Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2017 MINUTES Present: Howard Chapman, Chair, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, DeAudre Gregg, Alys Campaigne. Absent: Roy Neal, John McNeill, Tripp Cuttino, Joseph Wren. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Kent Prause, Liz Boyles, Michele Canon, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 10:04 am. 1. Correspondence and Public Comments Mr. Rick Gutowski, chair of Historical Commission, stated that the Commission voted to ask Town Council and the Planning Commission to defer any approvals for new projects in historical neighborhoods particularly those in the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District until after the update of the Comprehensive Plan has been completed. 2. New Business A. Discussion and recommendation to Planning Committee and Town Council regarding the composition of 2018 Comprehensive Plan Forum as well as criteria for consideration for appointments. Ms. Boyles introduced herself and stated that a consultant has been hired to work with staff and the Commission in updating the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the consultant recommended establishing a planning forum made up of stakeholders. She suggested that the Commission consider the different interests that should be included in the forum for consideration (Attachment 1). Ms. Campaigne asked if the Commission would be included in all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Boyles answered in the affirmative and stated that the list was a suggestion on which groups could be included in the forum. She stated that the Commission would be receiving all information. Ms. Smith suggested that if BCDCOG is included in the forum, would it necessary to include a representative from Berkeley County and Charleston County. Ms.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 2 of 9 Boyles answered that BCDCOG and CHATS are different entities with different focuses. She stated that it could be beneficial to have a representative from BCDCOG, CHATS, and from Berkeley and Charleston Counties because of having a different focus. Mr. Chapman agreed that there are different areas of focus. He suggested that having representation from Berkeley and Charleston Counties would be beneficial. He suggested that there be one representative from those entities. He suggested that having a representative from the City of Charleston would be beneficial as well. He also suggested that it makes sense to appoint one or two members of the Commission to be included on the forum. Mr. Millet agreed that there should be representative from Berkeley, Charleston, and BCDCOG. He also suggested that a representative from CARTA should be considered as well. He agreed that there should be a Planning Commission representative as well. He stated that he agrees with the list suggested by staff. He asked about advocacy groups. Ms. Boyles suggested that specific advocacy groups should be recommended. Ms. Campaigne suggested that some individuals could represent multiple interests and agencies. She suggested that for transportation and land use interests that a group that can provide more vision such as Charleston Moves be considered. She stated that East Cooper Land Trust is another agency that should be considered. She also suggested that a representative from CAGE or someone representing the interests of established historic areas of Mount Pleasant should be included as well. She suggested that stormwater should be another interest as well and someone with that expertise should be included. Mr. Millet stated that there is a new organization African American Settlement Community Historic Commission that could be beneficial as well. Ms. Gregg suggested that county economic development should be another consideration in looking at areas where low impact industry and economic development can be located. She suggested that Habitat for Humanity is another advocacy group that should be considered. Meals on Wheels and ECCO can be considered as well. She stated that in considering town residents and  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 3 of 9 businesses, there should be a balance of representation from all areas of the Town. Mr. Millet asked how many people were included in the last forum. Ms. Boyles answered that there were approximately 30 individuals. Mr. Millet asked if the regional or local Chamber of Commerce should be included. Mr. Chapman suggested that it should be a regional representation. Ms. Campaigne suggested that a representative from the hospital/medical, tourism, hotels, restaurants, and schools might not be as necessary as this is information that can be readily accessed if needed. Ms. Smith suggested that a representative from the school district would be necessary and beneficial. Mr. Millet agreed that a rep from schools would be important. Ms. Farrell suggested that there could be ex-officio members, particularly for governmental or quasi- governmental agencies, that would not be voting members, but appointed to attend the meetings as a resource. Mr. Chapman suggested that the Convention Visitors Bureau could be a representation for tourism. He suggested that hotel, restaurants, etc. would fall under business and retail. He suggested that developers and contractors should be grouped into one entity. He suggested that engineering and architectural firms should be included as they attend every meeting and can augment staff with vital information across multiple categories. He agreed with Ms. Farrell and staff that some of the quasi-governmental or governmental organizations could be ex-officio members. Ms. Smith agreed with Mr. Chapman and suggested that this should be the case for representatives from the City of Charleston, Charleston County, etc. Ms. Campaigne agreed with Mr. Chapman on the engineering and architectural firms. She also suggested that recreation activities involve increased traffic and trips generated and suggested that someone to represent this aspect should be considered.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Millet suggested that someone from ULI would be beneficial and should be utilized as a resource in going forward with the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Boyles stated that there is information that needs to be provided to the forum and would be outside of the forum representatives. She stated that this is one reason for hiring a consultant as they would be able to “tap in” to those various experts and bring that information to the forum. Ms. Gregg asked how transportation representation would be handled—as ex- officio or as a forum representative. She questioned whether there should be a specific representative should be appointed. Ms. Boyles answered that transportation is an important component of the Comprehensive Plan and is important in all different categories within the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the transportation discussion should include someone with that vision to bring recommendations to the table. Ms. Smith agreed. Mr. Chapman suggested that the Town resident representatives could be divided into different areas of the Town and would be beneficial to ensure that there is a variety of interests throughout the different areas of the Town are represented. He also suggested that some of the residents are also professionals and could provide representation for other areas. The Commission agreed. Ms. Gregg agreed and suggested that those unincorporated areas within the planning area such as Hamlin, Snowden, etc. should be included as well. Ms. Smith agreed and stated that the Comprehensive Plan is the residents’ plan and they should feel that they have a say in how it is developed. Ms. Campaigne asked what the outcome of this meeting should be. Ms. Boyles answered that the desire of staff would be to have a clear understanding of those agencies that should be represented so that the list can be forwarded to Town Council for consideration when appointing the planning forum representatives.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Gregg asked how the representatives would be selected. Ms. Farrell answered the Commission should provide as much clarification to Town Council as possible. She stated that once the framework is determined, it will be provided to the Planning Committee at their next meeting and then Town Council so that they can start looking at specific individuals for appointment. Ms. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council to consider the following when establishing the Comprehensive Plan forum:  All government representatives should serve as ex-officio, non-voting members with no restriction on the number;  limit members of the forum to those residing in the Town of Mount Pleasant planning area;  there should be resident representation from all areas of the Town of Mount Pleasant, including but not limited to the Old Village, Snowden, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District area, Hamlin, etc.  voting members be limited to 20;  appointments should ensure geographic diversity;  appointments should ensure economic diversity with representation from every economic sector. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Mr. Millet suggested that a broader number should be considered. Mr. Millet moved to amend the motion to change the number of voting members to be no less than 20 and no more than 30. Ms. Smith seconded the amendment. Mr. Chapman suggested that a specific number of seats should not be suggested to provide more flexibility. Ms. Campaigne stated that the main motion includes a fix number of seats. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment failed on a 1 to 4 vote with Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. Chapman, and Ms. Smith opposed.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to remove the number of seats, with voting member to be determined by Town Council to ensure adequate representation. Mr. Millet seconded the amendment. Ms. Gregg asked if it should be better clarified. Ms. Boyles suggested that it might be beneficial. Mr. Chapman suggested that Town Council should have the final decision on the number of members of the forum. Ms. Gregg moved to amend the amendment to have the voting members of adequate size. Amendment failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment passed on a 4 to 1 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Mr. Chapman, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Gregg opposed. Ms. Gregg moved to amend the motion to include that the number of seats for the forum be a workable size. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Mr. Millet suggested that “a workable size” is subjective and that the amendment is not needed as with the experience of Town Council, they would be able to make a reasonable determination on the number of seats. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment failed on a 1 to 4 vote with Ms. Gregg in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Mr. Chapman, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet opposed. Ms. Campaigne moved to amend the motion to recommend that the members appointed should include those with a demonstrated commitment to or interest in livability, mobility and resilience. Mr. Millet seconded the amendment. Ms. Smith agreed that this should be included with the recommendation. Ms. Gregg asked for clarification on what is meant by resilience. Ms. Campaigne answered that it is resilience in preparedness for emergency events, economic development, etc. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the amendment. All in favor.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Gregg asked if further clarification is needed regarding grouping some of the agencies together. Mr. Chapman answered that the government agencies are included as ex-officio members. Ms. Boyles suggested that more specific entities to be included as ex-officio members should be considered in a separate motion. Ms. Farrell suggested that clarification on Boards and Commission members should be provided. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the motion as amended. All in favor. Ms. Campaigne suggested that some of the Boards and Commission member seats might not necessarily need to be voting members. She suggested that they might not need to be in attendance at all of the meetings, particularly with the Planning Commission that will be receiving information from the forum. Mr. Millet suggested that more discussion on what Boards and Commissions should be included for consideration. He asked if someone is appointed, would they vote as a representative of that particular Board and Commission or as an individual. Ms. Farrell answered that it would be a vote from that the individual that would have a particular expertise. Ms. Gregg suggested that some Boards and Commissions should be included in the process. Ms. Farrell clarified that staff’s intent on inclusion of the Boards and Commissions was to provide continuity with the process, particularly with having a Planning Commission representative. She stated that the Historical Commission has a role particularly with the cultural element aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Millet suggested that they have covered the recommendations from staff. Ms. Smith suggested that the voting members should be left to Town Council.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 8 of 9 Ms. Campaigne suggested that it is not necessary to specify members from the Boards and Commissions. She suggested that the seats should not be specifically filled with Boards and Commission members, but representatives from residents. Ms. Gregg suggested that the discussion on what entities and groups to be included should be provided to the Committee as recommendations. Ms. Boyles asked for clarification and if there should be some specific recommendations on ex-officio members. Mr. Chapman reviewed the motion with the Commission. He stated that their recommendation is not exclusive and would be sufficient direction to the Planning Committee and Town Council. Ms. Boyles asked for clarification on the ex-officio members. Mr. Millet suggested that those entities and organizations previously mentioned should be included in the list such as CARTA, Chamber of Commerce, Habitat for Humanity, etc. Ms. Boyles suggested that advocacy groups would not be an ex- officio member. Ms. Smith suggested that the motion should stand. Mr. Millet asked if advocacy entities would fall into the voting member group. Ms. Boyles answered in the affirmative. Ms. Campaigne suggested that Ms. Gregg’s recommendation on having someone from economic development should be included. Ms. Campaigne moved to recommend to Town Council that at least one member of the forum be appointed to represent ages 21-35. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Ms. Smith asked if age diversity should be included as opposed to a specific age group. Ms. Campaigne answered that her motion was for a specific age group as this range is typically not represented. Ms. Gregg moved to amend the motion to include representation for ages 18- 35. Amendment failed due to the lack of a second.  Special Planning Commission June 27, 2017 Page 9 of 9 Ms. Smith suggested that this would be too specific and would mean that other age groups should be specified. She stated that she is not supportive of the motion. Mr. Millet noted that age diversity was not part of the original motion and suggested that this should be included as part of the recommendation. Ms. Campaigne suggested that it is often hard to fill this particular sector of representation. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 am. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComsn06272017  Attachment 1: June 27, 2017 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2018 Comprehensive Plan – Plan Forum Membership and Criteria As part of the 2017-2018 comprehensive planning process, the Town’s consultants have recommended the creation of a “Plan Forum” - a group of stakeholders who will participate in the technical development of the Plan, as well as serve as it’s champions through the approval process, and, hopefully, beyond. This group will serve as a sounding board and will meet about 10 times through the development of the Plan (starting in September) to provide input and feedback to the consultants. The anticipated size of the Plan Forum would be between 20-30 members whose selection should be based upon their interest in creating and maintaining a healthy, viable, thriving Mount Pleasant Community. The participants should represent diverse interests linked to the required elements of the Plan (Population, Economic Development, Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Community Facilities, Housing, Land Use, Transportation, and Priority Investment). While Town Council will appoint the individuals to sit on the Forum, the expectation is that the Planning Commission will provide guidance in the form of a “seating plan” for which entities and interests should be represented. Groups that could be considered for membership might include:  Planning Commission  Historical Commission  Other Town Boards or Commissions  Charleston County Parks and Recreation  Charleston County School District  Mount Pleasant Waterworks  SCANA  Charleston County  Berkeley County  US Forest Service/DHEC-OCRM/similar agency  SC Ports Authority  BCDCOG/CHATS  Town Residents  Planning Area Residents  Realtors/Developers/Contractors  Tourism/Hotels/Restaurants  Hospitals/Medical  Business/Retail – large and/or small business owners  Tech/Manufacturing  Fishing Industry  Agricultural Interests  Advocacy Groups  Higher Education 6/19/17 Also, as part of their deliberation, the Planning Commission could consider recommending to Council conditions for the Forum, such as:  20-30 members total,  a preference for Mount Pleasant residents to fill any seats possible,  neighborhood/age/area of town requirements for residents, or  members from other governmental/quasi-governmental agencies might be considered ex- officio members. Upon deciding upon the composition of the Plan Forum, and any recommendations pertaining to its make-up, the Planning Commission will send the outline to Town Council for them to select individuals to fill the various seats. The hope is that Council will be able to fill the seats by August, so that the Plan Forum will be in place for their first meeting in September. 6/19/17