 205 BEGIN ASPHALT PATH AT LIMIT OF PED. RAMP F51' F50' F48' DB J056 PG 017 NEW 55' R/W F45' F41' PB N PG ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ' DB G163 PG 881 CONC NEW 2'-0" C&G F41' F40' F39' F39' 48"BW 48"BW DITCH 1SBD CONC BEGIN PROJECT STA (SWEETGRASS BASKET PKWY.) TIE EQUALITY 3 STA (HAMLIN RD.) DB B591 PG DB X186 PG 677 DITCH BEGIN CONSTRUCTION STA (SWEETGRASS BASKET PKWY.) C42' C43' PI HW ' PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET DITCH ï» S 42î 50' 45.00' DRIVE OVERLAY LIMIT (TYP) HW C45' 1.5"CTP C45' C45' C41' ' ' S F37' POT CONC SIDEWALK CONC 18"RCP 36"WD EXIST. 41' - 24"RCP PINE ' 79 2' R 4' 18' 93' TAPER 60' R #4RB EXIST. 42' - 24"RCP S HW 1.5' R HAMLIN RD ' 150' STORAGE EXIST. 8' - 24"RCP 1"OTP 60' R S ' PB EE PG 15 S 12' 14' F42' #4RB 72"CHL&3BW EXIST. 7' - 24"RCP NEW 65' R/W NEW T DITCH F41' ' ï» N58î 07' HW & PINES HW DB H172 PG 196 CONC 65.00' R/W TRANS. 100' STORAGE 64' TAPER F43' ' 25.69' 1"CTP ' 1SBD ' 14' F32' 180' TAPER 272' STORAGE F33' NEW 45' R/W DB X055 PG 539 F36' NEW 2'-0" C&G F34' F35' NEW 5' SDWK. NEW 8' MULTI-USE PATH SWEETGRASS BASKET PKWY. 145' TAPER 145' TAPER F34' DB G163 PG DB G412 PG 456 EASEMENT NEW 20' DRAINAGE M ATCHLINE STA , SEE PLAN SHEET 7 NEW 8' MULTI-USE PATH F34'F34' NEW 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT POND -N DB P294 PG ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB BW PG 120 HTR 3' PLASTIC FENCE C41' GR 15"RCP T 30"OAK EXIST. 22' - 15"RCP ï» S 42î 51' 1.5"CTP 150' TAPER 36"OAK T 30"OAK F39' F36' NEW 5' SDWK. NEW 2'-0" C&G HW PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET POND CONC 12' 12' 12' L/P NEW 45' R/W C40' C39' ' R/W 36"PINE EXIST. DIRT DRIVE NEW TRANS SBD 25.00' C38' 36"PINE DIRT DRIVE S EXIST. C19' EXIST. 18' - 15"RCP CONC SIDEWALK 160' TAPER ' 1"OTP 1"OTP ' DB P591 PG DB V120 PG DB A201 PG 102 NEW 2'-0" C&G 15' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PB EE PG ' #4RB 12' 12' 12' MB MB 160' TAPER 36"HICKORY 36"PINE HW F29' MB NEW 45' R/W F26' DRIVE DIRT DRIVE EXIST. 1"OTPBENT EXIST. PAVED 4' CHAIN LINK F24' T ' ' SHRUBS PI FENCEPOST EXIST. BRICK DRIVE 45.00' TIE INTO EXIST. SDWK. 1SBD L/P RUIN RUIN DB P591 PG DB W095 PG "HDPE 15"RCP 15"RCP 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB CH P PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET DIRT EXIST. F17' DECK 44 STA END NEW 2'-0" C&G MATCH EXIST. PAVED SHLDR DB X077 PG 025 END CONSTRUCTION STA (HAMLIN RD.) MATCH EXIST. HAMLIN RD. GRADES DRIVE 11' 1' F21' 4' CHAIN LINK EXISTING SIDEWALK EXIST. PAVED DRIVE 1"OTP 3' CHAIN LINK 1"OTP DITCH EXIST. GRAVELDRIVE PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET DB 7900 PG 002 PRES. R/W 35' SCDOT DOCKET T SBP_ 4A_ Plan_ Sheets_ RW Exhibit.dgn 10/29/2013 HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION NOTE: 1. ALIGNMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND ON REFERENCE DATA SHEET. 2. ANY FIELD CHANGES WITHIN SCDOT R/W OR CHANGES THAT MAY IMPACT SCDOT R/W WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM SCDOT PRIOR TO BEING IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD. PROJECT MANAGER MMD DRAWN BY: DPH (03/24/13) CHECKED BY: MMD (03/24/13) APPROVED BY: MMD (03/24/13) PROJECT NUMBER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION DB B619 PG 738 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT SWEETGRASS BASKET PARKWAY, PHASE 4A (HAMLIN TO PORCHERS BLUFF) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA ï» S 42î 47' 15' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PB EE PG 115 3' WIRE MESH T 48"PINE CONC SIDEWALK 48"CHL 3"OTP DB M638 PG 505 ROADWAY PLAN SHEET 50' 100' FILENAME ROADWAY_PLAN_ 06 SHEET SCALE 1" = 50' 6

24 DB J056 PG 017 -N- SBP CURVE 9 PI = Dï» = 13î 36' 25" ï» D = 1î 25 R = ' T = ' L = ' E = 28.37' D.S. = 40 M.P.H. emax = TABLE e = RC PC - LG% = 0.58% PT - LG% = 0.58% DB G163 PG DB M642 PG 206 CONC DB H189 PG DB V199 PG 565 EASEMENT NEW 20' DRAINAGE F39' EASEMENT NEW 20' DRAINAGE F39' F34' F34' M ATCHLINE STA , SEE PLAN SHEET ' ' ' 61.50' NEW 55' R/W F41' NEW 8' MULTI-USE PATH 10' STORAGE 4' NEW 45' R/W 14' 1' 14' 40' R ' 2' R ' NEW 73.5' R/W 8' CONC. SDWK. ï» N58î 07' F37' F34' F35' NEW 2'-0" C&G NEW 5' SDWK. 40' R BEGIN LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ' 7.5' R ' F52' F37' ' ' PC ' 14' 15' 14' F39' PED. RAMP W/ DET. WARN. SURF. (TYP.) ' F52' F52' NEW 8' MULTI-USE PATH F38' F52' F39' F50' 150' STORAGE 150' TAPER NEW 2'-0" C&G ' F38' F45' NEW 55' R/W F36' END LANDSCAPED MEDIAN F41' 14' 15' 14' F36' 15' R F42' F43' 7.5' R 7.5' R 15' R F37' F43' F38' NEW 45' R/W BEGIN LANDSCAPED MEDIAN 21.50' NEW 2'-0" C&G ' 21.50' ' F43' SWEETGRASS BASKET PKWY. SBP CURVE ' F41' F44' F43' F45' F40' LANDSCAPED MEDIAN 14' 15' F43' 14' F39' 7.5' R 6' WOOD BOARDWALK F43' F43' NEW 55' R/W F43' 152' TAPER F42' F44' NEW 8' MULTI-USE PATH NEW 2'-0" C&G F44' F44' F43' F44' F43' PT ' F45' 250' STORAGE F43' PED. RAMP W/ DET. WARN. SURF. (TYP.) ' ' 21.50' F48' 3' ' 12' 14' F42' 73.50' 40' R NEW 73.5' R/W ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB AZ PG123 ï» N4î 30' NEW 45' R/W ' 8' CONC. SDWK ' 1.5' R ' 61.50' F39' 40' R ' 7.5' R F39' F38' ' BEGIN LANDSCAPED MEDIAN NEW 2'-0" C&G NEW 5' SDWK. M ATCHLINE STA , SEE PLAN SHEET END LANDSCAPED MEDIAN DB G163 PG ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB EK PG DB N538 PG 712 NOTE: SBP_ 4A_ Plan_ Sheets_ RW Exhibit.dgn 10/29/ ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB CH PG 174 HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION 1. ALIGNMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND ON REFERENCE DATA SHEET. PROJECT MANAGER MMD DRAWN BY: DPH (03/24/13) CHECKED BY: MMD (03/24/13) APPROVED BY: MMD (03/24/13) PROJECT NUMBER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT SWEETGRASS BASKET PARKWAY, PHASE 4A (HAMLIN TO PORCHERS BLUFF) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA 0 ROADWAY PLAN SHEET 50' 100' FILENAME ROADWAY_PLAN_ 07 SHEET SCALE 1" = 50' 7

25 P P 36"WD FP NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND ON REFERENCE DATA SHEET. 2. ANY FIELD CHANGES WITHIN SCDOT R/W OR CHANGES THAT MAY IMPACT SCDOT R/W WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM SCDOT PRIOR TO BEING IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD. 3. PLACE PROP. BRICK MASONRY RETAINING WALL (12" REINFORCED / GROUTED) 2' OFFSET FROM BACK OF CURB. SEE SCDOT STD. DWG REFER TO SCDOT STD. DWG FOR DETAILS SHOWING CONTOURING POT N- 1"CTP 1"CTP #4RB SS MH #4RB 20' POWER EASEMENT PRES. 25' SCDOT DOCKET C.B. (FULL OF DEBRIS) P.P. P.P. STA (HAMLIN RD.) MATCH EXIST. HAMLIN RD. GRADES 1/2"OTP PRES. 25' SCDOT DOCKET EASEMENT #4RB 20' POWER TIE INTOEXIST. SDWK. 8"P.V.C. W.M. HAMLIN RD. 30" R.C.P. 24" R.C.P.(2) ASPH. DRIVE F19' SIGN M.B. M.B. 10.5' BEGIN CONSTRUCTION NEW 2'-0" PAVED SHLDR. PB CD PG 17 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEGIN NEW 2' C&G STA BEGIN RET. WALL AND 2.0' C&G STA SEE NOTE (TYP.) 10.1' ERECT 245 LF GUARDRAIL CONST. END TERMINAL TYPE (T) CONST. END TERMINAL TYPE (B) PB BV PG ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 4"OTP CB 20' POWER EASEMENT SIGN CONC. DRIVE ' ' 30"PINE SS MH P.P. (BOLTED SHUT) W.M. C.B. M.B. SIGN ASPH. DRIVE U.E. MKR. E.BOX U.G. MKR. SIGN P.P. L.P. CONC. WALK P.P. 26"LIVE OAK 40"LIVE OAK CONC. WALK CONC. WALK CONC. WALK F18' F20' F19' ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB L09 PG 487 F16' DB Z404 PG ' POWER EASEMENT 160' TAPER 160' TAPER ' ' F25' ' 18.00' F28' 12' 12' 12' NEW 30' R/W G.W. SS MH 36" R.C.P. SS MH TOP=15.23' I.E=4.52' SIGN ROLL CURB & GUTTER SIGN W.V.(3) 18" R.C.P. P P.P. P 12"GUM T.PED W.M. 36" R.C.P. 8"P.V.C. 8"P.V.C. F23' 30' R/W 52 NEW ' ' F45' F23' ' DB 0095 PG DB 0154 PG ' 30' R SEWER EASEMENT PB L09 PG 431 8"P.V.C. F29' F29' F28' 1"CTP 152' TAPER END RET. WALL STA #4RB #4RB DB A358 PG ' ' #4RB LOHR DRIVE PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET ' R W.V. F.H. CONC. WALK WATERLINE EASEMENT STORM JB TOP=15.12' I.E.=10.99' P STORM JB PB L09 PG 433 M.B ' CONC. DRIVE F23' ' 16" LIVE OAK DITCH BEGIN RET. WALL STA F28' M.B. C.O. C.O. W.M. T.PED G.W. G.W. S.P. 17" LIVE OAK W.M.(2) GR GR F.O.C. MKR. M.B. ï» S 42î 50' C40' "CTP DB 0095 PG 428 NEW 5' SDWK. F27' ASPH. DRIVE C.O. NEW 30' R/W F35' END RET. WALL STA ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT M.B. P.P. G.W. E.BOX CONC. WALK ' 8" P.V.C. SS MH BOLTED SHUT 30" R.C.P. 4" P.V.C. (APPARENT SERVICE) SS MH C.B ' 40.00' F28' F29' 300' STORAGE SOLID TOP-UNABLE TO ACCESS SAGO PALM SAGO PALM C41' ERECT 90 LF GUARDRAIL CONST. END TERMINAL TYPE (T) CONST. E ND TERMINAL TYPE (B) PB L09 PG DB B645 PG 713 1"CTP DRIVE 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB DA PG ' OVERLAY LIMIT (TYP) 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PB N PG ' NEW 40' R/W C.O. 50' TAPER 12' 12' 12' ASPH. DRIVE ' ' L/P P VAULT P.P. T.PED T 40' R P.P. G.W. W.V. F.H. NEW 50' R/W PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET DB B645 PG 713 #4RB ' NEW 69' 50.00' R/W ' CONC 40' R C42' C42' C40' DB J056 PG 017 8"P.V.C ' ' 24"HDPE P.P. 6' R HAMLIN RD ' ' 36" WD HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW F39' F39' ' STORAGE 29.00' DITCH NEW 55' R/W PED. RAMP W/ DET. WARN. SURF. (TYP.) 2HW 15' SANITARYSEWER EASEMENT PB EE PG 15 DB D425 PG DB 0183 PG ' F39' L/P L/P SS MH 30"RCP GRASS HTR 15' R.C.P. F37' C43' C41' C43' 15' R.C.P. 15' R.C.P. CB GRASS NEW 2'-0" C&G F42' 11' 12' 12' 12' NEW 2'-0" C&G DB V186 PG159 1"CTPBENT F38' HW HW HW PALM 24"HDPE HW & PINES PALM NEW 45' R/W CONC SDWK. 200' TAPER C44' C43' 1"OTP PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT PRES. R/W 25' SCDOT DOCKET DOCKET T TELBOX F34' 152' TAPER HW CONC GRASS F31' DITCH NEW 55' R/W DB M521PG DB G465 PG F31' 6.00' 12' 12' 12' C41'C41' DB B591PG 137 SEE PLAN SHEET 6 PRES. R/W 25' M ATCHLINE STA SCDOT DOCKET NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND ON REFERENCE DATA SHEET. SBP_ 4A_ Plan_ Sheets_ RW Exhibit.dgn 10/29/2013 HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NUMBER MMD DPH (03/24/13) MMD (03/24/13) MMD (03/24/13) PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT SWEETGRASS BASKET PARKWAY, PHASE 4A (HAMLIN TO PORCHERS BLUFF) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA 0 2. ANY FIELD CHANGES WITHIN SCDOT R/W OR CHANGES THAT MAY IMPACT SCDOT R/W WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM SCDOT PRIOR TO BEING IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD. ROADWAY PLAN SHEET 50' 100' FILENAME ROADWAY_PLAN_ 11 SHEET SCALE 1" = 50' 11

26 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE POLICE, JUDICIAL, & LEGAL COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :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 September 30, 2013 meeting 2. Legal matters a. Review of fees pertaining to the towing of vehicles 3. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

27 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, :45 p.m. Municipal Complex Building C Council Chambers 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes from the September 30, 2013 meeting 2. Employee years of service recognition 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the October 23, 2013 meeting a. Request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately acre parcel of land located on Hungryneck Boulevard (portions formerly known as Country Store Road) approximately 1,500 feet southwest of its intersection with Venning Road and identified by TMS No Subject parcel is proposed to remain as part of the HNB-VR-OD, Hungryneck Boulevard-Venning Road Overlay District. b. Request to zone AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 1.59 acre parcel of land known as Tract A, located at 1515 U.S. Highway 17 North, and identified by TMS No c. Request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

28 designation of an approximately 1.94 acre parcel of land known as Parcel 5, Boone Hall subdivision, located at the terminus of McConnell Lane and identified by TMS No from Commercial to Medium Density Neighborhood. d. Request to rezone from OP, Office Professional District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, an approximately 1.94 acre parcel of land known as Parcel 5, Boone Hall subdivision, located at the terminus of McConnell Lane and identified by TMS No e. Request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation for 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 from Business/Light Industrial/Economic Development to High Density Neighborhood. f. Request to amend the Watermark Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by adding residential townhouse as a permitted use and include development standards for the same for 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 g. Request to amend the Belle Hall Planned Development District ordinance as it pertains to an approximately 0.66 acre parcel of land known as Lot 3, Belle Hall subdivision, located at 492 Bramson Court, and identified by TMS No , by adding detached single-family dwelling units as an additional permitted use on the parcel and establishing development standards for the same. h. Request to amend the Carolina Park Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by modifying signage requirements, increasing the height of accessory structures to 25 feet, modifying buffer requirements as they relate to attached single-family dwelling units, and modifying lot width to depth ratio requirements. i. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Sections and and adding a new Section , all pertaining to signage by 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

29 providing a definition for Directory Sign and amending the definition of Sign ( ), establishing provisions for Directory Signs and amending provisions for commercial signs regarding tenant signs in single and multi-story buildings, master sign program, and A-frame or sandwich board signs ( ) and establishing provisions for a Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program (new ). j. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section pertaining to the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, by establishing two sections for building height in the C-1 area of Coleman Boulevard, one at 45 feet and the other at 55 feet, and establishing a new subsection providing certain exceptions from site development and design element requirements for parking structures located in a flood zone. 4. Request to amend Watermark Development Agreement to incorporate amendments to the Planned Development Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. 5. Request to amend Carolina Park Development Agreement to incorporate amendments to the Planned Development Ordinance. 6. Adjourn 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina tel (843) fax (843)

30 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 OCTOBER 23, 2013 MINUTES Present: Absent: Staff: Roy Neal, Chair, Bob Brimmer, Cheryll Woods-Flowers, Henry Middleton, Nick Collins, Todd Richardson, Howard Chapman (entered at 5:11 pm) Alice Richter-Lehrman, Phil Siegrist (both excused) Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Kent Prause, Kelly Cousino, Kevin Mitchell, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Correspondence and General public comments A. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Cousino reviewed the Town Council decisions with the Commission. Ms. Cousino stated that that several items of correspondence were received and would be addressed when the particular agenda items are discussed. 3. Old Business A. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan and 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 MEETING. Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant has asked for deferral of preliminary plat approval and would like to proceed with sketch plan approval. He 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. PROPOSAL The current request is for sketch plan approval. Applicant requests deferral of the preliminary plat until next month. Land Development Regulations Section (C) (2) allows preliminary plats to be deferred for more than 60 days for reasons of meeting Town requirements, which is the case here as final stormwater analysis is still being conducted. The request is for 12 detached single-family residential lots, to be developed pursuant to the

31 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 2 of 25 postage stamp lot provisions of the UC-CBS, Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Conforms to intended land use The UC-CBS allows for detached single family residential units and postage stamp lots. All development within the UC-CBS, including residential, is subject to design review approval. 2. Lot Layout There are no minimum dimensional requirements. Emergency response and access were previously a concern. The proposed final design was reviewed by our Fire Department for access and the ability to provide fire protection. Density is limited to 16 units per acre. Based on the acreage, a maximum of 13 dwelling units are permitted. 3. Street/sidewalk design Streets are one way and privately owned. Sidewalks are provided internally and along Warrick Oaks Lane. 4. Open space There are no minimum requirements for open space within the UC-CBS. Tree removals have been approved through the design review process. 5. Stormwater detention The stormwater management system is to be privately owned and maintained. The plan is to reduce impervious surface through pervious concrete and provide detention through underground chambers. Discharge is planned to be through soil infiltration, which will have to be supported by a geo-technical study. Staff recommends a ten (10) foot drainage easement be placed on the property between Units 11 & 12 and the perimeter property line. There is an existing Town storm drain line on the adjacent property that conveys stormwater from the adjacent neighborhood. 6. Buffers/landscaping Buffers are not required within the UC-CBS when interconnectivity to adjacent parcels is provided. 7. Sketch Plan Checklist Checklist items are complete. SUMMARY Project conforms to land use and zoning requirements. Mr. Chapman entered at this time (5:11 pm). Mr. Neal asked what the parking requirements would be. Ms. Cousino answered that they are required to provide between 1 and 2 spaces per unit. Mr. Neal asked where the fire station was located. Mr. Mitchell indicated the location on the map. Mr. Collins asked the width of the access. Mr. Mitchell answered that it begins at 24 feet and narrows to 16 feet. Ms. Cousino stated that there would be interconnectivity. Mr. Collins asked about drainage. Mr. Mitchell answered that this is still being coordinated with the Town and reviewed the existing drainage with the Commission. Mr. Collins asked if there would be any effect on the properties on Kincade Drive. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative. Mr. Collins asked if mixed use would be required. Ms. Cousino answered in the negative. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked about the drainage and if there is a continuing problem. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that a larger easement is being requested. Ms. Woods- Flowers asked if the roads would be private. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that the roads would not meet width requirements but would be able to support emergency vehicles. Mr. Mitchell stated that in regard to drainage, they cannot impact the existing drainage and the applicant is not having any discharge into the existing system.

32 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 3 of 25 Mr. Mark Bennett and Mr. Ron Denton, applicants, stated that they are available to answer questions. Mr. Neal asked about parking. Mr. Bennett answered that there would be garages as well as additional parking. Mr. Denton stated that there would be 28 parking spaces. Mr. Chapman asked how Unit 11 would be accessed. Mr. Bennett answered that they would be able to park at the dead end street. Mr. Chapman asked about parking for Units 1 and 2. Mr. Bennett answered that they would park in the garage and each have off-street parking in front of the garage. Mr. Neal asked about open space. Mr. Denton answered that the project is not required to have open space. Mr. Collins asked if there would be approximately six feet between units. Mr. Denton answered in the affirmative. Mr. Collins asked the height of the units. Mr. Denton answered that it would be approximately 35 feet. Mr. Collins asked the difference between the sketch plan and preliminary plat. Mr. Mitchell answered that the sketch plan is the conceptual plan for the project. Mr. Collins asked if they would need preliminary plat approval. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richardson asked if DRB approval has been given. Mr. Mitchell answered that they have gone through the DRB process, but cannot receive final DRB approval until the sketch plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Chapman expressed concern with accessibility of parking and additional traffic at the fire station. Mr. Chapman moved for denial. Ms. Woods-Flowers seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman also expressed concern with the lack of open space in addition to concern with not having sufficient parking and the impact it would have on Warrick Lane. Mr. Prause clarified that the project meets the density allowed by the UC-CBS. He stated that there is no requirement for open space and the project meets the parking requirements. Mr. Richardson shares Mr. Chapman s concerns, but it also has to have DRB approval. He suggested that it cannot be denied based on the concerns stated. He asked the impact to the applicant if denied. Mr. Prause answered that the applicant could submit a revised sketch plan without a waiting period. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 4. Requests A. REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately acre parcel of land located on Hungryneck Boulevard (portions formerly known as Country Store Road) approximately 1,500 feet southwest of its intersection with Venning Road and identified by TMS No Subject parcel is proposed to remain as part of the HNB-VR-OD, Hungryneck Boulevard- Venning Road Overlay District.

33 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 4 of 25 Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: The subject property is currently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, and is located within the HNB-VR-OD, Hungryneck Boulevard Venning Road Overlay District. The property was most recently used as a construction office and laydown yard for materials by road construction contractors. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property is Community Conservation which recognizes the importance of the unique development characteristics of historic African-American areas in the planning area and generally includes low density residential uses with few to no commercial uses. Requests for commercial zoning district designation within the HNB-VR-OD should be considered in context with the purpose of the overlay district. The purpose of the HNB-VR-OD describes light commercial and mixed-use development uses that demonstrate consideration to residential uses and is consistent with the Access Management Plan for Hungryneck Boulevard. The HNB-VR-OD does not limit uses but instead provides that the appropriate underlying zoning district must be obtained for the intended use. A contemplated use for the parcel is the expansion of the adjacent Mount Pleasant Chevrolet car lot, which would require Special Exception use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The appropriate underlying zoning district for the intended use would be AB-2. Also, as the property and access is currently configured, any development of this property will only have access consistent with the Access Management Plan. With the completion of the Hungryneck/ I-526 overpass and also considering the uses on adjacent properties, development of this property for commercial uses is likely more suitable and viable than residential development as long as any development on the property adheres to the Access Management Plan. Adjacent town properties are zoned AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District; AB, Areawide Business District; PI-1, Public Institutional 1 District; and PD, Planned Development District (Central Mount Pleasant). Adjacent county parcels are zoned R-4, Single Family Residential District. The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request: o Recognize the significance of historic, traditional, rural, and planned neighborhoods, maintaining their desirable characteristics such as their prevailing densities, building types, and quiet streets. o Recognize the importance of the physical and cultural aspects of traditional African- American communities found in the planning area. o Promote appropriate infill and redevelopment o Focus future growth in the Town of Mount Pleasant on areas that have sufficient transportation infrastructure and are located near existing centers of employment and activity. o Encourage development of infill properties with appropriately scaled redevelopment to utilize infrastructure already in place. o Focus redevelopment and revitalization on older commercial areas which are served by existing infrastructure and are underutilized; ensure any redevelopment is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.

34 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 5 of 25 Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Collins moved for approval. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked about the triangle section and if was included in the request. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the triangle portion is in the process of being condemned. Mr. Skipper Woody, applicant stated that the Town attorney has indicated that the triangle portion is being condemned and would be Town property. He stated that his understanding is that they own the property. Ms. Cousino stated that this is a mapping error and the request does not include the triangle portion. Mr. Chapman asked about access. Ms. Cousino answered that there would not be access from Hungryneck Boulevard. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. B. ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to annex and zone AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 1.59 acre parcel of land known as Tract A, located at 1515 U.S. Highway 17 North, and identified by TMS No Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: The current use of the property is a Sunoco gas station. Current Charleston County zoning is CC, Community Commercial District. Adjacent town properties are zoned AB, Areawide Business District and adjacent unincorporated parcels are zoned CC, Community Commercial District and one parcel is zoned R-4, Single-Family Residential District. Gas stations are a Conditional use in the AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. There are no current plans to make any modifications to the site as it was recently improved in the County. The request is to annex in to the Town and AB-2 is the appropriate zoning for the existing use. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property is Commercial. The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request: o Continue to seek the annexation of unincorporated areas within the Mount Pleasant planning area. o Encourage the annexation of unincorporated areas within the Town s Planning Area to provide better coordinated and enhanced pubic services. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Ms. Woods-Flowers moved for approval. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. All in favor. C. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan for Bessemer Road Subdivision, 32 detached single-family residential lots, to be located on an approximately acre tract of land comprised of an approximately acre parcel of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, known as Lot 34,

35 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 6 of 25 Laurel Hill subdivision, located on Joseph Glover Road and identified by TMS No ; and an approximately 1.15 acre parcel of land zoned PD, Planned Development District, known as Lot 36B-5, located on Bessemer Road, and identified by TMS No Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY The acre parcel was annexed and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District on July 10, The 1.15 acre parcel used for access is located in the Park West Planned Development District. PROPOSAL The proposal is for detached single-family residential, dedication of a public road, dedication of public storm drain system, and 0.62 acres of open space. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Conforms to intended land use Proposed development meets the lot dimensional requirements of R-1 zoning. The Park West PD zoning allows for the dedication of public streets. 2. Lot layout Special setbacks are required for lots along the cul-de-sac where the minimum lot width is not met at the street. 3. Street/sidewalk design The subdivision creates two cul-de-sacs with a single point of access. There is no provision for future development or interconnectivity. Possibilities for interconnection include extending a road to Joseph Glover Road and creating a street to access adjacent larger tracts for future development. The applicant indicated the adjacent neighborhood does not desire the roadway connection to Joseph Glover. The entrance road should meet the Town standards for an Entry Boulevard. Sidewalks are proposed to be located on both sides of the road. The sidewalks are to be a minimum of 3 feet from the curb. It is recommended to extend the sidewalk along Bessemer Road along the front of the adjacent lot that will contain a detention pond. A continuous sidewalk will be created along Bessemer Road once commercial development occurs and adjoins this section. 4. Open space Open space is planned for two locations. The 0.41 acre area near Joseph Glover Road is residual undevelopable space accessed through a proposed trail. This area can be accessed by Joseph Glover Road unless a fence is erected to prevent entry. The other open space area is located near Bessemer Road within Park West. It has good visibility and easily accessible. The plat does not indicate the intentions of the residual Park West parcel. Staff recommends this be clarified as either HOA area or a developable parcel not part of the subdivision. 5. SW detention Three ponds are shown. Visibility of the two ponds in the southern portion of the property is not good from the road. There is adequate access through a designated HOA parcel between Lots 1 and 32. The smaller pond towards the entrance has good visibility and is easily accessible. The stormwater management plan is not under review at this time. Staff recommends conveying the runoff to the pond and the entrance and expanding its capacity to reduce the need for the two ponds. 6. Buffers/landscaping Detached single family lots are not required to provide buffers and landscaping other than tree mitigation. 7. Sketch Plan Checklist Checklist items are complete.

36 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 7 of 25 Mr. Brimmer asked if the open space in the front is part of the Park West development. Mr. Mitchell answered that the parcel is currently part of the Park West Planned Development, but the property line would be abandoned. Mr. Brimmer asked about the staff comment regarding this property. Mr. Mitchell answered that the use was not indicated on the plans. Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that the front parcel would remain commercial aside from the open space. Mr. Brimmer asked if the property were developed would it be developed under the Park West Planned Development requirements. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked what would be done with the back lots. Mr. Branch answered that it would be fenced. He stated that there is a current existing buffer. Mr. Chapman asked about the front parcel and if it would be HOA property. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Collins asked how the open space would be accessed. Mr. Branch answered that it was a drainage easement. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the request including staff comments with exclusion of the staff comment regarding interconnectivity. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. D. REZONING REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Request to rezone from OP, Office Professional District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, an approximately 1.94 acre parcel of land known as Parcel 5, Boone Hall subdivision, located at the terminus of McConnell Lane and identified by TMS No Also request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation of the aforementioned parcel from Commercial to Medium Density Neighborhood. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property is comprised of an approximately 1.94 acre undeveloped parcel of land known as Parcel 5, Boone Hall subdivision, located at the terminus of McConnell Lane and identified by TMS No Surrounding the tract are various developed and undeveloped commercial properties with AB, Areawide Business District, zoning or OP, Office Professional District, zoning comprising a bank, two restaurants, shops and office uses. Full access to US Highway 17 is provided by McConnell Lane, which is stubbed out to an adjoining vacant commercial parcel located in Brickyard Falls shopping center. HISTORY This tract is a portion of a larger family-owned tract located between Boone Hall Plantation and Brickyard subdivision. The entire tract was located in unincorporated Charleston County and zoned for residential use. The adjoining Brickyard property is comprised by what is now known as Brickyard Falls shopping center, having been zoned for commercial use since its annexation into the Town in Beginning in 1998 and continuing in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009, various portions of the parent McConnell tract have been annexed and accorded commercial zoning over the years. A remnant portion of the parent parcel still

37 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 8 of 25 remains in unincorporated Charleston County. The subject was annexed in 2008 and has been zoned OP, Office Professional District, since. PROPOSAL Proposed is a request to rezone the property from OP, Office Professional District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, and concurrently to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation of the parcel from Commercial to Medium Density Neighborhood, which is an appropriate density classification for the requested RPH District zoning and allows a maximum density of six units per acre. If approved, this would allow a maximum of 11 lots. STAFF COMMENTS This request could be viewed as an example of true mixed use comprised of residential and commercial uses not normally seen in a commercial area allowing residents the opportunity to shop, bank and enjoy food and entertainment venues within walking distance; however, this request also represents a departure from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation which has been in effect since The Comprehensive Plan endeavors to balance the amount and location of commercial uses with residential uses town-wide and in neighborhood areas. While such applications should always be viewed in their own context and based upon the merits of the request, appropriate care should be given in recommending changes from commercial zoning to residential zoning as well as commercial land use to residential land use as Planning staff has recently had various identical inquiries in different locations. If approved, a Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plat would follow before construction could commence. The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request: o 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. o Denser development should occur closer to the US 17 corridor where there is greater transportation infrastructure. o Encourage appropriate commercial development to increase the property tax base and minimize the tax burden on homeowners. o Encourage the location of workplaces and educational facilities in close proximity to concentrations of residential development to provide convenient access from home to work. Mr. Chapman asked about access through McConnell Lane to Brickyard Parkway and if access is restricted for this development. Ms. Cousino answered that it is an access easement and is currently not restricted. Mr. Jeff Birnbaum, applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Collins asked if there were plans to provide interconnectivity. Mr. Birnbaum answered that he does not own the adjacent property. Mr. Collins asked about signage. Mr. Birnbaum answered that they are working with the bank and other businesses regarding signage for the area.

38 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 9 of 25 Mr. David Seay, 2013 Shields Lane, stated that there is a full median break for access. He stated that they are working with the bank regarding signage for the development. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Collins moved for approval of the rezoning request and Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote, with Mr. Brimmer opposed. E. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Request to amend the Watermark Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by adding residential townhouse as a permitted use and include development standards for the same for 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 Also request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use Map designation of the aforementioned parcel from Business/Light Industrial/Economic Development to High Density Neighborhood. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY The Watermark Planned Development District (PD) was established in 2005 and a development agreement (DA) was adopted later the same year. The PD and DA provide for a mixture of residential, commercial, and economic development uses. The total number of dwelling units is limited to 600. Subject parcel is part of the Economic Development Tract. The development agreement includes a provision that allows the Economic Development Tract to be developed as residential if the tract has not been sold or improved within the first seven years after the effective date of the development agreement. The DA allows detached single-family dwellings, attached single-family dwellings, and multi-family dwellings as permitted residential uses on the ED Tract. PROPOSAL Even though the DA provides that the ED tract can be developed as residential, not specific development standards were provided. Current request is to limit permitted uses to attached single-family residential and accessory uses, and to establish development standards for the same. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is also proposed. Section of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances requires a development agreement and authorized development to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the Future Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel is Business/Light Industrial/ Economic Development, an amendment is necessary to accommodate the residential use. The applicant has requested High Density Neighborhood, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for the adjacent Watermark Apartments. STAFF COMMENTS PD document identifies this as the Ryland Homes Tract and limits the maximum number of dwelling units to 37. These units will be deducted from the total number of units allowed in Watermark. A total of 200 dwelling units remain out of the original 600-

39 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 10 of 25 unit allocation (244 apartments platted lots for detached single-family dwellings = 400 dwelling units). Proposed lot and yard requirements are the same as those for the Town s RTH, Residential Townhouse District. Accessory uses are proposed to follow the Town s requirements of Zoning Code Sections and Proposed maximum building coverage is 65% (not including accessory structures). o The Town s RTH District limits building coverage to 50% (not including accessory structures), and the current Watermark PD/DA limits building coverage for attached single-family dwellings to 70% (not including accessory structures). Proposed building height is 55 feet. o Outside of a PD, the Town would allow a maximum height of 35 feet in this location. o The Watermark PD/DA limits maximum height of attached single-family dwellings to 35 feet. o The adjacent Watermark Apartments are permitted to be a maximum of 48 feet in height. o If this parcel were developed with an Economic Development use, maximum height would be limited to 55 feet. o A building height of 55 feet does not seem necessary or appropriate for attached single-family. Height should be limited to 48 feet (same as the Watermark Apartments) or less. Proposed open space requirements (8% of gross acreage) are the same as those for the Town s RTH District. Two parking spaces are required, the same as the Town s requirement for townhomes. Tandem parking is proposed to be allowed. Mr. Chapman asked about the development standards. Ms. Cousino answered that the development standards are part of the amendment. Mr. Neal asked about the height request. Mr. Chris Donato answered that 55 feet was the height currently allowed for economic development uses, but could reduce to 48 feet if desired. Mr. Chapman asked about reduction to 35 feet. Mr. Donato answered that it would not meet the requirements for the product desired, which are drive-under townhomes. Mr. Chapman asked where access would be located. Mr. Donato answered that they would access from Bowman Road. Mr. Chapman asked about interconnectivity to Watermark. Mr. Donato answered that this was not possible due to existing buildings. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked if there is an existing access on Bowman. Mr. Donato answered in the affirmative. Mr. Dan Doyle, Beach Company, stated that Watermark has been developed over the years. He stated that he supports the request and stated that it is less intensive than what is currently allowed. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing.

40 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 11 of 25 Mr. Brimmer asked if the request could be separated. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the requests could be separated if desired. Mr. Neal agreed and suggested that there be two separate motions. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the planned development amendment as stated to include all staff comments and limiting the height to 48 feet. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment including staff comments. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with removing commercial property, particularly economic development for residential development. He suggested that there should be sufficient justification and support in approving these requests. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried on a 6 to 1 vote with Mr. Brimmer opposed. F. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING: Request to amend the Belle Hall Planned Development District ordinance as it pertains to an approximately 0.66 acre parcel of land known as Lot 3, Belle Hall subdivision, located at 492 Bramson Court, and identified by TMS No , by adding detached single-family dwelling units as an additional permitted use on the parcel and establishing development standards for the same. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY The Belle Hall PD was amended in July 2012 to rezone the subject property from AB, Areawide Business District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, and again in May 2013 to rezone the subject property from RPH to RTH, Residential Townhouse District. The May 2013 PD amendment included the following conditions: 1. All access to the townhouse units will be from a rear alley; 2. The driveway along Ellingson Parkway will be closed; and 3. There will be no access to the alley from Belle Hall Parkway. A preliminary plat was approved in May 2013 for eight attached single-family (townhouse) lots. Site work is underway. PROPOSAL Current request is to maintain the ability to construct townhouses, while also providing for detached single-family dwellings as an additional permitted use. Proposed development standards are outlined in the PD document submitted by the applicant. STAFF COMMENTS Permitted uses listed in the PD document are limited to: single-family dwellings, singlefamily attached dwellings, and accessory uses. The purpose of the district should be revised to also include single-family attached dwellings since they are a permitted use. Minimum setback requirements address both single-family dwellings and single-family attached dwellings, but lot standards are provided only for single-family dwellings. Applicant should clarify whether the lot standards are intended to apply to both attached and detached single-family dwellings.

41 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 12 of 25 o Lot standards are comparable to the Town s RTH District. If developed as detached single-family dwellings, these lots will be significantly smaller than the lots in the rest of Moultrie Park (which is zoned RPH within the Belle Hall PD). PD document includes Conditions #2 and #3 noted above, but does not include Condition #1. PD document should be revised to include the condition that the dwelling units (whether attached or detached) shall be accessed from a rear alley. PD document also includes a requirement to place open space (graphically depicted on Exhibit A) into a conservation easement. A condition of approval of the rezoning of the adjacent property from AB to RPH (within the Belle Hall PD) was to place open space into a conservation easement. While that condition did not apply to the subject parcel, the applicant included it in this PD amendment to be clear that the open space is intended to remain. Should the PD amendment be approved, a revised preliminary plat will likely need to be submitted. Mr. Chapman asked why the area was cleared including some potential buffer. Ms. Cousino answered that a preliminary plat was approved and the developer moved forward with development. He stated that based on concerns from surrounding residents, the developer has revised the plans and this is the reason for the request. Mr. John Popelka, applicant, clarified that the minimum width for townhouse lots would be 18 feet and requested that accessory structures have a 3 foot setback from rear and side property lines. Ms. Cousino stated that the clarification regarding lot width addresses a staff comment. Mr. Collins asked if single family homes would be constructed. Mr. Popelka answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked about buffers. Mr. Popelka answered that they are following the plans as approved by the Town. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Chapman moved for approval including all staff comments and keeping the 24 feet width for detached single family with a request that the buffer be verified to be same as previously approved. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that this could be considered a contingency. Mr. Mitchell stated that staff could verify the buffer and provide that information to the Commission. Ms. Woods-Flowers agreed that this was outside the purview of this request. Ms. Cousino stated that the accessory use setback was not included in staff comments and would defer to town attorney on whether this could be included. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 5 vote, with Mr. Brimmer, Ms. Woods- Flowers, Mr. Collins, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Neal opposed.

42 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Richardson moved for approval to include staff comments and allow accessory structures with a with 3 foot setback and to allow a lot width of 18 feet for single family attached homes. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. The Commission convened for a short break at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:04 p.m. G. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of revised sketch plan for Heritage Phase 2A-2 at Dunes West, five multi-family dwelling units to be located on an approximately acre portion of an approximately 7.72 acre parcel of land zoned PD, Planned Development District, located on Kings Gate Lane and Kings Gate Court, and identified by TMS No Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Subject property is part of the Heritage subsection of the Dunes West Planned Development District. It is located between the existing duplexes and the multi-family units. A sketch plan was approved for the subject property in April 2004, which showed this area as two duplex lots (total of four dwelling units). PROPOSAL Current request is to revise sketch plan to provide for five multi-family dwelling units on subject property. STAFF COMMENTS Dunes West PD zoning allows multi-family dwellings in this location. There is an overall cap on multi-family dwelling units in Dunes West, but there are sufficient units remaining to accommodate the proposed five units. Although a portion of Kings Gate Lane is private, the subject property abuts the portion of the street that is public right-of-way. Mr. Chapman asked if access would be from the street. Ms. Betty Nierman, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, answered that the units would be accessed from the front. Mr. Neal asked what the previous request was for. Ms. Nierman answered that it was previously approved for two duplex units. Mr. Collins moved for approval. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. All in favor. H. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Request to amend the Carolina Park Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No , as amended) by modifying signage requirements, increasing the height of accessory structures to 25 feet, modifying buffer requirements as they relate to attached singlefamily dwelling units, and modifying lot width to depth ratio requirements. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: An overview of the proposed changes was provided by the applicant and included with the submittal. The requested changes to the PD Standards include:

43 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 14 of 25 o Modifications to the sign regulations. The applicant is requesting to make several modifications to the planned development guidelines pertaining to signage. 1. The current standards permit four sign structures within Monument Park 1 and four in Monument Park 2. The request will reduce those numbers to three sign structures within each park and add a new freestanding sign in the median of the entrance drive located at the future curb cut on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Rd. The proposed freestanding sign would be 8 feet in height and include 100 square feet of sign face per side. 2. The applicant is also requesting additional signs in accordance with the Governing Regulations. The purpose of this request is to make it clear that unless specified otherwise, freestanding signs are permitted on individual commercial properties within the development. 3. Any standards not provided in the Carolina Park development standards must adhere to the Town regulations in effect in 2011 when the Carolina Park Development Agreement was signed. The Development Agreement does allow the applicant to adopt updated town regulations with proper notification. The applicant previously included an exception to (D) and (E)(1). These sections regulate the size and quantity of subdivision entry signage and multifamily signage. The applicant would like to remove those exceptions and adhere to the Town s ordinance. o Increase the permitted height for accessory structures to 25. The zoning code limits accessory structure height to 15 (18 if certain conditions are met), except that accessory dwelling units are allowed a height of 25. The current Carolina Park Development Standards adhere to the zoning code regulations pertaining to height for accessory structures and accessory dwelling units. The requested modification would permit 25 feet for any accessory structures such as sheds and garages without the requirement that they incorporate a dwelling unit. o Eliminate buffer requirement for townhomes. Townhomes are required to provide a Type B buffer along the street. The applicant proposes to eliminate the spatial requirement but still require that the buffer plantings be incorporated into the site design. A B buffer may come in varying widths with different plant multipliers for different widths. The submittal does not indicate the spatial width or buffer width from which they are requesting relief. It is the assumption of staff that it would be the minimum 10-foot buffer. If that is the case, required plantings will be based on that specific plant multiplier. o Change lot width to depth ratios. The Town s Land Development Regulations prohibit lots from being longer than 2 ½ times their width. The applicant is proposing to increase the ratio to four times the width for single-family detached lots and five times the width for single-family attached lots. As the Planning Commission is aware, exceeding the lot width to depth ratio requires Planning Commission approval. If the revised ratio is approved, the developer will be allowed a greater width to depth ratio. The Development Agreement will also need to be amended to reflect these changes. Town Council will hold the public hearing on these changes at its November 2013 meeting.

44 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 15 of 25 Mr. Collins asked for clarification on the signage. Ms. Cousino answered that they have not constructed all of the signage structures that were approved and are proposing to not build the fourth building and instead have a free-standing sign at the future curb-cut near Faison Road. Mr. Brimmer asked about width to depth ratio and if it would apply to the entire development. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked if the height would apply to the entire development. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brian Keels, Carolina Park, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked the reason for the increase in height. Mr. Keels answered that they would like detached accessory structures to be 25 feet in order to have a room over the garage. He stated that this has been allowed in I On, Hibben, etc. Mr. Collins asked if the room over the garage would not be considered an accessory dwelling unit, but an additional room. Mr. Keels answered in the affirmative and stated that the increased height would not apply to the entire development, but only to the Riverside area. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked why the differentiation in height between an accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Cousino answered that accessory dwelling units have only been allowed for the past few years and the purpose of the 18-foot accessory structure height may have been to prevent ADU construction. Mr. Neal asked about the buffer. Ms. Betsy Ellingson, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, stated that it appears to be excessive to have trees planted in addition to a front buffer. She stated that they would like to have a ten foot buffer planting between the street and the units. Mr. Neal asked about the monument sign amendment and what would be lost compared to what would be added. Mr. Keels answered that about 1,300 square feet would be lost in Monument Parks 1 and 2, and they would add a 100 square foot double-sided monument sign that is 8 feet in height. He stated that the monument sign would be in the median in order to signify the entrance. Mr. Richardson asked about internal development signage and if the new monument sign would be in keeping with the internal signage. Mr. Keels stated that the design has not been completed, but would be determined by their design review committee, on which there is a town representative. Mr. Richardson expressed concern with having consistency in design standards. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with the Roper Hospital sign not being sufficient and asked if they would be included on the monument sign. Mr. Keels answered in the negative and stated that Roper has its own sign requirements. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Mr. Chapman asked if the items could be taken separately. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative.

45 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 16 of 25 Mr. Richardson moved for approval for the request and that the height for the accessory structures only apply to the Riverside portion of the development. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman stated that he is not in favor of the lot size amendment or the removal of buffers. Mr. Collins asked about the buffers and what is being requested. Ms. Cousino answered that the amount of vegetation would remain, but the actual buffer width might change. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried on a 6 to 1 vote, with Mr. Chapman opposed. I. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for the combination of an approximately acre portion of unimproved Vincent Drive with an adjacent parcel located at 33 Vincent Drive, and the subsequent subdivision into four parcels of land an approximately acre tract of land currently known as Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Brookgreen Meadows subdivision located at 33 Vincent Drive; and identified by TMS No Mr. Prause stated that correspondence was received from the applicant regarding changes to the plat and asked for deferral. Mr. Pagliarini asked if the application would have a significant change. Mr. Prause answered that based on the information received from the applicant, this was possible. He stated that if deferred, the applicant would submit the application with the changes for consideration at that time. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that if there is a significant change, it might be best to deny the request and then submit a new application. Mr. Chapman moved for denial. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. All in favor. J. 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 Ms. Cousino stated that the applicant has requested deferral. Ms. Woods-Flowers moved for deferral. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. K. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for Earl s Court Phase 2, 13 residential lots and 2 commercial lots, all zoned AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-CBS, Coleman-Ben Sawyer Urban Corridor Overlay District, to be located on an approximately acre portion of two parcels of land, one totaling approximately 0.12 acres, known as Residual Tract A, located at the intersection of Hibben Street and Rose Wilder Lane, and identified by TMS No ; and the other totaling approximately 0.3 acres, known as Residual Tract B, located at the intersection of Hibben Street and Rose Wilder Lane, and identified by TMS No

46 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 17 of 25 Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY Sketch plan for Earl s Court was approved on 11/16/2011 and included five parcels of land 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. 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 dwelling units. CURRENT REQUEST The current request is for approval of the preliminary plat for Phase 2, located on a portion of the original acres of the development. Phase 2 is comprised of 13 residential lots and 2 commercial lots. STAFF COMMENTS Title sheet shows the protection zone around the 41 live oak; preliminary plat (Sheet 2) should also show the protection zone. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shows two trees proposed for removal that are not shown on the preliminary plat one 27 oak located on Lot 12 and one 28 oak located in the Access Alley at the front of Lot 10. Both of these trees should be shown on the preliminary plat. o Approval of tree removals may be granted through the design review process. Applicant is working with design review staff to analyze the health of the trees and develop a mitigation plan if required. o The SWPPP is part of the construction drawings and, as such, is typically not provided to the Planning Commission; however, the SWPPP is included in Commission packets for this item. All protected trees and their corresponding protection zones should be shown on the preliminary plat. Aerial photos show additional trees located near the property line between TMS -141 and TMS No (not part of Earl s Court). Even if the base of the tree is on adjacent property outside of the development, a portion of the tree protection zone may fall on the subject property and should be reflected on the preliminary plat. Two commercial lots are shown since the subdivision of the residential lots will effectively create these commercial lots. Applicant has no plans at this time to proceed with development of the commercial lots. As such, the lots should be labeled as HOA area, residual area, or future commercial lots. Pursuant to the revised sketch plan, the unlabeled parcel located adjacent to Lot 8 is to be incorporated into a future phase of the development. In the meantime, it should be labeled as HOA area, residual area, or future residential lot.

47 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 18 of 25 A supplemental staff report addressing minor staff comments has been provided to the applicant. Mr. Collins asked about tree mitigation. Ms. Cousino answered that trees need to be relocated on the site or the developer can contribute to the tree bank. Mr. Chad Besenfelder stated that they would abide by any tree mitigation requirements. Mr. Chapman moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. L. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of sketch plan for a residential development comprised of a total of 21 dwelling units of mixed types, to be located on an approximately 1.31 acre parcel of land zoned AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-CBS, Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District, known as Tract 1, located at 1543 Ben Sawyer Boulevard, and identified by TMS No Mr. Richardson recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: PROPOSAL The current request is for sketch plan approval for 21 single-family residential lots, to be developed pursuant to the lot provisions of the UC-CBS, Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor Overlay District. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Conforms to intended land use The UC-CBS allows for high density attached and detached single family dwelling units. All development within the UC-CBS, including residential, is subject to design review approval. 2. Lot Layout There are no minimum dimensional requirements. Detached single-family dwelling units may not front Ben Sawyer Boulevard, so those dwellings are proposed to be attached. Emergency response and access is a concern. The applicant will be required to coordinate with the Fire Department during the design review process to ensure sufficient access for emergency vehicles. Base density is 16 dwelling units (DU) per acre, which provides for a total of 20 DU. Applicant proposes to take advantage of provisions allowing for two density bonuses- one for providing public park space and one for not having a curb cut on the boulevard. Determination as to whether these requirements are met will be made through the design review process. If one or both requirements are not met, the density bonuses will not be available and the development will be limited to a maximum of 20 DU. There are a number of very large oak trees on the property. The largest (108 DBH) is noted to be an oak cluster located between Lots 2 & 3. HOA open space is proposed for much of the area within the tree protection zone; however, Lots 2 & 3 are almost entirely located within the tree protection zone. These lots should be reconfigured or relocated. It appears there is space at the rear corners of the property to accommodate additional lots. Also, there is a 53 DBH oak cluster located in the driveway area for Lots Although the driveway paving is proposed to be pervious, the tree may nonetheless be negatively affected by the paving and proximity to the dwelling units. Planning staff conducted a site visit to analyze the two oak clusters mentioned above; the following comments are provided as a result of that site visit:

48 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 19 of 25 They are both cluster live oaks and not a single stem. Survey tape was still on the trees and had them listed at 123 and 57 as opposed to the 108 and 53 that are on the sketch plan. Both clusters have several leaders/stems that have significant decay or cavities, specifically on the 57 oak cluster. In some cases you can see through the holes that are in the tree. The 123 tree has the majority of its canopy growing more towards the entrance to Simmons Point than towards the area where the lots are planned and is more horizontal than vertical. The 57 oak has a more upright growth form. Both trees need arborist intervention. The trees near the mail boxes look like they are the better looking trees on the property. Any tree removals and corresponding mitigation requirements may be approved through the design review process. 3. Street/sidewalk design Streets are one-way and privately owned. Sidewalks are provided internally and along Ben Sawyer Boulevard. As noted above, applicant proposes to take advantage of the density bonus permitted for not having a curb cut on Ben Sawyer Boulevard. If the entrance to the development is designed to appear and function as a public street, the entrance will not be considered a curb cut. Proposed parking exceeds maximum requirements for the UC-CBS by three spaces. Any parking spaces above the maximum must be pervious; eight parallel spaces are provided adjacent to the park, and all are proposed to be constructed of pervious materials. 4. Open space - There are no minimum requirements for open space within the UC-CBS. As noted above, applicant proposes to take advantage of the density bonus permitted for provision of a minimum of 4,000 square feet of contiguous public park space. The park space in the center of the development totals approximately 3,383 square feet. The size of this park will have to be increased in order to achieve the density bonus. Although the park is visible from the public sidewalk along Ben Sawyer Boulevard, it may not be clear to the average pedestrian that the park is available for public access. During the design review process, measures to identify the public park as such should be explored. 5. Stormwater detention The stormwater management system shall be privately owned and maintained. The plan is to reduce impervious surface through pervious concrete. A stormwater management plan is not required for Sketch Plan approval. Engineered plans will be reviewed for compliance prior to requesting preliminary plat approval. 6. Buffers/landscaping A 25-foot building setback is required at the rear of the property, adjacent to Simmons Pointe. In addition, a minimum 10-foot Type C bufferyard with an F-3 fence (6-foot wood stockade) is required adjacent to Simmons Pointe since it is a residential property located outside of the UC-CBS. Sketch plan depicts this required setback and buffer, but does not note the requirement for an F-3 fence. 7. Sketch Plan Checklist Checklist items are complete. SUMMARY Project conforms to land use and zoning requirements. Once the sketch plan has been approved by the Planning Commission, the development will be required to go through the design review process. Once final design review approval is given, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary plat to the Planning Commission prior to beginning site work.

49 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 20 of 25 Mr. Neal asked how the density is determined and approved. Ms. Cousino answered that the bonus density would be determined during the DRB approval process before coming back for preliminary plat approval. Mr. Chapman expressed concern with having access from a major arterial road and suggested that this would not meet the bonus density requirement. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked if the park would be private. Ms. Cousino answered that in order to receive the bonus density, the park would have to be publicly accessible. Mr. John Popelka, applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that there was a discrepancy on the diameter of a couple of the trees. He stated that they would work with staff to try to save the trees if possible. Mr. Collins asked the size of the lots. Mr. Popelka answered that they would be 22 foot footprint with 8 feet between buildings. Mr. Collins moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. Richardson abstaining. M. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend Zoning Code Sections and and adding a new Section , all pertaining to signage by providing a definition for Directory Sign and amending the definition of Sign ( ), establishing provisions for Directory Signs and amending provisions for commercial signs regarding tenant signs in single and multi-story buildings, master sign program, and A-frame or sandwich board signs ( ) and establishing provisions for a Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program (new ). Mr. Prause stated that correspondence was received from Mr. Tibbals regarding a request for deferral of the item and additional presentation time and from Ms. Kathy Britzius for deferral and additional presentation time. He stated that Mr. Tibbals has subsequently withdrawn his request for additional presentation time. Mr. Neal suggested that the additional presentation time request be considered first. Ms. Britzius withdrew her request. Mr. Neal read the names and affiliations of the members of the Sign Review Committee for the Commission. Mr. Prause stated that the final presentation of the Sign Review Committee was available to be reviewed if desired. Mr. Neal stated that the Commission received a copy of this and that review was not necessary. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY At the May 2013 Planning Committee meeting, the committee reviewed several matters involving the sign ordinance including A Frame signs, internal signs in shopping centers, and nonconforming signs. Following that meeting, a citizen committee was appointed by the Mayor to review these matters as well as several other sign issues and to make

50 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 21 of 25 recommendations back to the Planning Committee. The special citizen committee held a number of meetings over several months before finalizing their recommendations. Those recommendations were presented to the Planning Committee at their September meeting. The Planning Committee recommended that the sign committee recommendations be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing as proposed text amendments. A copy of the proposed text amendments is attached. STAFF COMMENTS A brief summary of the sign related issues reviewed by the Sign Committee and their recommendations is provided below. A complete illustrated copy of the final presentation and recommendations from the Committee is available online for reference. The proposed text amendments include only those items which were recommended for amendments by the Sign Committee and the Planning Committee. Digital Signs: No recommended changes to current regulations Wayfinding Signs o Roadside: No recommended changes to current regulations o Shopping Center/ Retail Center Wayfinding: 2 signs permitted within a shopping center, 1 sign permitted in a retail center; size limited to 20 square feet o Pedestrian Wayfinding: Implement Pilot program for Town limited to portions of Coleman Boulevard A Frame Signs: prohibit plastic, do not allow changeable letters except chalk or dry erase; add photos to the ordinance to emphasize high design quality and illustrate what is allowed, add photos to illustrate what is not allowed Taller building signs and increased area/ free standing sign area: First floor tenants are treated like shopping center/ retail centers; Anchor tenant allowed sign at top of building in a sign band; no signs for middle tenants in the middle of the building Corporate symbols/ signature items- corporate symbols and signature items will be counted towards the allowed amount of signage Signs near overpasses: No recommended changes to current regulations Non-conforming signs: No recommended changes to current regulations Mr. Richardson asked how many meetings were held. Ms. Cousino answered that there were five meetings. Mr. Richardson asked if the meetings were advertised. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked about signage on vehicles. Mr. Prause answered that there are current regulations on vehicle signage and there was no recommendation for changes. Mr. Jeff Tibbals, 205 King St, Charleston, representing Adams Outdoor Advertising, suggested that digital off-premise signs should be allowed. He also suggested that there be additional time for community stakeholders to have time to review the recommendations and provide comment and asked for deferral. Ms. Kathy Britzius, Charleston Restaurant Association, stated that there are approximately 80 restaurants that they represent and would like deferral of the amendment in order to review the proposed changes.

51 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 22 of 25 Mr. Steve Carroll, 340 N. Shelmore, stated that signage is important to his business as well as the 400 other business that the Restaurant Association represents. He asked that their association be included in the future on pertinent issues such as this. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Ms. Woods-Flowers noted that the Mayor appointed the Sign Committee. She stated that the changes are not very significant as compared to what is currently in place. Mr. Prause stated that there would be the addition of wayfinding signs and directional signage. He stated that it clarifies the use of A-frame signs. Mr. Neal stated that there was significant discussion on what the community and businesses want and need in way of signage. Ms. Woods-Flowers asked if there would be an impact in deferring a recommendation. Mr. Neal stated that the recommendation would be sent to the Planning Committee and Town Council for consideration. Mr. Prause reviewed the recommended changes through a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Brimmer stated that this is a significant issue and suggested that a deferral should be considered to allow input. Mr. Neal asked if the Restaurant Association was contacted on the changes. Ms. Cousino answered that the Business Development Coordinator contacted the Restaurant Association, the Mount Pleasant Business Association, and the Chamber of Commerce when the public hearing notice was posted. Mr. Collins suggested that 30 days would not provide any additional information. Mr. Pagliarini stated that there could be additional amendments in the future if determined to be necessary. Mr. Richardson moved for approval. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Chapman stated that the Town has had one of the top sign ordinances in the state. He stated that businesses were allowed additional signage during the road construction process and that the amendments are an effort to bring the Town back into compliance and have better enforcement. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. N. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section pertaining to the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, by establishing two sections for building height in the C-1 area of Coleman Boulevard, one at 45 feet and the other at 55 feet, and establishing a new subsection providing certain exceptions from site development and design element requirements for parking structures located in a flood zone. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments as follows: HISTORY

52 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 23 of 25 A request for consideration of text amendments to the Urban Corridor Overlay district was submitted to the Planning Committee of Town Council by a developer who has been working on development plans for an office building and parking structure to be constructed on the property at the corner of Coleman Boulevard and Mill Street. The parking structure is proposed to include public parking. Because of the anticipated use and design of the structure, the developer has requested consideration of amendments to building height limits and to the requirement for ground floor commercial in parking structures. Following a review of the requested amendments by the developer, the Planning Committee directed that the requests should be submitted to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The request is explained below and the proposed text amendments are attached. STAFF COMMENTS Building Height: The property proposed for development is located in section C1 of the Coleman/ Ben Sawyer portion of the Urban Corridor. Currently building height for properties in section C1 is limited to 45 feet measured to the ridge of the building. The request is to increase the building height to 55 feet measured to the eave for buildings on properties located in C1 that front Coleman Boulevard. Ten properties in C1 have frontage on Coleman Boulevard. Other properties located within C1 would still be limited to 45 feet in building height. As a matter of information, with the exception of a few select sites on Coleman Blvd. that are allowed 75 feet in building height, all other properties on Coleman and Ben Sawyer are limited to a building height of 55 feet. The Urban Corridor has a specific requirement for street level retail, residences, or other businesses in parking structures. The reason for this requirement is to ensure activity along the boulevards rather than dead space. With the desire to build two full floors of parking on the lower decks with much of it being available for public use throughout the week and also with a concern of the cost of construction in a flood zone for a commercial business, the developer has requested an amendment to not require street level commercial if a parking structure is located within a flood zone and public parking is provided. If approved, this amendment would apply to parking structures in flood zones throughout the Urban Corridor. A current flood zone map is provided for reference to illustrate which properties are in flood zones. o Staff recommends that a minimum amount of public parking should be required in parking structures to which the proposed amendment would apply in order to truly provide a public benefit. The public parking minimums could either be determined by a percentage or an actual number of spaces above the required parking. Staff s concern with using a percentage is that smaller developments requiring minimal parking may try to take advantage of the ability to raise the building and place parking underneath which would negatively affect the Activity Zone. By instead requiring a specific and potentially substantial number of spaces for public use in the parking structure, aggregation of parcels may be encouraged and a greater number of spaces available for public use. If the Planning Commission agrees that a minimum number of public parking spaces should be required, then staff requests that the Planning Commission make a recommendation regarding percentage versus a number and also the appropriate percentage or number that should be required. Finally, the development team has suggested that they will work through the design review process and possibly also with the Town s Cultural, Arts, and Pride Commission to incorporate people oriented design elements to ensure the integrity of the activity zone. Staff has included proposed text that would require enhancements to screen the parking and engage the public.

53 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 24 of 25 Mr. Prause stated that one item of correspondence was received in opposition to this request. Mr. Richardson asked what a base number minimum recommendation would be for public parking spaces. Ms. Farrell answered that the draft included 100 spaces. Mr. Chapman suggested that requiring 25% public spaces, might be a sufficient percentage. He also suggested that there continue to be retail on the bottom floor. Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Ms. Woods-Flowers expressed concern with the requested height in that area and suggested that it was too high for that area. She also expressed concern with approving an amendment for one project. Mr. Neal agreed that there should be commercial on the first floor. Mr. Chapman stated that he would be comfortable with the 55 ft height if there was commercial on the first floor. Mr. Richardson asked what the requirement was for commercial on the first floor. Mr. Prause answered that he was not sure the exact percentage. Mr. Richardson moved for approval to include staff comments, and that there be a minimum of 100 public parking spaces, approval of 55 feet in height and that the project is not exempt from the requirement to have commercial on first floor. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. Mr. Collins suggested that this would increase the cost of the building, financing, etc. Mr. Richardson asked what percentage of frontage must be on first floor. Ms. Cousino answered that 80% of the street level frontage must be comprised of residential or commercial space. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 4 vote with Mr. Brimmer, Ms. Woods- Flowers, Mr. Middleton, and Mr. Collins opposed. Mr. Collins moved for approval including staff comments that there be a minimum of 100 public parking spaces. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 4 vote, with Mr. Brimmer, Ms. Woods-Flowers, Mr. Middleton, and Mr. Chapman opposed. Ms. Woods-Flowers moved for denial. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 4 vote with Mr. Chapman, Mr. Collins, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Richardson opposed. The request will move forward to Planning Committee with no recommendation. O. STREET NAME APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of street name for Marsh Cove Phase 4A at Dunes West. Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows:

54 Planning Commission October 23, 2013 Page 25 of 25 The preliminary plat for Marsh Cove Phase 4A was approved in March Infrastructure construction is nearly complete. The preliminary plat included a street called Muhly Grass Road. The developer now requests Macauley Drive in lieu of the name shown on the preliminary plat. Since a final plat has not yet been submitted or recorded, this is not considered a street name change requiring a public hearing. Macauley Drive has been approved by Charleston County. Mr. Chapman moved for approval of McCauley Drive as presented. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64 1 of 2 9/25/2013 1:37 PM 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:* 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: Brickyard survey.pdf *

65 2 of 2 9/25/2013 1:37 PM 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.

66 Kelly Cousino From: Sent: To: Subject: Chris Donato Wednesday, September 25, :22 PM Kelly Cousino TMS Application Ms. Cousino, The recent rezoning application for tms had a typo. We are requesting a rezoning to RPH and not to PD. The PD was a typo. I apologize for any confusion. Thanks for all of your help, Christopher D. Donato, Jr. P.E. SITECAST, LLC 1250 Fairmont Ave. Mt. Pleasant SC, cdonato@sitecastsc.com (843) (843) fax 1

67

68

69

70

71 1 of 2 9/25/2013 3:13 PM 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:* 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: Bowman Townhomes Submitted pdf *

72 2 of 2 9/25/2013 3:13 PM 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.

73 Planned Development Requirements for Ryland Homes Tract (A) Permitted uses. The Property Owner shall be entitled, as a vested right, to develop the following uses on the Ryland Homes Tract: (1) Single-family attached dwellings (Townhouses); and (2) Accessory uses as set forth in Mount Pleasant Code (A). (B) Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements. Notwithstanding any conflicting Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements set forth generally in the Agreement, the following Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements shall apply, as a vested right of the Property Owner, to the Ryland Homes Tract: (1) Minimum lot requirements. Lot area per dwelling unit: 1,500 square feet Lot width (excepting where side yards are required): 18 feet (2) Minimum yard requirements. Front yard from street right-of-way: 4 feet Front yard from street right-of-way with front yard parking: 25 feet Side yard between separate rows of structures: 20 feet Side yard between end structure and side lot line: 10 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Rear yard with parking in rear yard: 35 feet (3) Maximum height permitted. Vertical measure: 55 feet from the base of the building. (4) Building coverage. No more than 65% of the lot may be covered by the principal buildings. Accessory structures shall not count toward the maximum building coverage for the lot. (C) Additional development requirements. Notwithstanding any conflicting development requirements set forth generally in the Agreement, the following development requirements shall apply to the Ryland Homes Tract:

74 (1) Maximum Density (Dwelling Units): The Property Owner shall have a vested right to construct up to thirty-seven (37) Dwelling Units (Townhouses) on the Property. (2) Maximum Townhouses per row. No more than eight (8) single-family attached Dwelling Units (Townhouses) shall be constructed or attached together in a continuous row, and no such row shall exceed 200 feet in length. (3) Open space required. (a) Not less than 8% of the gross acreage shall be designated for open space. (b) The 8% of land area shall not include land used to provide minimum yard requirements, parking areas for dwelling units, or streets. (4) Parking requirements: (a) Off-street parking requirements may be provided, either on the premises or in a community parking lot or garage, the title to which and/or easement for the use of which runs with and/or is appurtenant to the title of each Dwelling Unit (Townhouse). (b) No such parking lot or garage shall be located more than 200 feet from the Dwelling Unit (Townhouse) it serves. (c) Tandem parking in the driveways will be allowed. (D) Bufferyard requirements. Minimum bufferyard requirements for, and between, permitted uses in the Ryland Homes Tract and contiguous uses are set forth in in the Mount Pleasant Code, with a Dwelling Unit (Townhouse) on the Ryland Homes Tract being treated as a Townhouse for the purpose of of the Mount Pleasant Code.

75

76

77

78 1 of 2 9/25/2013 3:16 PM 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:* 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: STANDARDS.pdf *

79 2 of 2 9/25/2013 3:16 PM 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.

80 STANDARDS FOR A 0.66 PORTION OF TMS NUMBER (A) Purpose (1) To provide for quality, high-density, single-family detached residential development on lots having an area of 4,000 square feet or more. (2) 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. (B) Permitted uses. Building or premises shall only be used for the following purposes: (1) Single-family dwelling (2) Accessory uses; and (3) Single-family attached dwellings (C) Lot, yard, height, and coverage requirements. (1) Single-family dwelling. Lot area per dwelling unit: 1,500 square feet Lot width: 24 feet Minimum Lot depth: 50 feet minimum Lots may exceed width to depth ratio of 2.5. (2) Minimum yard requirements. Front yard: 4 feet from property line Side yard for detached single-family dwelling: 3 feet Side yard for attached single-family dwelling (measured between separate rows of structures): 20 feet Side yard for attached single-family dwelling (measured between end structure and side lot line): 10 feet Rear yard 20 feet (3) Maximum height permitted. Vertical measure 35 feet, except as otherwise permitted in (4) Building coverage. No more than 50% of the lot may be covered by principal and accessory buildings. (5) Minimum sizes for dwelling units. One-story dwellings: 1,200 square feet Multi-story dwellings (first floor area): 600 square feet (D) Miscellaneous Conditions. (1) The open space area indicated on Exhibit A shall be placed in a conservation easement subject to approval by the Town of Mount Pleasant. (2) There shall be no driveway access to lots from Bell Hall Parkway. (3) That the existing curb cut along Ellingson Parkway be eliminated. (4) That there shall be no parking along Ellingson Parkway.

81

82

83

84

85 1 of 2 9/25/2013 5:29 PM 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:* 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: Carolina Park 3rd Amendment Submittal pdf *

86 2 of 2 9/25/2013 5:29 PM 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.

87 TMS Numbers , -018, -022, thru 207, -208 thru -262, -264 thru 271, -274 thru 276, and -278 thru and thru -109, -114 thru -115, -263, -272, -273, and -277

88 Carolina Park Summary of Changes to PD September 24, 2013 The following summarizes the list of changes we would like to make to the Development Agreement and PD: 1. Reduction in Structures in MP- 1 and MP- 2 The number of identification structures permitted in areas MP-1 and MP-2 is reduced from four (4) to three (3) in recognition of the additional signs permitted hereby. Up to two (2) of these three (3) structures will be permitted to have commercial signs as provided herein. 2. Sign on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road A sign will be permitted to be located in the median of the entrance drive located at the curb cut on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road. Such sign will be considered a Comprehensive Development Project sign, which may be shared by multiple users. Such sign may be up to 8 feet in height and include up to 100 square feet of sign face per side and otherwise shall be subject to the Governing Regulations. 3. Other Signs within Carolina Park Additional signs shall be permitted in Carolina Park in accordance with the Governing Regulations. 4. Removal of Exceptions to Current Regulations Pertaining to Signage Adopt new Town of Mount Pleasant Sign Ordinance in lieu of current exceptions to (D) Subdivision Identification/Entry Signs and (E)(1) Residential Regulations-Multifamily Signage. 5. Accessory Structure Height up to 25ft Accessory structure heights up to 25ft shall be allowed to provide for usable spaces above detached garages. This will allow rooms over detached garages to be finished without requiring a full kitchen and bathroom, which are required for ADU's. Such structures may also be left in an unfinished shell condition and finished at a later date. 6. Buffers Add to Section IV - Exception to Current Regulations (substitute) (D) Bufferyard Requirements Chart: Townhomes will be exempt from buffers adjacent to other uses. The spatial requirements of Roadside Type B will be waived, however, plantings required by this buffer type will be provided between the building and street, and may include street tree plantings in fulfilling the requirement. 7. Lot Width to Depth Ratios Add to Section IV - Exception to Current Regulations (replace)

89 (C)(9)(a): The depth of Single Family Detached lots shall not be more than 4 times their width. Single Family Attached lots (Townhomes) shall not be more than 5 times their width.

90 E. Monument Parks and Signage 1. Signs Adjacent to Highway 17 a. Monument Parks and Informational Signs In an effort to minimize the impact of development along the Highway 17 frontage, major commercial and office uses are found internal to the project along Carolina Park Boulevard and Park Avenue Boulevard. As a result, there is a need to identify major commercial facilities in Carolina Park. Therefore, as a means to create cohesive identification for these uses, four landscaped Monument Parks have been created along Highway 17 (identified as MP-1, MP-2, MP-3, and MP-4 on the Land Use Master Plan found as Exhibit A in Section V). These areas, totaling approximately 8 acres, have been set aside to permit identification of those major facilities in an attractive and unified manner. b. Identification Structures In an effort to convey a positive image for Carolina Park and identify the commercial uses within the community in an attractive way, Identification Structures will be used in each of the Monument Parks. The Structure examples in Section V, Exhibit F demonstrate several concepts that will be part of the structure design. These concepts include retailer and commercial signs painted on the structures and Carolina Park identification signage on the gables and roofs of some structures. These renderings are intended to be concepts with modifications possible in the final design. The individual structures will be consistent with the look of the concept renderings and will not exceed the dimensions of a 20 x35 footprint and 25 ridge height. The structures will be lit from the inside and on the outside at night. It is not the intent for the retail signs to dominate or overwhelm the structures. The signs are intended to be a tasteful and unique way to identify the retailers and businesses located within Carolina Park. These structures will play an important role in defining the image of the development; therefore, the design and execution of each sign will be carefully reviewed and supervised by Carolina Park's design review board to ensure they will reflect positively on the community. c. MP- 1 and MP- 2 Monument Parks located at the northern and southern boundaries of Carolina Park s Highway 17 frontage will be utilized as landscaped, park-like settings for the development s identification as well as signage for individual retailers and commercial uses. Each of these two areas will include up to 43 structures based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP-1 and MP-2: One Carolina Park identification structure will include the Carolina Park logo on the gable end and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure will not include commercial signage. (See Exhibits F-1 and F-2 for examples.) Up to 32 of the 43 structures will be permitted to have commercial signage. Each of the commercial signage structures will be allowed to have signs on 2 of the 4 sides, with up to 4 retailers allowed on the long facade and up to 3 retailers on the short facade. (See Exhibits F-3, F-4, and F-5 for examples.)

91 d. MP- 3 A separate monument park dedicated to a single Carolina Park identification structure is located at the intersection of Highway 17 and Carolina Park Boulevard (identified as MP-3 on the Land Use Master Plan) This structure's dimensions will not exceed a 20'x35 footprint and a 25 ridge height. This structure will be based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP-3: This structure may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure will not include commercial signage. (See Exhibit F-1 and F-2 for examples.) e. MP- 4 An additional monument park dedicated to a single Carolina Park identification structure is located at the intersection of Highway 17 and Faison Road. This structure's dimensions will not exceed a 20 x35 footprint, a 25 ridge height and will be based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP-4: This structure may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure is permitted to have commercial signage on 3 sides with up to 6 retailers allowed on each of the two long façades and up to 3 retailers allowed on the short façade. (See Exhibit F-6 for an example.) f. Sign on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road In addition to the monument parks, a sign will be permitted in the median of the entrance drive located at the future curb cut on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road. Such sign will be considered a Comprehensive Development Project Sign, which may be shared by multiple users. Such sign may be up to 8 feet in height and include up to 100 square feet of sign face per side and otherwise shall be subject to the Governing Regulations. g. Informational Signage One informational sign may be located within the median of Carolina Park Boulevard and will require an encroachment permit from the Town. Informational signage may include the name(s) of subdivisions within the community, schools, churches, civic uses, and private businesses. This sign will be based on the example shown in Exhibit F-7 of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the informational signage: This sign may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This sign may be may be two-sided, a maximum of 16 feet in height and 10 feet in width with up to 100 square feet of sign face per side. Each sign panel will be consistent in size to maintain a uniform appearance. The lettering for this sign will be externally illuminated and/or backlit. h. Fences

92 Fences complimentary to the identification structure design will be allowed in the monument parks, however, no fences will be allowed to display commercial signage The fence will be constructed utilizing materials that add longevity and ease of maintenance. i. Additional Highway 17 Signage Frontage for Tract CPI-8, including the area known as Roper Hospital, will be allotted 3 total signs of up to 20 feet in height above grade and 100 square feet of signage per side to be located at entrances identified as B, C and D on Exhibit B of this document. Buffers along Highway 17 in these areas may be altered to allow for views of the signage as specified in Section F. 2. Other Carolina Park Signage a. Signs within Carolina Park Additional signs may be constructed within Carolina Park in accordance with the Governing Regulations. b. Internal Directional Signage Freestanding Directional Signs, illuminated or non-illuminated (a) shall be pointed or contain an arrow which directs traffic to a use, roadway or area in the Industrial or Commercial District, (b) may be placed in buffer areas, excluding the Hwy. 17 buffer (c) may not be within street rights of way, (d) may contain the name of a business(es) or service(s) but not the logo of a business, (e) shall have a uniform color and design, and (f) shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. No more than five informational panels may occur on each directional sign. Internal signage existing within Carolina Park at the time of this document may be replaced as necessary and are not required to conform to the requirements herein if replacement signage is a duplicate of the existing. Should sign replacement differ from the existing, it will be subject to new standards. c. Internal Identification Structures at CPC-9 When fully developed, parcel CPC-9 (identified in the Master Land Use Plan) has the potential to encompass over 300,000 square feet of commercial space, which could include shopping and retail centers, offices, and other mixed-use development. Under the Town's sign ordinance, comprehensive development projects may utilize on-premises and off-premises free-standing signs for both single and multi-tenant developments ( ). In an effort to maintain a cohesive and attractive appearance for the signage, it may be beneficial to repeat the monument park identification structures in areas internal to the development. Therefore, on parcel CPC-9, Carolina Park shall have the option to use up to two of the identification structure concepts shown in Exhibit F of Section V as Comprehensive Development Project Signs. These structures' dimensions shall not exceed a 20'x35' footprint and a 25' ridge height. In the case where this option is used, these identification structures would be substituted for up to two of the shopping center free-standing signs allowed under the Town's ordinancegoverning Regulations. Following are additional guidelines for these signage structures: These structures may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may

93 include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. These structures are permitted to have commercial signage on 4 sides with up to 6 retailers allowed on each of the two long façades and up to 3 retailers allowed on each of the short façades. (See Exhibit F-6 for an example.) Additional free-standing signs to be located on outparcels or other properties not part of a shopping center will also be permitted in accordance with the Town's ordinances. Internal Directional Signage Freestanding Directional Signs, illuminated or non-illuminated (a) shall be pointed or contain an arrow which directs traffic to a use, roadway or area in the Industrial or Commercial District, (b) may be placed in buffer areas, excluding the Hwy. 17 buffer (c) may not be within street rights of way, (d) may contain the name of a business(es) or service(s) but not the logo of a business, (e) shall have a uniform color and design, and (f) shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. No more than five informational panels may occur on each directional sign. Internal signage existing within Carolina Park at the time of this document may be replaced as necessary and are not required to conform to the requirements herein if replacement signage is a duplicate of the existing. Should sign replacement differ from the existing, it will be subject to new standards. Highway 17 Signage Frontage for Tract CPI-8, including the area known as Roper Hospital, will be allotted 3 total signs of up to 20 feet in height above grade and 100 square feet of signage per side to be located at entrances identified as B, C and D on Exhibit B of this document. Buffers along Highway 17 in these areas may be altered to allow for views of the signage as specified in Section F.

94 III. SETBACKS AND LOT CRITERIA CPI District (Industrial / Economic Development) Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Width 70 ft. Setbacks (minimum) Front / Street Side Yard 20 ft. Side Yard None Rear Yard None OCRM Critical Line Per Town Ord. OCRM Critical Line Buffer Per Town Ord. Height (maximum) 50 ft. (1) Where CPI Uses abut a CPR District, a 50-foot buffer is to be provided on the CPI Parcel. Remaining buffers will be per Town Code. CPC District (Commercial / School-Related Commercial) Setbacks (minimum) Front / Street Side Yard 15 ft. Side Yard As set by req. buffers(1) Rear Yard As set by req. buffers (1) OCRM Critical Line Per Town Ord. OCRM Critical Line Buffer Per Town Ord. Height (maximum) 55 ft. (1) Individual units in attached buildings and the buildings themselves may be located on their own fee-simple lot with access provided by a shared ingress/egress easement in postage stamp fashion as provided within Town Ordinance and Required setbacks as shown do not apply when a parcel is developed in this fashion. CPCR District (Commercial / Residential) Commercial Uses: Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Setbacks (minimum) Front / Street Side Yard Side Yard Rear Yard OCRM Critical Line OCRM Critical Line Buffer Height (maximum) 4,000 s.f. 15 ft. None None None Per Town Ord. Per Town Ord. 55 ft. (1) Individual units in attached buildings and the buildings themselves may be located on their own fee-simple lot with access provided by a shared ingress/egress easement in

95 postage stamp fashion as provided within Town Ordinance and Required setbacks as shown do not apply when a parcel is developed in this fashion. Additional Requirements for Multi-Family Apartment or Condominium Uses: Dimensional Standards Property Line Setbacks (minimum) 20 ft. Distance Between Buildings 20 ft. Floor Area (maximum, per floor) 20,000 sf Height (maximum) 60 ft.(1) / 45 ft. (1) Maximum building height may be utilized on up to 30% of all buildings within the Multi-Family or Condominium development. Remaining buildings must meet 45 ft. CPNC District (Neighborhood Commercial) Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Setbacks (minimum) Front / Street Side Yard Side Yard Rear Yard OCRM Critical Line OCRM Critical Line Buffer Height (maximum) 4,000 s.f. 15 ft. Equal to required buffers Equal to required buffers Equal to required buffers Per Town Ord. Per Town Ord. 35 ft. CPR District (Low Density Residential)* Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot Area (detached dwelling units) 3,500 SF Minimum Lot Area (attached dwelling units) 2,200 SF Minimum Lot Width (detached dwelling units) 32 FT. Minimum Lot Width (attached dwelling units) 18 ft. Setbacks (minimum) Front Yard (detached dwelling units) (1) 5 ft. Front Yard (attached dwelling units) (1) 5 ft. Street Side Yard (all units) 10 ft. Side Yard (detached dwelling units)(2) 5 ft. Side Yard (attached dwelling units, end units)(2)(3) 5 ft. Rear Yard (detached dwelling units) 10 ft. Rear Yard (attached dwelling units) 10 ft. OCRM Critical Line Per Town Ord. Accessory Structures Side Yard 3 ft. Accessory Structures Rear Yard 3 ft. OCRM Critical Line Buffer Per Town Ord. Building Coverage (maximum) Detached 65%

96 Attached 70% Height (maximum) 40 ft.(3) (1) Side Yard Setback reduction to 3 feet may be allowed if a total of 10 feet is provided between structures. (2) In the CPR District, no townhouse structure may contain more than eight attached singlefamily dwelling units. (3) Heights for Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Structures shall be per Town Code. *Additional Requirements for Multi-Family and Condominiums within CPR District: Floor Area (maximum, per floor) 20,000 s.f. Height (maximum) 45 ft. Property Line Setbacks (minimum) 20 ft. Distance Between Buildings 20 ft. CPR3 District (Rural Residential)* Dimensional Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Setbacks (minimum) Front Yard Street Side Yard Side Yard Rear Yard OCRM Critical Line Accessory Dwelling Units Side Yard Accessory Dwelling Units Rear Yard Other Accessory Structures Side Yard Other Accessory Structures Rear Yard OCRM Critical Line Buffer Building Coverage (maximum) Height (maximum) Principal Structure Accessory Dwelling Unit (1) Accessory Structure (1) 7,500 s.f. 50 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. Per Town Ord. 5 FT. 5 FT. 5 FT. 5 FT. Per Town Ord. 40% of Lot 45 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. (1) Heights for Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Structures will be per Town Codes shall have the option to leave the interior in an unfinished shell condition. *Additional Requirements for Waterfront Lots within CPR3 District: Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 70 FT. OCRM Critical Line Per Town Ord. OCRM Critical Line Buffer Per Town Ord.

97 CPMF District (Multi-Family Residential) Dimensional Standards Setbacks (minimum) Front Yard 20 ft. Side Yard 20 ft. Rear Yard 20 ft. Distance Between Buildings 20 ft. OCRM Critical Line Per Town Ord. OCRM Critical Line Buffer Per Town Ord. Floor Area (maximum, per floor) 20,000 sf Height (maximum) 60 ft. (1) / 45 ft. (1) Maximum building height may be utilized on up to 30% of all buildings within the Multi-Family or Condominium development. Remaining buildings must meet 45 ft.

98

99

100 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5m. m. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend Zoning Code Sections and and adding a new Section , all pertaining to signage by providing a definition for Directory Sign and amending the definition of Sign ( ), establishing provisions for Directory Signs and amending provisions for commercial signs regarding tenant signs in single and multi-story buildings, master sign program, and A-frame or sandwich board signs ( ) and establishing provisions for a Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program (new ). deleted text new text text to remain 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 a necessity 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. Signature design E 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 below herein. (B) Number, size, height and additional requirements. Page 1 of 5

101 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5m. (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. In additions, each building within the development may erect one freestanding directory sign adjacent to the building, no greater than 35 square feet of sign area and height no greater than eight feet above grade, identifying the building and/or tenants within the building. These signs may be located in an easement if not located directly on the lot to which the signage applies. (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; (D)(2); 6. Must maintain visibility at all internal intersections as provided in Signs must be located internal to property and may not be located at entrances or along street frontage; Directory Signs; 8. Sign permit and required permit documents and drawings are required for all 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) Freestanding buildings; and, anchor tenants; and multi-story anchor tenants. 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. Page 2 of 5

102 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5m. 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 signs 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. Linear Footage 0-60 feet feet 60 Square Feet of Signage (c) signage per facade. Additional allowances. 3. No building may exceed 150 square feet of front-lit internally illuminated (C) Master Sign Program. (2) General requirements. (a) multi-story buildings. A Master Sign Program is required for all shopping and retail centers and multi-tenant (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 3 of 5

103 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5m. The following sign types are examples of signs that are not appropriate: (8) May not employ readerboard or changeable letter copy. This design aesthetic prohibition does not preclude the inclusion of chalkboards. Not allowed: Not allowed: (9) Plastic or similar material is not allowed. Page 4 of 5

104 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5m PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN PILOT PROGRAM. (A) Findings. (1) Mount Pleasant Town Council recognizes the intent of the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District is to produce a vibrant pedestrian scale environment with corresponding activity 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, landscaped 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 signs 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 conjunction with the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission and Town Council will develop the Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program, to be implemented once the Coleman Boulevard improvements have been completed. (2) The program will initially be limited to that portion of Coleman Boulevard from its intersection with Pelzer Drive to its intersection with Chuck Dawley and Ben Sawyer Boulevards. (3) The Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Pilot Program will target businesses that are not directly located on Coleman Boulevard but will benefit from signage directing pedestrian traffic to their locations. (4) The wayfinding signs will be developed, installed and maintained by the Town. (5) The Town Council shall decide upon a mechanism for allocating sign copy to individual businesses, which may include an appropriate fee for the same. (6) Individual wayfinding signs shall not exceed 20 square feet in area. (7) Once implemented, the program shall be in effect for a period of two years. Page 5 of 5

105 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5n. n. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section pertaining to the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, by establishing two sections for building height in the C-1 area of Coleman Boulevard, one at 45 feet and the other at 55 feet, and establishing a new subsection providing certain exceptions from site development and design element requirements for parking structures located in a flood zone. deleted text new text text to remain I. Re-label the existing Area C1 row of the UC-CBS - DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES CHART of (P)(5)(a) to C1-a and add an additional row labeled C1-b thereunder with the same development guidelines as row C1-a except that the Maximum Building Height Allowed is 55 and replace the existing Figure 7. UC-CBS Development Guidelines Map with a new map illustrating the delineation of Areas C1-a and C1-b. (P) UC-CBS, Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor District. (5) Site development and design elements. (a) Maximum height, setbacks and build-to lines, and bufferyard requirements. Maximum height, setbacks and build-to lines, and bufferyard requirements shall be as depicted in the following development guidelines chart and corresponding Figure 7. UC-CBS Development Guidelines Map, and as further described herein, except civic uses, which shall be in accordance with division (N)(6) herein. Area Maximum Building Height Allowed 1 UC-CBS DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES CHART Front Setback or Build-to on Coleman or Ben Sawyer 2 Front or Side Setback or Build-to on Other Streets Rear Building Setback 3 Internal Side and Rear (Non-street) Buffers 4 A1 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 5' 5' A2 55' 20-30' BT 20-30' BT 5' 5' B1 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 10' 5' B2 55' 20-30' BT 10-20' BT 10' 5' C1-a 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 5 5' 5' C1-b 45' 20-30' BT N/A 20' SB 5 5' 5' C2 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 5 5' 5' C3 45' NA 20' SB 5 5' 5' D1 75' ' BT 10-20' BT NA 5' D2 55' 20-30' BT 10' SB 10' 5' D3 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 10' 5' E1 55' NA 20' SB 5 5' 5' E2 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 10' 5' E3 75' ' BT 10-20' BT NA 5' F1 55' 20-30' BT 20' SB 10' 5' Page 1 of 5

106 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5n. F2 55' NA 20' SB 10' 5' G1 55' 20' SB 20' SB 25' 5' G2 55' 30' SB NA 25' 5' 1 In all cases, the maximum height for buildings in the UC-CBS that are located within 50 feet of an abutting residential property line, or an abutting street right-of-way adjoining residential property; provided such residential property is located outside of the UC-CBS, shall be 40 feet, measured from grade to roof ridge, and further provided that no such building shall exceed a maximum of three stories. 2 Build-to lines are measured from back of curb to face of building; if no curb is present, measure from edge of pavement. Awnings and canopies are not included. Setbacks are measured from the right-of-way line. 3 Where rear or side property lines abut residential properties lying outside of the UC-CBS, a minimum 15-foot setback, with a minimum 10-foot type C bufferyard with an F3 fence, is required. 4 Common wall construction to adjacent properties spanning property lines may be utilized in accordance with applicable building and fire code requirements. Buffers are not required where interconnectivity between parcels is provided or shown on the plan for future connection, or when common wall construction to adjacent properties spanning property lines is utilized. Where interconnectivity or common wall construction is not provided, a minimum type A bufferyard plant unit material is required. 5 Setbacks may be reduced to less than five feet only when: a) A minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk is provided; and b) Street tree plantings are in accordance with (P)(5)(e)1.b. and c.ii. ; and c) The required line of sight is provided. Figure 7. UC-CBS Development Guidelines Map. (b) Building height. 1. Building heights shall be measured from the top of curb, or edge of paving if curb is not present, based on an average measurement taken at all building comers, and every 25 feet along the length of any street or internal access road to either the building eave or ridge of roof, as applicable. 2. Where indicated on the development guidelines chart and corresponding map, the maximum height limit shall be 55 feet, measured from the top of curb to the building eave; provided further that all structures shall have a minimum of two floors, with a maximum of four floors allowed. The two-floor minimum shall only apply to buildings fronting the boulevard. Page 2 of 5

107 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5n. II. Amend portions of (M) and (N) to provide an exclusion from certain design and building elevation requirements and add additional requirements for parking structures (garages) located in a special flood hazard area (flood zone). (M) Parking and loading requirements. Great care should be taken to create an adequate amount of offstreet and on-street parking to serve development areas. The location of parking should facilitate access to new developments, but not use valuable real estate better suited to buildings and public space. Parking should be hidden between or behind buildings and in parking structures. (5) Design. The parking and loading design requirements shall be as follows, unless specified otherwise in this section. (See especially (M)(5)(c)1. and 2. a. through d.) this section. (a) Parking placement. Parking placement shall be as follows, unless specified otherwise in 1. Ground level parking in buildings and parking structures is permitted; provided the street level frontage of the building is comprised of a minimum of 80% residential and/or usable commercial space, and meets the requirements of divisions (b)2.a. through d. below. 2. In no case shall ground level parking lots or exterior loading areas occupy more than one-third of a lot's frontage along a pedestrian street or street segment; except as provided in division (P)(5)(h) of this section with respect to building frontage and parking. 3. Parking and exterior loading areas shall be buffered from any adjacent pedestrian way by planting street trees and providing a landscaped area with a continuous row of high shrubs, or a fence or seating wall. (b) Parking structures. 1. When possible, parking structures (garages) shall be placed in the center of the block, as illustrated in Figure 5, and may utilize ground floor parking. Figure 5. Parking structure location. Page 3 of 5

108 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5n. 2. Parking in structures not located mid-block shall be above the ground floor or behind the storefront or residential uses, if located on the ground floor as described below. a. If located to the side of a building, the parking structure must be set back from the front of that building and have an architectural facade. b. Sloping floors shall not be visible from primary streets. c. Retail storefronts, residences, or other business uses on street level shall be required on street frontages of parking structures to provide vitality. d. Vehicular access shall be from side streets or alleys wherever possible, and not directly from the primary street. (c) Provisions for parking garages located in a flood zone. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the following provisions may apply exclusively to parking garages located in a flood zone. 1. Parking garages located in a flood zone may be exempt from the provisions of (M)(5)(a)1. and 2. (but not (a) 3.), and (M)(5)(b)2. and 2.c. (but not 2.a., 2. b. and 2.d.). 2. The following additional special provisions apply only to parking garages located in a flood zone constructed under the exemptions of (M)(5)(c)1. above. a. If the parking garage supports other uses, the required parking shall be calculated pursuant to the provisions of or and the total amount of parking shall include an additional 100 spaces above the parking amount required for the other uses. b. The excess parking must be made available to the general public. c. Ground level parking must be completely screened from view with architectural elements and landscaping. d. The parking garage must provide added features such as public art, a fountain, a bus stop or similar feature(s) to promote and maintain pedestrian activity in the activity zone, with the arrangement of these features configured so as to eliminate any dead space, with the activity (commercial, residential) fronting the parking garage to the extent possible on the Boulevard side and side street sides. (c) (d) Incentive for parking structures. There shall be no maximum parking requirements for commercial uses if a parking structure is utilized on site. (d) (e) Parking for outdoor dining. Parking for outdoor dining shall be as provided in for restaurant use and not based upon square footage of outdoor use area. (e) (f) Parking for activity zone uses. Additional parking shall not be required for uses conducted in the activity zone. (N) Other considerations. Page 4 of 5

109 Planning Commission 23 October 2013 Agenda Item 5n. (1) Elevated buildings. (a) Buildings in flood zones. 1. In order to project a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, it is highly recommended that alternatives to elevating commercial buildings located in A flood zones be pursued. This may be accomplished by floodproofing or altering the elevation of the finished floor inside the building. However, in the event that these techniques are not feasible and the building must be elevated, such elevation may not exceed the minimum elevation required plus one foot of additional freeboard ; provided further, that this provision shall not apply to a parking garage located in a flood zone meeting the requirements of (M)(5)(c)2. a. through d. (c) Buildings elevated for parking. See divisions (M)(5)(a)1. through 3, (M)(5)(b)1. and 2.a. through d. for buildings elevated for parking not located in a flood zone and (M)(5)(c)1. and 2. a. through d. for buildings elevated for parking located in a flood zone. Page 5 of 5

110 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO WATERMARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE WATERMARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the Fourth Amendment ) is made and entered into to be effective as of the day of, 2013, by and among BEACH SHELLPOINT, LLC (the Property Owner ) and the TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT (the Town ). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Town and Beach Shellpoint, LLC, entered into a Development Agreement (the Agreement ) on December 21, 2005 and recorded in Book C570 at Page 545 in the RMC Office for Charleston County with regards to that certain real property consisting of approximately 82.2 acres known as Watermark located in the Town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; WHEREAS, the Agreement was corrected by a Development Agreement Corrective Filing dated December 21, 2006 and recorded in Book W618 at Page 850 in the RMC Office for Charleston County; WHEREAS, the Town and Beach Shellpoint, LLC, entered a First Amendment to the Watermark Development Agreement (the First Amendment ) dated June 12, 2007, and recorded in Book Z663 at Page 471 in the RMC Office for Charleston County; WHEREAS, the Town, Beach Shellpoint, LLC; Beach Watermark, LLC; Jadiekate, LLC; and E.L. Pooser, Jr., entered into a Second Amendment to the Watermark Development Agreement (the Second Amendment ) dated September 8, 2009, and recorded in Book 0091 at Page 141 in the RMC Office for Charleston County; WHEREAS, the Town, Beach Shellpoint, LLC; Beach Watermark, LLC; Jadiekate, LLC; and E.L. Pooser, Jr., entered into a Third Amendment to the Watermark Development Agreement (the Third Amendment ) dated December 14, 2010, and recorded in Book 0168 at Page 155 in the RMC Office for Charleston County; WHEREAS, Beach Shellpoint, LLC and the Town desire to amend the Agreement as further set forth herein; WHEREAS, pursuant to Mount Pleasant Code and Section 28 of the Agreement, the Parties may amend the Agreement by mutual consent, and an amendment affecting less than all the persons and entities comprising the Property Owner need only be consented to and signed by those affected persons or entities; WHEREAS, Beach Shellpoint, LLC, is the only Property Owner whose lands are affected by this Fourth Amendment and, hence, is the only Property Owner whose consent is necessary to accomplish this Fourth Amendment according to the terms of Section 28 of the Agreement; Page 1 of 8

111 WHEREAS, The Ryland Group, Inc. has entered into a contract to purchase the real property described in Exhibit A (the Property ), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and, by its signature hereto, supports and consents to this Fourth Amendment; WHEREAS, the Town, Beach Shellpoint, LLC, and The Ryland Group, Inc., hereby agree that, upon the transfer of legal title of the Property from Beach Shellpoint, LLC, to The Ryland Group, Inc., The Ryland Group, Inc. shall become the Property Owner with respect to such Property; WHEREAS, after following the procedures for amending a development agreement in the South Carolina Local Government Development Agreement Act and the Mount Pleasant Code, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. on, 2013, approving this Fourth Amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, in return for the mutual promises herein and other valuable consideration, the Town and Property Owner agree to, and do hereby amend, the Agreement as follows: 13(d): 1. Section 13 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following Section (d) The Ryland Homes Tract Notwithstanding Section 13(b) and (c) of the Agreement, the real property described in Exhibit A to the Fourth Amendment, which is incorporated herein by reference, shall be referred to as the Ryland Homes Tract. With respect to the Ryland Homes Tract, the Property Owner shall be entitled, as a vested right, to the Building Development Standards, uses, Densities, Dwelling Units and other Development rights and prerogatives set forth specifically in Exhibit B to the Fourth Amendment, which is incorporated herein by reference. The use restrictions for the Project set forth in Section 16 of the Agreement shall not apply with respect to the Ryland Homes Tract, it being understood that Exhibit B to the Fourth Amendment shall instead control the permitted uses for the Ryland Homes Tract. 2. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement, as amended in the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Third Amendment, and except as expressly modified herein, shall remain in full force and effect. This Fourth Amendment shall only apply to the Property described in Exhibit A and shall not impact or affect the Building Development Standards, uses, Densities, Dwelling Units and other Development rights and prerogatives applicable to the remainder of the real property subject to the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Third Amendment; provided, however, the total of all Dwelling Units for the entire Project, including the development of the Ryland Homes Tract, shall not exceed 600. Page 2 of 8

112 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement has been executed, sealed and delivered by the parties on the dates below. WITNESSES (as to the Town): TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT ( Town ) By: Its: Mayor Date: Attest: Clerk of Council [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 3 of 8

113 WITNESSES: BEACH SHELLPOINT, LLC By: The Beach Co. Its: Manager By: John C.L. Darby Its: President and CEO Date: By: J. Darryl Reyna Its: Executive Vice President and COO Date: [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 4 of 8

114 WITNESSES: THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. By: Its: Date: [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 5 of 8

115 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (TOWN) COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me by the TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, by William D. Swails, its Mayor, and Christine Barrett, its Clerk of Council, this day of, (SEAL) Notary Public for South Carolina My Commission Expires: [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 6 of 8

116 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me by BEACH SHELLPOINT, LLC, by John C.L. Darby, its President and Chief Executive Officer and J. Darryl Reyna, its Executive Vice President and COO, this day of, (SEAL) Notary Public for South Carolina My Commission Expires: [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Page 7 of 8

117 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me by THE RYLAND GROUP, INC., by, its, this day of, (SEAL) Notary Public for South Carolina My Commission Expires: [END OF DOCUMENT] Page 8 of 8

118 Exhibit A Legal Description ALL that certain piece, parcel, lot or tract of land, together with all buildings and other improvements thereon, if any, situate, lying and being in the Town of Mount Pleasant, County of Charleston, State of South Carolina, containing 3.44 acres, more or less, and being more particularly shown and designated as TRACT 2-3, PARCEL A on that certain plat entitled Final Subdivision Plat of Tract 2-3 Residual A (21.22 ac.) to Create Tract 2-3 Residual A (11.29 ac.), Tract 2-3 Parcel A (3.44 ac.) & Tract 2-3 Parcel B (6.50 ac.) Prepared for: Beach Shellpoint, LLC dated May 29, 2007, prepared by Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co., and recorded in the RMC Office for Charleston County, South Carolina on June 13, 2007, in Plat Book EK at Page 785. SAID property having such size, shape, dimensions, buttings and boundings as will by reference to said plat more fully and at large appear. Charleston County TMS #

119 Exhibit B (A) Permitted uses. The Property Owner shall be entitled, as a vested right, to develop the following uses on the Ryland Homes Tract: (1) Single-family attached dwellings (Townhouses); and (2) Accessory uses as set forth in Mount Pleasant Code (A). (B) Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements. Notwithstanding any conflicting Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements set forth generally in the Agreement, the following Lot, yard, height, coverage, and square footage (dwelling size) requirements shall apply, as a vested right of the Property Owner, to the Ryland Homes Tract: (1) Minimum lot requirements. Lot area per dwelling unit: 1,500 square feet Lot width (excepting where side yards are required): 18 feet (2) Minimum yard requirements. Front yard from street right-of-way: 4 feet Front yard from street right-of-way with front yard parking: 25 feet Side yard between separate rows of structures: 20 feet Side yard between end structure and side lot line: 10 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Rear yard with parking in rear yard: 35 feet (3) Maximum height permitted. Vertical measure: 55 feet from the base of the building. (4) Building coverage. No more than 65% of the lot may be covered by the principal buildings. Accessory structures shall not count toward the maximum building coverage for the lot. (C) Additional development requirements. Notwithstanding any conflicting development requirements set forth generally in the Agreement, the following development requirements shall apply to the Ryland Homes Tract:

120 (1) Maximum Density (Dwelling Units): The Property Owner shall have a vested right to construct up to thirty-seven (37) Dwelling Units (Townhouses) on the Property. (2) Maximum Townhouses per row. No more than eight (8) single-family attached Dwelling Units (Townhouses) shall be constructed or attached together in a continuous row, and no such row shall exceed 200 feet in length. (3) Open space required. (a) Not less than 8% of the gross acreage shall be designated for open space. (b) The 8% of land area shall not include land used to provide minimum yard requirements, parking areas for dwelling units, or streets. (4) Parking requirements: (a) Off-street parking requirements may be provided, either on the premises or in a community parking lot or garage, the title to which and/or easement for the use of which runs with and/or is appurtenant to the title of each Dwelling Unit (Townhouse). (b) No such parking lot or garage shall be located more than 200 feet from the Dwelling Unit (Townhouse) it serves. (c) Tandem parking in the driveways will be allowed. (D) Bufferyard requirements. Minimum bufferyard requirements for, and between, permitted uses in the Ryland Homes Tract and contiguous uses are set forth in in the Mount Pleasant Code, with a Dwelling Unit (Townhouse) on the Ryland Homes Tract being treated as a Townhouse for the purpose of of the Mount Pleasant Code.

121 Carolina Park Summary of Changes to PD September 24, 2013 The following summarizes the list of changes we would like to make to the Development Agreement and PD: 1. Reduction in Structures in MP- 1 and MP- 2 The number of identification structures permitted in areas MP-1 and MP-2 is reduced from four (4) to three (3) in recognition of the additional signs permitted hereby. Up to two (2) of these three (3) structures will be permitted to have commercial signs as provided herein. 2. Sign on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road A sign will be permitted to be located in the median of the entrance drive located at the curb cut on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road. Such sign will be considered a Comprehensive Development Project sign, which may be shared by multiple users. Such sign may be up to 8 feet in height and include up to 100 square feet of sign face per side and otherwise shall be subject to the Governing Regulations. 3. Other Signs within Carolina Park Additional signs shall be permitted in Carolina Park in accordance with the Governing Regulations. 4. Removal of Exceptions to Current Regulations Pertaining to Signage Adopt new Town of Mount Pleasant Sign Ordinance in lieu of current exceptions to (D) Subdivision Identification/Entry Signs and (E)(1) Residential Regulations-Multifamily Signage. 5. Accessory Structure Height up to 25ft Accessory structure heights up to 25ft shall be allowed to provide for usable spaces above detached garages. This will allow rooms over detached garages to be finished without requiring a full kitchen and bathroom, which are required for ADU's. Such structures may also be left in an unfinished shell condition and finished at a later date. 6. Buffers Add to Section IV - Exception to Current Regulations (substitute) (D) Bufferyard Requirements Chart: Townhomes will be exempt from buffers adjacent to other uses. The spatial requirements of Roadside Type B will be waived, however, plantings required by this buffer type will be provided between the building and street, and may include street tree plantings in fulfilling the requirement. 7. Lot Width to Depth Ratios Add to Section IV - Exception to Current Regulations (replace)

122 (C)(9)(a): The depth of Single Family Detached lots shall not be more than 4 times their width. Single Family Attached lots (Townhomes) shall not be more than 5 times their width.

123 THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CDM OF CHARLESTON, LLC AND TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA This THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the Third Amendment ) is entered into effective as of, 2013 by and between CDM of Charleston, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company (hereinafter CDM ), and the Town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina (hereinafter, the Town ). CDM and the Town are sometimes separately referred to in this Agreement as a party or jointly referred to as the parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to South Carolina Code of Laws, Section , et seq., the parties entered into a Development Agreement dated September 14, 2011, recorded in the RMC Office for Charleston County on September 23, 2011, in Book 0208 at Page 668, and amended by the First Amendment to Development Agreement dated March 26, 2012, and recorded April 5, 2012, in Book 0243, Page 769, and further amended by the Second Amendment to Development Agreement dated April 19, 2013, and recorded April 19, 2013 in Book 0325, Page 144 (as amended, the "Agreement"); and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the premises of this Third Amendment, and the mutual benefits to the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Article II. Land Uses, Section E. Monument Parks and Signage, of Exhibit C Governing Regulations, of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit A hereto. 2. Article III. Setbacks and Lot Criteria, of Exhibit C Governing Regulations of the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the pages attached hereto labeled "Article III of Exhibit C of the Agreement". 3. Article IV. Exceptions to Current Regulations, of Exhibit C Governing Regulations of the Agreement is amended as follows. A. The following Exceptions to Current Regulations are hereby deleted from Article IV. Exceptions to Current Regulations, of Exhibit C Governing Regulations of the Agreement. i (D) Subdivision Identification/Entry Sign ii (E)(1) Residential Regulations - Multifamily Signage B. The following Exceptions to Current Regulations are hereby added to Article IV. Exceptions to Current Regulations, of Exhibit C Governing Regulations of the Agreement.

124 i (D) Bufferyard Requirements Chart: Townhomes are exempt from buffers adjacent to other uses. The spatial requirements of Roadside Type B is waived, however, plantings required by this buffer type will be provided between the building and street, and may include street tree plantings in fulfilling the requirement. ii (C)(9)(a): The depth of Single Family Detached lots shall not be more than 4 times their width. Single Family Attached lots (Townhomes) shall not be more than 5 times their width. 4. The Town shall complete all public hearings and adopt all ordinances required to be adopted to place into effect this Third Amendment. 5. This Third Amendment shall be effective on the date on which the last of the parties executes this Third Amendment; provided that a fully-executed copy is delivered to each party and the ordinances referenced in Section 3 are adopted in a timely manner. 6. Except as expressly amended herein, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm all terms of the Agreement as modified herein. [remainder of page intentionally left blank]

125 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment has been executed by the parties effective on the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT By: William D. Swails, Mayor Date: WITNESSES: CDM OF CHARLESTON, LLC By: GLI Management, LLC, Its Manager By: Print Name: Edmund F. Navarro, a Manager Date:

126 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) I,, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, hereby certify that William D. Swails, Mayor, on behalf of the Town of Mount Pleasant, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the above document. Subscribed to and sworn before me this day of, My Commission Expires: (SEAL) STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) I,, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, hereby certify that, a Manager of GLI Management, LLC, the Manager of CDM of Charleston, LLC, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the above document on behalf of CDM of Charleston, LLC. Subscribed to and sworn before me this day of, My Commission Expires: (SEAL)

127 Exhibit A E. Monument Parks and Signage 1. Signs Adjacent to Highway 17 a. Monument Parks and Informational Signs In an effort to minimize the impact of development along the Highway 17 frontage, major commercial and office uses are found internal to the project along Carolina Park Boulevard and Park Avenue Boulevard. As a result, there is a need to identify major commercial facilities in Carolina Park. Therefore, as a means to create cohesive identification for these uses, four landscaped Monument Parks have been created along Highway 17 (identified as MP-1, MP-2, MP-3, and MP-4 on the Land Use Master Plan found as Exhibit A in Section V). These areas, totaling approximately 8 acres, have been set aside to permit identification of those major facilities in an attractive and unified manner. b. Identification Structures In an effort to convey a positive image for Carolina Park and identify the commercial uses within the community in an attractive way, Identification Structures will be used in each of the Monument Parks. The Structure examples in Section V, Exhibit F demonstrate several concepts that will be part of the structure design. These concepts include retailer and commercial signs painted on the structures and Carolina Park identification signage on the gables and roofs of some structures. These renderings are intended to be concepts with modifications possible in the final design. The individual structures will be consistent with the look of the concept renderings and will not exceed the dimensions of a 20 x35 footprint and 25 ridge height. The structures will be lit from the inside and on the outside at night. It is not the intent for the retail signs to dominate or overwhelm the structures. The signs are intended to be a tasteful and unique way to identify the retailers and businesses located within Carolina Park. These structures will play an important role in defining the image of the development; therefore, the design and execution of each sign will be carefully reviewed and supervised by Carolina Park's design review board to ensure they will reflect positively on the community. c. MP- 1 and MP- 2 Monument Parks located at the northern and southern boundaries of Carolina Park s Highway 17 frontage will be utilized as landscaped, park-like settings for the development s identification as well as signage for individual retailers and commercial uses. Each of these two areas will include up to 3 structures based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP-1 and MP-2: One Carolina Park identification structure will include the Carolina Park logo on the gable end and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure will not include commercial signage. (See Exhibits F-1 and F-2 for examples.) Up to 2 of the 3 structures will be permitted to have commercial signage. Each of the commercial signage structures will be allowed to have signs on 2 of the 4 sides, with

128 up to 4 retailers allowed on the long facade and up to 3 retailers on the short facade. (See Exhibits F-3, F-4, and F-5 for examples.) d. MP- 3 A separate monument park dedicated to a single Carolina Park identification structure is located at the intersection of Highway 17 and Carolina Park Boulevard (identified as MP-3 on the Land Use Master Plan) This structure's dimensions will not exceed a 20'x35 footprint and a 25 ridge height. This structure will be based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP-3: This structure may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure will not include commercial signage. (See Exhibit F-1 and F-2 for examples.) e. MP- 4 An additional monument park dedicated to a single Carolina Park identification structure is located at the intersection of Highway 17 and Faison Road. This structure's dimensions will not exceed a 20 x35 footprint, a 25 ridge height and will be based on the examples shown in Exhibit F of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the signage structures in MP- 4: This structure may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This structure is permitted to have commercial signage on 3 sides with up to 6 retailers allowed on each of the two long façades and up to 3 retailers allowed on the short façade. (See Exhibit F-6 for an example.) f. Sign on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road In addition to the monument parks, a sign will be permitted in the median of the entrance drive located at the future curb cut on Highway 17 between Park West Boulevard and Faison Road. Such sign will be considered a Comprehensive Development Project Sign, which may be shared by multiple users. Such sign may be up to 8 feet in height and include up to 100 square feet of sign face per side and otherwise shall be subject to the Governing Regulations. g. Informational Signage One informational sign may be located within the median of Carolina Park Boulevard and will require an encroachment permit from the Town. Informational signage may include the name(s) of subdivisions within the community, schools, churches, civic uses, and private businesses. This sign will be based on the example shown in Exhibit F-7 of Section V. Following are additional guidelines for the informational signage: This sign may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. This sign may be may be two-sided, a maximum of 16 feet in height and 10 feet in width with up to 100 square feet of sign face per side. Each sign panel will be consistent in size to maintain a uniform appearance. The lettering for this sign will be externally illuminated and/or backlit.

129 h. Fences Fences complimentary to the identification structure design will be allowed in the monument parks, however, no fences will be allowed to display commercial signage The fence will be constructed utilizing materials that add longevity and ease of maintenance. i. Additional Highway 17 Signage Frontage for Tract CPI-8, including the area known as Roper Hospital, will be allotted 3 total signs of up to 20 feet in height above grade and 100 square feet of signage per side to be located at entrances identified as B, C and D on Exhibit B of this document. Buffers along Highway 17 in these areas may be altered to allow for views of the signage as specified in Section F. 2. Other Carolina Park Signage a. Signs within Carolina Park Additional signs may be constructed within Carolina Park in accordance with the Governing Regulations. b. Internal Directional Signage Freestanding Directional Signs, illuminated or non-illuminated (a) shall be pointed or contain an arrow which directs traffic to a use, roadway or area in the Industrial or Commercial District, (b) may be placed in buffer areas, excluding the Hwy. 17 buffer (c) may not be within street rights of way, (d) may contain the name of a business(es) or service(s) but not the logo of a business, (e) shall have a uniform color and design, and (f) shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. No more than five informational panels may occur on each directional sign. Internal signage existing within Carolina Park at the time of this document may be replaced as necessary and are not required to conform to the requirements herein if replacement signage is a duplicate of the existing. Should sign replacement differ from the existing, it will be subject to new standards. c. Internal Identification Structures at CPC-9 When fully developed, parcel CPC-9 (identified in the Master Land Use Plan) has the potential to encompass over 300,000 square feet of commercial space, which could include shopping and retail centers, offices, and other mixed-use development. Under the Town's sign ordinance, comprehensive development projects may utilize on-premises and off-premises free-standing signs for both single and multi-tenant developments ( ). In an effort to maintain a cohesive and attractive appearance for the signage, it may be beneficial to repeat the monument park identification structures in areas internal to the development. Therefore, on parcel CPC-9, Carolina Park shall have the option to use up to two of the identification structure concepts shown in Exhibit F of Section V as Comprehensive Development Project Signs. These structures' dimensions shall not exceed a 20'x35' footprint and a 25' ridge height. In the case where this option is used, these identification structures would be substituted for up to two of the shopping center free-standing signs allowed under the Governing Regulations. Following are additional guidelines for these signage structures:

130 These structures may include the Carolina Park logo on the gable ends and may include the Carolina Park name on both sides of the roof. These structures are permitted to have commercial signage on 4 sides with up to 6 retailers allowed on each of the two long façades and up to 3 retailers allowed on each of the short façades. (See Exhibit F-6 for an example.)

131 ARTICLE III OF EXHIBIT C OF THE AGREEMENT [see attached]

132

133

134

135