Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2019 A regular meeting of the City of Charleston Planning Commission was held this date at 2 George Street, Public Meeting Room, First Floor. Notice of this meeting was sent to all local news media. PRESENT Mr. Gordon Geer, Chair, Mr. Charles Karesh, Ms. Sunday Lempesis, Mr. Harry Lesesne, Mr. Ravi Sanyal. CITY STAFF: Mr. Christopher Morgan, Planning Director, Mrs. Ana Harp, Associate Planner, Mr. Lee Batchelder, Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Philip Overcash, Planner 1. Chair Geer explained the rules of procedure. The following items were deferred: REZONINGS 1. To rezone Clements Ferry Road (Cainhoy) (Approximately 146.61 acres) (A portion of TMS# 268-00-00-133) from Light Industrial (LI) classification to General Business (GB) and Diverse Residential (DR-1) classifications. Deferred 4. To rezone property located on Maybank Highway and River Road (The Kerr Tract PUD - Johns Island) (Approximately 70.59 acres) (TMS# 345-00-00-090 & 099) from General Office (GO), General Business (GB) and Diverse Residential (DR-9) classifications to Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification. Deferred 6. To rezone properties on Allway Street, Ashley Avenue, Ashton Street, Bogard Street, Congress Street, Court Street, Fishburne Street, Grants Court, Hagood Avenue, US Highway 17, Kennedy Street, Killians Street, Kracke Street, Larnes Street, Line Street, Maranda Holmes Street, Norman Street, Nunan Street, Orrs Court, President Street, Race Street, Rosemont Street, Rutledge Avenue, Sumter Street, Woodall Court (Westside - Peninsula) (TMS# 460-03-03-026 through 051, 460-07-01-012 through 018, 460-07-01- 021 through 045, 460-07-01-060 through 090, 460-07-01-101 through 112, 460-07-01-117, 460-07-01- 119, 460-07-01-121, 460-07-02-001 through 011, 460-07-02-013 through 056, 460-07-02-058 through 089, 460-07-02-091 through 093, 460-07-02-095 through 110, 460-07-02-112 through 132, 460-07-02- 142 through 174, 460-07-02-176, 460-07-02-178 through 197, 460-07-02-221 through 237, 460-07-02- 239, 4600702242 through 246, 4600702251 through 265, 4600704033 through 035, 4600704039 through 053, 4600704060 through 062, 4600704073 through 116, 4600704119 through 141, 4600704144 through 148, 4600704150 through 178, 4600704181 through 190, 4600704192, 4600704195, 4600704197, 4600704198, 4600704219 through 221, 4601101025 through 047, 4601101049, 4601101050 through 053, 4601101055, 4601101059, 4601101060, 4601101062 through 069, 4601101071 through 074, 4601101076 through 094, 4601101096 through 107, and 4601101115 through 118 from Diverse Residential (DR-2F) classification to Diverse Residential (DR-1F) classification Deferred ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 2. To amend provisions of Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Charleston (Zoning Ordinance) by amending Part 17 – Upper Peninsula District pertaining to strengthening workforce housing. Deferred The rezonings, zonings and ordinance amendment were presented by Mr. Morgan. The subdivision was presented by Ms. Harp. REZONINGS 2. To rezone 1004 Physicians Drive (West Ashley) (0.84 acre) (TMS# 309-00-00-075) from General Office (GO) classification to Commercial Transitional (CT) classification. Presentation: The property was in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for medical offices. It was assumed everything on Physicians Drive would be offices for physicians and similar uses. It ended up taking longer for Physicians Drive to build out than many people realized. Over that time with all the medicals that had been developed there, people realized there was a dearth of support uses, such as restaurants, places for people  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 2 to go to lunch. The applicant was requesting a rezoning that would allow a restaurant type use in this location. CT doesn’t allow a drive-thru so it was a low intensity use. Staff felt even though the comprehensive plan called for this be in the job center, in the job center you would had to have some of those support services. This was such a small parcel on a corner with some other less attractive uses like the Light Industrial use across the way that a CT rezoning was appropriate. Staff recommended approval for CT rezoning. In Favor: Dr. Marcelo Hochman, the applicant, said they got petitions signed by all of the neighbors in support of the café. Opposed: No one spoke against the request. Chair Geer closed the public hearing. Motion: Mr. Karesh moved for approval. Second: Ms. Lempesis The motion passed unanimously. 3. To rezone 41 & 41½ Line Street (Peninsula) (0.77 acre) (TMS# 459-05-03-113) from Light Industrial (LI) classification to Mixed-Use/Work Force Housing (MU-2/WH) classification. Presentation: Mr. Morgan noted the Commission had seen this area before for the last few years because there had been many rezonings in line with the Comprehensive Plan to the MU-2/WH district here. This was asking for another parcel in that general area to go to that same district. Staff had been very comfortable with this request as they had been with the others because they were in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval. In Favor: Scott Kay, the applicant, was present. Opposed: No one spoke against the request. Chair Geer closed the public hearing. Motion: Mr. Sanyal moved for approval Second: Mr. Lesesne The motion passed unanimously. 5. To rezone 200 Spring Street (Peninsula) (0.412 acre) (TMS# 460-11-01-011) to include property in the Accommodations Overlay (A) classification. Presentation: This was the site of the former Shell gas station. It was built in the early 2000s. It was immediately adjacent to property recently rezoned to MU-2/WH and Accommodations Overlay. More MU-2/WH was to the east of the property on a site that would soon be an assisted living facility. There were medical district related buildings to the south and fast food restaurants further to west. There was a PUD recently approved for a hotel at the former Wendy’s. Staff was comfortable with this request and felt the applicant worked well with the neighborhood on these, and created an opportunity for redevelopment in a fashion that was friendlier to the neighborhood and still met needs within the City. Staff recommended approval for the Accommodations Overlay. In Favor: Jeffrey Roberts, representing the applicant, said they acquired the gas station from Eddie Buck, Jr. It was sandwiched in between and they felt the gas station didn’t attribute anything to the neighborhood, especially since most of Ashton Street had been redone with 10 or 12 different restorations and new houses. The gas station would be demolished before the end of the month and the property would be incorporated as an add-on into an already approved project. It was going to be an apartment type of accommodation hotel to serve the interest of the medical district. It was approved by BAR recently and they worked well with the neighborhood. Ian Mills, vice president of West Side Neighborhood Association, said after discussing this with the president they felt this was an extension of something the neighborhood already discussed and approved. Mr. Roberts met with them a number of times to review the architecture and idea. They were glad to see the gas station go and the changes in this part of the neighborhood.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 3 Opposed: No one spoke against the request. Chair Geer closed the public hearing Motion: Ms. Lempesis moved for approval of the Accommodations Overlay. Second: Mr. Karesh The motion passed unanimously. SUBDIVISIONS 1. The Forest at Fenwick – Phase 1 (River Rd at Stardust Way – Johns Island) – TMS# 3120000399 through 478 – 10.108 ac. Right-of-way. Request subdivision concept plan approval. Zoned Diverse Residential (DR-12). Presentation: The project was for the creation of a roundabout at the intersection of River Road and Stardust Way. One of the goals of the roundabout was to preserve the River Road corridor near Fenwick Plantation, provide interconnectivity between developments, improve traffic flow and improve access to the adjoining multifamily in Stardust Way. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the concept plan for compliance with City standards. Staff recommends approval with certain conditions imposed by the Stormwater Department In Favor: Andy Smith with EYC Companies, who recently purchased the apartment development, said this was the entrance road to the apartments. They had been working with the City to reduce the impact of turn lanes adjacent to the DR-4 development and calm the pitchfork. Placing the roundabout there reduced the need for a continuous turn lane and preserved the trees. He said he would answer any questions. Mr. Morgan said staff had been working with Mr. Smith on this request. This was a critical piece of infrastructure on River Road because of the pending construction of the pitchfork and the already approved developments above it. It would help calm that area of River Road and help keep the Johns Island flavor as opposed to having a lot of turn lanes that would take out a lot of trees. Staff was pleased to work on this concept. Condition: Certain conditions imposed by the Stormwater Department Opposed: No one spoke against the request. Chair Geer closed the public hearing. Motion: Mr. Karesh moved for approval with conditions. Second: Mr. Lesesne The motion passed unanimously. ZONINGS To zone the following properties annexed into the City of Charleston: 1. Property located on Magnolia Road and Live Oak Avenue (West Ashley) (0.36 acre) (TMS# 418-13-00- 057, 292 & 293) Single-Family Residential (SR-4). Presentation: Mr. Morgan noted the image on the monitors showed the already approved lot lines approved by Charleston County prior to annexation. This was the location of a church that had been vacant for some time and had since been demolished. It had frontage on Magnolia Road and backed up to Live Oak and other single-family houses. Since these were pre-existing lots staff wanted to make the zoning match as closely as possible the size of the lots. In Favor: Nate Hertel, the owner, said he and his wife bought the church and planned to move into it as a family home. They bought it July, 2017 and spent three months working with architects. He renovated homes and his wife was an interior designer with LS3P. After months with the architects, plans developed and working with structural engineers, one of the engineers noted they couldn’t do it as they had to do more structural work. The second engineer said they had to take all of the bricks off the outside of the building to achieve the outside of the walls. Another engineer was willing to work with them but noted it would cost more renovate it than to tear it down. In December 2017, they decided to tear the building down. They saved as much of the building materials as they could to reuse them again.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 4 Mr. Hertel said there were three lots originally. The lots had been subdivided in the County. They would like to build three single-family houses on each of the three lots. This wasn’t their original intention nor was it planned. They had plans for the first house that would face Live Oak Avenue. The plan was to get that built through the framing and rough faces, and start planning houses two and three. There would be three single-family detached homes, two stories, and 1700 to 1900 square feet, three bedrooms and two and a half baths. They would be three different styles to match the neighborhood. They won’t be vinyl homes. They would be Energy Star certified and Zero Energy ready homes if the buyers wanted to solar panels. They would be high quality homes and an addition and credit to the neighborhood. In response to a comment by Mr. Karesh, Mr. Hertel said the three lots were the original plan. The lot lines were never abandoned. It wasn’t what they anticipated on doing. Opposed: Julia Flumian, who lived across the street, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood and the neighborhood president, David Manheim, said the lot was originally sold as one lot where the church was. It was a 0.52 acre lot regularly used by the church. Mr. Hertel bought the property and told them the plans that he told the Commission. The demolition was done without permits. They took down asbestos with no permits. Mr. Manheim called the permitting department to stop the children from playing with the asbestos. The lot sat for months as a deteriorating hulk. They took the roof off and let the rain pour down into it thereby ruining the floors. Everyone in the neighborhood were sick as the children continued to play on the empty, dangerous lot. The neighborhood had no knowledge of splitting the property into three lots. No notice was provided. Ms. Flumian said when she checked GIS this afternoon she saw Mr. Hertel rezoned from R-4 to General Commercial. They received no notice of that. He filed this three lot plots in November. This was not in character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hertel was talking about having these three lots be .10, .12, and .14 acres. The lot he planned on building on Live Oak Avenue didn’t take into consideration that there was a large culvert. She couldn’t fathom putting a 1700 square foot home on a lot that would be .8 or .9 acres. Ms. Flumian said they felt they didn’t have proper notice of these changes. They firmly believed that his lack of profitability was not a justification for altering the neighborhood so substantially. He hadn’t held any neighborhood meetings or spoken to the residents. No one was made aware of this. She said she spoke for many neighbors when she said they didn’t trust Mr. Hertel, they didn’t think he knew what he was doing, and they didn’t want those three lots there. The reverend from the church was a banker at her boyfriend’s bank. The reverend said he and his congregation were affected by seeing their church destroyed by someone who didn’t plan, didn’t have permits and didn’t care about what he was doing. The neighborhood didn’t want him to proceed with this building. They asked for the application be continued until there could be further discussion. Mr. Karesh said they were only zoning the property and not subdividing it. It was an annexation and they were giving it zoning similar to what it had in the County. Mr. Morgan noted it was a different zoning because Mr. Hertel was utilizing the pre-existing lots that were on the property. The lots didn’t fit with the City’s SR-1 orSR-2 and that was why they zone it SR-4. It was different from the R-4 in the County, but that was when it was the one church going across the lot lines and they weren’t taking advantage of the previously subdivided lots. Mr. Sanyal concluded there were always the three lots there. Mr. Morgan said that was the staff’s understanding. The applicant might be able to give more history on that. The information the staff had from the County was there were three lots there now. They wouldn’t have annexed it without knowing there were three lots on the property now. Rebuttal: Mr. Hertel said he had never heard this before and this was his first time hearing it. The demolition was permitted. The asbestos was permitted by state DHEC. It took a month to get the asbestos removed. It was taken in the Springhill landfill by Republic Services. They had a fence around it. When they got demo permit finalized the County didn’t want the fence around everything. They wanted it clear like a bare lot. The neighbors across the street moved. They showed the adjacent neighbors in the adjacent house, Chris and Alex, the plans. Chris and Alex gave them the names of the last two engineers they tried to contact. They were trying to get the plans for the house. It was three lots originally platted. They sold off three lots to the church. The church changed hands several times over the years. The three lots always existed. They were given one TMS number. The lot lines were never abandoned. They already existed so they gave them two tax ID numbers and they now have three separate tax ID numbers.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 5 It was 0.35 acres not 0.52 acres. The discrepancy was there was 138 feet of frontage Magnolia Road and 165 feet of frontage on Live Oak Avenue. It wasn’t square with approximately 15,500 square feet total, not including the ROW. The Live Oak ditch was in the ROW. It wasn’t part of the 0.35 acres. The sidewalk on the Magnolia Road side and the drainage ditch weren’t part of the property. Ms. Flumian said they hadn’t spoken to Mr. Hertel about this because they didn’t want to fight with a neighbor. She said she spoke for many of the neighbors who were very frustrated with what had happened with the lot. They didn’t want three houses there. It doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Hertel said they took on time to take the building apart by hand. They were putting the bricks they removed aside for free for those who could use it. The wood was being salvaged by hand. It took some time because they took it apart by hand and removed the nails. They reused all of the flooring and the beams. They saved the 2x6s and 2x4s. There was a benefit to reusing this. Their goal the entire time was to move into it as a family home. It took them several months of outside experts to tell them that wasn’t going to work. When they discovered that they did everything they could to salvage it. They planned reuse all of the flooring, beams and building materials that they could. Mr. Hertel said it was three lots. They were trying to annex into the City. The County had been difficult to work with in that you would speak to one person who said one thing and another person would say something different. He had done several renovations and pulled permits in the permit office today on a renovation he was doing. He worked with the City inspectors and he felt more comfortable with the City process. He said it had been very frustrating. It took almost six months to get the property subdivided in the pre-planning process. Mr. Sanyal asked if Mr. Hertel could still build the three houses if he stayed in the County. Mr. Morgan said yes. Mr. Karesh reiterated they were only zoning the property and it was already subdivided. He asked if the application would go anywhere. Mr. Morgan said City Council would give final approval of the zoning. Chair Geer added the Commission didn’t regulate demolition, how things were disposed or silk fencing. He closed the public hearing Discussion: Mr. Lesesne said the SR-2 zoning was in the neighborhood already. He asked Mr. Morgan to talk about that as opposed to SR-4. Mr. Morgan said SR-2 was a 6000 square foot minimum lot and it would be difficult for a lot of those to meet that. He felt there were some lots in the neighborhood that were smaller than some of these. Most of the lots were bigger but they were preexisting. What staff typically does with preexisting lots, because it came to the City preexisting already subdivided in the County, was try to get the zoning on it that closely matches their lot size. SR-4 was 4000 square foot minimum. They won’t be able to subdivide them further and they all met the standards for SR-4. There had been some infill going on in this area and it had worked well. Mr. Lesesne said what was happening was they were taking the most closely equivalent zoning that’s in the County and applying it to the City zoning district. They were completing an annexation. Motion: Mr. Lesesne moved for approval Second: Mr. Sanyal The motion passed unanimously. 2. Vacant lot on Agatha Street (West Ashley) (0.13 acre) (TMS# 351-07-00-070) Single-Family Residential (SR-2). Presentation: The property was south of Savage Road, east of Ashley River Road and north of Sam Rittenberg. It was a vacant lot. Staff recommended approval of SR-2. In Favor: No one spoke for or against the request. Motion: Mr. Karesh moved for approval of staff recommendation of SR-2. Second: Mr. Lesesne  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 6 The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1. To amend Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Charleston (Zoning Ordinance) to incorporate provisions to allow subdivision and development of Single Family Detached Affordable Housing as a conditional use within multiple base zoning districts. Presentation: Mr. Morgan said this item had been before the Commission three or four times. The ordinance was modified from the Commissioners’ comments regarding parking and matching closer with the existing setbacks. The overall intent was to provide more opportunities to create single-family homes. Cutting red tape was a big part of it because of the City have had groups gather within the City organization to figure out how to encourage more affordable housing. The timeframe it took to bring affordable houses forward, get constructed and permitted had been a big issue. He cited an example where Geona Shaw Johnson, director of the City’s Department of Housing and Community Development, went through multiple Board of Zoning approvals for affordable housing that was built in the Rosemont community because it didn’t meet some of the lot standards. The trials and tribulations they had in similar neighborhoods led to this ordinance. It was designed to help with affordable housing. It wasn’t something that would cause rampant development in neighborhoods. He noted there was a lot of input from the Ashleyville/Maryville neighborhood. The reality was Ashleyville/Maryville had a lot of outside interest in it not just from affordable housing providers but also from the private sector market. There were many private sector market rate being built there and there would be a lot more because there were available lots near downtown. One way the character of the neighborhood could be maintained was with more affordable housing rather than the market rate houses that might be larger in size than some of the existing housing in the neighborhood. The housing providers that build the affordable housing were typically neighborhood oriented, such as the City building 7 or 8 different houses there now. Mr. Morgan said this was something the staff felt very confident that it would not create detrimental effects in neighborhoods. There were many neighborhoods that won’t be impacted since they had restrictive covenants that restrict the size of the lots. The newer neighborhoods have restrictive covenants. This was something that would typically be prevalent in the older neighborhoods. Staff have reviewed existing ordinances and case studies, and this was one of the things that had been the bigger hurdles in getting individual single-family affordable housing built. The ordinance had conditional use standards. It would have meet all of the criteria listed in the ordinance. It would apply to a range of single-family districts. It reduced the setbacks and frontages but would be close enough to the lot size of the surrounding lots that staff thought it wouldn’t be detrimental to the neighborhood character. The lots would be slightly smaller lots but there won’t be tons and tons of them because they were affordable units. Staff felt it was a small price to pay to have some more affordable housing in the City where there was a crisis of the lack affordable units to have smaller lots in these instances. Off-street parking was still required, which was one of the Commission’s suggestions. Staff felt the flexible lot standard would streamline the approval process. Staff didn’t want make this ordinance all about Ashleyville/Maryville because it applied throughout the City. Staff studied that and felt it wouldn’t have a negative impact on what they heard from the residents in the area. Mr. Morgan said the residents there needed to understand there was going to be more housing, a lot of market rate housing and more people in their neighborhood. This was an ordinance that might have the effect slowing the gentrification because it might have some more affordable units in addition to the market rate units coming to their neighborhood. There was no doubt there was going to be more housing in their neighborhoods. Mr. Morgan said they had a discussion with Mayor Tecklenburg regarding this and he really would like to have a recommendation come from the Commission on this, whether it was in favor or against, to send forward to City Council for discussion. Staff felt strongly that this was something that was helpful to the City and affordable housing. If the Commission didn’t agree with it and want a different approach staff could look at that. However, he said this had hundreds of hours of staff time and complete staff concurrence from Mrs. Johnson down to the Planning staff that this was a good thing for the City and affordable housing.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 7 Chair Geer said while he would be happy to hear from the Ashleyville/Maryville residents, he knew it was an important subject and wasn’t trying to discount anything they were going to say, if they had new items and/or could build upon what they said before, that would be beneficial. Opposed: Annette B. Smalls of 945 Sycamore Avenue said she was still concerned about the size of the lots for the low-income housing. She said they had been promised by City Councilmember Keith Waring that the lots would be 50x100. They have seen where they want to reduce the lots from to 40x100. She said they didn’t know what the size of the houses were going to be. They had been promised by Mayor Riley that the lots would remain 50x100 if they were willing to annex into the City. He stated didn’t remember saying that but he said it was a reasonable request to be annexed into the City. Mrs. Smalls said this was the promise that they had and she would like to believe if they live in a community, invest in the community, they had a right to be concerned about their community. She wasn’t opposed to low income housing but all of them don’t have to be in Ashleyville. Ashleyville wasn’t the only part of the City. It was part of a whole. There were other areas where these low income housing could be built. If Ashleyville was so historic, why would they want to do this? She didn’t understand it. She took pride in it and they invested a lot in it. She said in a lot of areas you couldn’t just push anything and everything in their community and get away with it, and it’s OK. She asked what did they have to do have their community preserved. She questioned what did they have to do to show that they were concerned. If one built a house on 40x100 lot, where would you park a car? The street was only so wide and they had parking problems now. If they brought many of the houses in the community there would be more problems. Hazel M. Higgins of 970 Main Street said they have already expressed their thoughts and feelings about the entire issue. She wanted to emphasize the issue was the decreasing the minimum required size of the lots. It was their request that the minimum required lot size remain at 50x100. This was what they requested to maintain the character of community. She noted as they drove around they saw the new developments, which was acceptable, they weren’t opposed to them. The only thing they were against was overcrowding the community. She thought it was important with new development to consider those who already resided there. She hadn’t heard anything regarding that issue from the City. This was what they were talking about. They welcomed the changes that would enhance and benefit the community. But they didn’t want the overcrowding. They were thinking about quality of life for the residents who lived in Ashleyville. They asked the Commission for their consideration. She said they thanked the Commission for their time. Theresa Hilliard said she didn’t want to belabor the point as she thought the Commission had heard it enough. She supported her neighbors and their concerns about the neighborhood. She said sometimes it made one feel like you were being promised a lot of things in order to get what you want. When her neighbors were approached about coming into the City things were promised to them. Things were promised to them and because it wasn’t written in some type of formal document, they forget about things as time went on. But those who were living there they don’t forget it. They remembered what was said and there was a lot of resistance into coming into the City. So they would like those promises that were made for the residents to come into the city to be kept. There was overcrowding already on the small streets and small lots, and to add more on top of that would cause significant problems for those who live in the neighborhood. She commented that it was hard for those who don’t live in the neighborhood to see what it would cause them. She said they would appreciate the Commission’s understanding of the feelings of those who lived in that neighborhood every day. They tried to relay those sentiments to them as best they could. She said she would appreciate their consideration and asked that they place themselves in their shoes. James Smalls, husband of Annette B. Smalls, said he worked with Mayor Riley and he did say the lots would remain at 50x100. The residents held to that and now they wanted to change it. He asked them to think about it. Councilmember Carol Jackson, representing District 12, felt this was a matter of strategy. She knew it was a topic that’s been in front of the Commission officially and all of them unofficially were out of their normal realm of public meetings when they had a work session that was open to the public a few months ago. She thought at that point they had some momentum and energy about understanding this was a great need and a challenge for the city to be providing a range of housing that was affordable as we were losing that opportunity and everyone agreed on a goal. She noted in her former career she did nonprofit housing and she should be the person championing every opportunity to create that kind of housing, and she was. But she thought it was more of the way they were trying to do this was the almost convoluted way to create housing that could be affordable.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 8 Councilmember Jackson suggested they attack the problem where they understood what the problem had been and hearing the reasons why the housing builders had to get all of these variances for setbacks and changing lot lines for maximizing the footprint on smaller lots. There were plenty of substandard lots all over the city. She noted she just sat through the previous application where the gentleman was trying to get a less than 4000 square foot building lot approved rezoned. She questioned what they would do if that was in front of them as far as being able to apply that to this ordinance. She thought there was plenty of opportunity to give housing affordability the priority they needed to make it in the City if they did it in a more overt and direct way. She spoke to Mr. Lindsay yesterday, who said the Mayor hoped the Commission would make a decision tonight and send it back to City Council. If that was the way the Commission felt the most comfortable, she thought this should be a more policy making decision. Mr. Lindsay told her Geona Shaw Johnson made great progress in developing a housing toolkit that involved any land use changes and a more creative way of making changes that would be available to developers without having to beg at the City’s table. They would be able take these tools and make them proactive as a part of their overall game plan for growing their housing inventory. Councilmember Jackson thought they were asked to get that on their joint schedule. Several of the Commission members of who were excited to talk about how they could create the kind of tools that would go more directly to solving the problem of how to get the housing inventory that they needed weren’t present to take the vote. While she knew the Commission had “deferral fatigue”, she supported the goal but wasn’t sure this was the best way. They really hadn’t had the chance to think about what this would do in the long term. Councilmember Jackson commented she lived in communities in Roanoke, VA where the leadership of that era said 20 years ago families would never live in townhouses. They would never have substandard lots where one would be able to build single-family detached housing. If one went to Arlington County, VA now and see those properties that one wouldn’t never consider livable were overpriced already. She said don’t say never when it comes time to build. Anyone who had creative energy to be an innovative developer was going to make that happen. She didn’t think they understood the full ramification of what they might be doing with this kind of change to standard lot sizes. Bridget Lussier, president of Magnolia Neighborhood Association, lived down the street from Maryville. She sent a picture of a house that just came on the market on Armstrong Avenue in Maryville to Mr. Overcash and it was a great example of what this ordinance would look like in practice. It was built up to the lot line. It was a 2000 square foot house on a very small lot that backed up to the bikeway and it went on the market last week for $349,000. Her point was this ordinance was well intentioned and she agreed with the idea of affordable housing. It needed to come to fruition. She noted her mother-in-law is a renter and her sister was a renter who had to leave Charleston because she couldn’t afford it. Her sister-in-law is a renter and these people couldn’t afford to buy a home. This wasn’t the way to do it. There was a sweeping increase in density and a sweeping increase in setback. She noted the house on Armstrong Avenue wasn’t pretty and wouldn’t do anything to create affordable housing. If you think a developer was going to develop a lot to the maximum extent possible and sell it for less out of the goodness of their heart, that wasn’t going to happen. There was nothing in the ordinance that talked about the cost of the house. There wasn’t a way to decide what the median income was. It said through HUD and to be decided by the City of Charleston. She looked on HUD’s website and she couldn’t find the median income, let alone the 120% of the median income. Mrs. Lussier said while this might had started out as a great idea, the ordinance as written won’t accomplish more affordable housing. It was a sweeping increase in density and the number of houses that could be put on a lot. It had no effect what house was priced at. She was surprised to see that this was labeled an affordable housing ordinance as it wasn’t intended in any way moving towards that goal. She strongly asked the Commission to defer this issue and revise it in way that it gets at the cost of the housing itself or some other more specific way of determining an income upon it. She said from a pure logistics perspective how were they going to track the income of the buyers over 90 years and how were they going to track the income of the renters for 90 years? There were other programs available for people struggling to buy homes to get at what the issue was in terms of getting that down payment. Prices had gone crazy. She thought increasing density of single-family homes won’t help with affordability or affect the price of the homes. Mrs. Lussier commented on her job with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, she worked on flooding and climate resilience. When you increase the density of houses, you were increasing impervious surface and there was a direct proportional relationship to the area of impervious surface on a lot that could lead to the  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 9 flooding of that lot. Not only does the ordinance not address the underlying issue of what was creating the crisis of affordable house, it also further worsened the issue of climate resilience in Charleston. Using the house on Armstrong Avenue as an example, Mrs. Lussier said the developer in that situation had brought the house out as close as they could. She was sure they had a variance somewhere and that was what people could do. It gave the neighbors a chance to say it would affect their house value and quality of life. They didn’t want someone 10 feet from their lot line. The issue was they had maximized the square footage of this house and the ordinance would allow people to maximize the square footage of their house. Real estate price was based on the square footage of the house. The ordinance would have the unintended consequence added to it of raising the cost of a given developed property by allowing an increase in the square footage of the home that would then raise the price of the house itself. Unless this ordinance was going to do something about the actual selling price or rental price of a house that fitted into a full layer of bureaucracy, she didn’t think the City was going to take it on. She didn’t see how it was going to help. Rebuttal: Mr. Morgan said zoning can’t regulate prices of real estate and that was why the ordinance didn’t address that. The affordability was handled by the City’s Housing and Community Development department as there were affordable houses throughout the city under the 90-year restriction that they be affordable and a restrictive covenant that came with the house that states when you sell it, you would only be able to sell it for a certain amount of increase based on the consumer price index over time. You might make a little bit of money on it depending on how long you owned in it but it wouldn’t be the market fluctuation issues. Housing and Community Development reviewed the restrictive covenants and that was how everything was kept affordable for 90 years. Mr. Morgan noted he looked at the Armstrong Avenue house on his phone and it seemed to have a severe front setback issue. The front setbacks weren’t changing under this ordinance. It was minor changes to the side setbacks. Sometimes the rear setbacks go down by 10-feet but it wasn’t a front setback issue. He commented they had talked many times about the concerns of the Maryville/Ashleyville residents’ concerns. The staff had studied the neighborhood and they knew a lot more housing was coming to that neighborhood. Some of it could be affordable if the ordinance passed. They thought that would help the gentrification forces in that issue in that neighborhood. Either way there would be more houses in the neighborhood. Staff thought the affordable houses would end up being more in character with the neighborhood. Chair Geer closed public hearing Discussion: In reference to the chart in the ordinance, Mr. Ravi asked what were the current minimum lot frontage in Ashleyville. Mr. Morgan said it was currently 50 feet and would be 40 feet under the ordinance. Mr. Lesesne concluded it was 50 feet under SR-2. Mr. Morgan said yes, with most of the neighborhood. Mr. Lesesne remarked that most of the neighborhood was in SR-2. Mr. Morgan said not all of the neighborhood. There was some denser zoning in the neighborhood. There was a new development coming in under cluster that was going to have much smaller lot sizes but with comparable overall density to the neighborhood. Mr. Lesesne said this would generally apply in that neighborhood because a handful of larger lots that would be subdivided. Mr. Morgan said yes. If you had 100 or 120 feet of frontage you would get three lots instead of just two. Mr. Lesesne said the lots that were previously subdivided can’t be subdivided. Mr. Morgan said if they were sitting there at 50 feet, no one would come in and do 40 feet because you would have 10 feet left over that would be useless. Ms. Lempesis said on the SR-3 when they went down, they increased the frontage to 40 feet and went down on the overall. She wondered how that would be impacted. Mr. Morgan said the original proposal on the ordinance was a 35-foot frontage but they bumped it up to 40.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 10 Mr. Batchelder said going back to October when they first spoke about this ordinance to the Commission and they had a draft at that time, after the discussion and presentation by the public, the Commission members questioned whether the numbers made sense because the frontage was one aspect of the side setback requirements. If you narrowed the frontage and but don’t decrease the side setback requirements you end up with really narrow houses. Staff adjusted the numbers and the changes that were reflected in the draft ordinance the Commission member had tonight showed the changes made to the October draft ordinance to fix some of those discrepancies that were identified. That was why it went from 35-feet to 40-feet. Mr. Batchelder added the chart at the end of the draft ordinance showed the SR-4 minimum lot frontage requirement was 50-feet for a single-family detached lot. Staff proposed 40-feet, lot area changes and side setback changes. Ms. Lempesis concluded that was all of the City. Mr. Morgan said it was being applied throughout the City. There would be some neighborhoods with restrictive covenants that this wouldn’t be applied. Ms. Lempesis said most of the lots were 50-foot lots in the neighborhood. She asked what would be the overall impact if how many lots that were next to each other that could be subdivided. She said what they were forgetting was this had to be affordable housing. The people who were going in there were building very expensive houses. She was concerned about gentrification there and moving the neighbors out because of the promise of paying $80,000 or $90,000 for this lot. She didn’t want to see $500,000 or $350,000 homes there. That was the biggest reason why she saw value in this. She thought the 50x100 foot lots wouldn’t be impacted. She didn’t think anyone would buy two lots in order to build three affordable houses because they won’t make any money. The only way was somebody with a good heart or some kind of entity would be doing affordable housing. She didn’t see anyone voluntarily doing this that’s in the business of making money. She didn’t see the City’s housing department doing it either because it was too convoluted. They would pick a tract of land. Ms. Lempesis said it was tight in the neighborhood. The streets are narrow and it was very tight. Her concerns were no restrictions on the front setbacks like on SR-4. But many of the houses in the neighborhood were very close to the street. Chair Geer remarked on his new job they were working on a new development that had an affordable component and there was some validity to the desire to try to expedite the process to make the affordable portion actually affordable without building at market rate and slash the price. They were trying to figure out some way to compromise or do something to make people want to do it and make it practical so people can make money. Where the Commission had heard a lot of grief from people in this arena had been for things like the cluster development where here were the standards and people asked what could be done on the lot adjacent to them. It was SR-4 and it could be 50x100 minimum standard. Then six weeks later someone comes up who subdivided it into three lots and it was going to be affordable. He felt this was where the Commission got into trouble. Chair Geer said there were many ordinances where there were “if this, then this” - bonus density and the carrot versus the stick approach on the Upper Peninsula district. He loved the idea to trying to figure out a way promote affordable housing but something still seemed off to him on this. The residents were there at every meeting. He was sympathetic to their situation but he hated to keep deferring the ordinance. Mr. Lesesne said they owed it to the residents who kept coming to make a decision tonight and let City Council make a judgement. Motion: Mr. Karesh said while there were a lot of positives in the ordinance there were also a lot of concerns. He moved for disapproval. Second: Mr. Lesesne Mr. Sanyal asked if this was voted down did City Council need a super majority to overturn the Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Morgan said Council had a new number for a super majority. Councilmember Jackson said that ordinance didn’t pass. Chair Geer said he would vote for denial as well. He felt there were other things that needed to be changed in it. He didn’t like the element of surprise that he thought was in it whether it was or wasn’t.  Planning Commission January 16, 2019 Page 11 Ms. Lempesis said it was like something that could happen that they didn’t think of ahead of time. She felt staff had done a great job. In looking at a chart and DR-2F, the reality was there were just SR-2 lots there for the most part and there probably wasn’t a big impact in the big scheme of things. But it was the unknown that could bite them. She said she would also vote for denial. The motion for disapproval passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair By unanimous consent Mr. Geer was elected chair and Mr. Karesh was elected vice chair. Mrs. Davis-McFarland resigned. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Marcia L. Grant Council Secretary