Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2017 MINUTES Present: Howard Chapman, Chair, Alys Campaigne, DeAudre Gregg, John McNeill, Joseph Wren, Kathy Smith, Rodly Millet, Tripp Cuttino. Absent: Roy Neal Staff: Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Shaina Salomon, Eddie Bernard, Jody Peele, Emily Raby, Charlie Hansen, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Chapman called the meeting to at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes Ms. Smith moved for approval of the minutes with the following corrections:  Page 1 and 2—should be Mr. Trey Sedalik  Page 3, last paragraph, first sentence—“Mr. Neal asked if…”  Page 9, first paragraph, last sentence—“Mr. Chapman stated that the tree has significance…” Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Update on Plan Commission recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed the Town Council decisions with the Commission. Ms. Farrell voiced appreciation for Mr. Chapman’s eight years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Bob Brimmer, Council member, commended Mr. Chapman for his years of service on the Planning Commission and dedication to the Town. He stated that as the Chair of the Planning & Development Committee of Council, he relies heavily on the Planning Commission and their recommendation. He thanked Mr. Chapman for all of his hard work and dedication and presented a certificate and appreciation gift to Mr. Chapman. Ms. Campaigne commended Mr. Chapman as well and thanked him for his eight years of service on the Commission. She stated that Mr. Chapman has been a  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 2 of 14 model of civility and fairness and has been dedicated to the true interests of the Town. Mr. Chapman individually thanked the Commission members for their help over the years during his service. He also commended staff for their hard work and stated that staff puts forth tremendous effort and time in order to help make Mount Pleasant a great place. He stated that he has enjoyed serving with dedicated and thought-provoking members of the Commission. Mr. Chapman recused himself due to a conflict of interest with item A and turned the meeting over to Ms. Campaigne. 3. Correspondence and Public Comments There being no comments, Ms. Campaigne continued with the agenda. 4. Requests A. Request to amend the River Island Plantation, Planned Development (PD) District, ordinance providing for the construction, operation and maintenance of a stealth wireless communications facility including a tower not to exceed 140 feet, located at 1750 Palmetto Isle Drive. TMS # 540-00-00-066 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Ms. Smith asked about the design of the tower. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and suggested that the applicant might be able to better address. Mr. Jonathan Yates reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 3). Mr. Robert Hill, representative for T-mobile, explained the need for the cell tower. He showed a depiction of the locations of the current cell towers located near Rivertowne and the coverage for the area (attachment 3). He stated that they had several community meetings regarding this request. Mr. Wren asked if there are existing locations where the tower could be located and if the clubhouse could be utilized. Mr. Hill answered that the height of the  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 3 of 14 building would not allow the coverage needed. Mr. Wren asked if the tower would only service Rivertowne. Mr. Hill answered that based on the height and the amount of foliage, the tower would provide service for approximately ½ mile to 1 mile from the tower. Mr. Millet asked the proximity of residential to the proposed location. Mr. Hill showed the location of the residential and proximity on the map for the Commission. Mr. Millet asked about the coverage. Mr. Keith Powell, representative for Verizon, showed the proposed coverage to the Commission. Mr. Yates stated that the tower would serve several different wireless communication companies. He stated that the tower would be a stealth pole with an equipment building. Mr. Michael Robinson, Charleston Appraisal, stated that he conducted an analysis on the effects of the construction of a cell tower in Mount Pleasant to property values and provided this information for the Commission to review (attachment 4). He stated that based on his analysis there was no impact to property values. Mr. Powell reviewed how the tower would be seen from different areas near the proposed location for the Commission. Mr. Yates stated that they conducted a community survey and Mr. Will Freeland reviewed the findings with the Commission. Mr. Freeland stated that approximately 79% of those that responded to the survey were in favor of the proposed tower. Mr. Hank Cardarelli, 1864 Great Hope Drive, expressed concern that the cell tower would negatively affect property values. He stated that the HOA has covenants and restrictions regarding cell towers. Mr. Robert Newman, 1836 Delacourt Ave, stated that they currently have low coverage and is in favor of the tower. Mr. Kent Provada, Palmetto Isle, suggested that the survey should not be considered as it did not include an opportunity to consider other locations or  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 4 of 14 alternatives. He suggested that the cell tower could be placed on other property along Highway 41 that would provide coverage. Mr. Michael Baumrind, 1537 Red Drum Road, stated that he supports the proposal. He stated that he works from home and finds that cell service is low in the area. He stated that he supports the request to provide better coverage. He suggested that the younger generation highly considers cell coverage when considering purchasing a home. He suggested that the additional tower would better distribute the volume, which would provide better service for the entire area. Ms. Nina Thomas, 1824 Palmetto Isle Drive, expressed concern for the potential radiation that the cell tower could emit and that it would cause health issues for children and residents in the surrounding area. She suggested that the tower is too close in proximity to residential neighborhoods and amenities. She suggested that the proposal is unacceptable and should not be approved. Mr. Jeff Poplar, president of HOA of Pointe in North Creek and on the board of Parker’s Island HOA. He stated that wireless capability within neighborhoods is a necessity for home sales. He suggested that a majority of homes do not have landline phones and rely solely on cell service. Ms. Kelly Wood, 1872 Great Hope Drive, stated that she is opposed to the request and agrees with the concerns of Ms. Thomas. She suggested that the proximity of the cell tower could increase the chances of cancer. Mr. Joe Daily, member of Parkers Landing and Parkers Island boards, stated that the boards are in favor of the request. He stated that many homes no longer have land lines and rely on cell phones as their main telephone access. He suggested that not having good wireless service and coverage is also a safety issue as residents would possibly not be able to reach emergency personnel during emergency events. He asked that the request be approved. Ms. Pam Fischette, 2528 Ballast Point, agrees that the proximity of the cell tower would increase the amount of radiation in the area. She suggested that other locations should be considered that would not be so close to residents.  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 5 of 14 Ms. Linda Woodfern, 1837 Palmetto Isle Drive, agreed that there is a safety issue with the location of the towers and agrees with Ms. Thomas’ comments. She agreed that a different location should be considered. She suggested that a booster can be provided from the different wireless carriers and suggested that this could be an alternative to constructing a new tower. She stated that she is opposed to the proposed location of the tower. Ms. Sharon Salomon, 1844 Great Hope, stated that she is opposed to the location of the tower. She stated that there are a number of health concerns related to cell towers and radiation. She suggested that a different location should be considered. Mr. Paul Cessna, 2791 Olympia Fields Lane, stated that as a chemical engineer, he is not aware of the type of radiation that a cell tower gives off causing health concerns. He stated that the radiation emitted is less energy than visible light. He stated that he is in favor of the request and suggested that the additional tower is needed to provide needed wireless service for the surrounding area. He suggested that the it is proposed in an appropriate location. He asked that the request be approved. Ms. Susan Matthews, member of Parkers Landing POA, expressed concern with health issues and child safety, but does not see that this would be a health issue or that the request would affect property values. She asked that the request be approved. Mr. Daniel Gingrich, 1621 Oak Crest Drive, expressed concern that the boosters previously mentioned have a short range. He stated that he has trouble with service in his home. He suggested that if aesthetics is a concern, there are different designs such as towers that look like trees that can be considered. He asked that the request be approved. Mr. Hill stated that the penetration rate of radio frequency is minimal and there has been no evidence that it causes health issues. He stated that they did look at different locations, but the proposed location was considered the best option to provide the best service for the area. He stated that the different designs were also considered, but the stealth tower is considered the best option and would provide service to a greater area.  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Ms. Campaigne closed the public hearing. Mr. Cuttino asked the required distance the tower must be from residential uses. Ms. Canon answered that the distance from residential must be equal to the height of the tower. Mr. Millet asked what consideration the Board has. Ms. Canon answered that the request is a PD amendment so the Commission has the option to either approve the request, approve with conditions, or deny the request. She stated that if approved, it would be a permitted use allowed within the PD. Mr. Wren moved for approval of the request. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Mr. Wren agreed that the wireless service is very poor in the area. He stated that as a father with small children, he is concerned with health and safety, but has not seen any correlation of cell towers causing health issues. Ms. Smith agreed that there has not been evidence that the cell towers cause health issues. She stated that wireless service is now a vital part of life. Mr. McNeill suggested that there are not sufficient reasons to deny the request. Ms. Campaigne stated that she is concerned with health and safety issues as well, but suggested that there is not sufficient evidence that cell towers cause health issues. Mr. Cuttino suggested that the need for cell service in the area outweighs any minor radiation concerns. Ms. Campaigne called for a vote on the motion. All in favor with Mr. Chapman abstaining. The Board convened at 6:24 pm for a short break and reconvened at 6:26 pm.  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 7 of 14 B. Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 SF residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district, located at 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road. TMS No. 560-06-00-025; 560-06-00-001 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Chapman asked about the preservation of trees. Mr. Bernard answered that approximately 1/3 of the trees previously noted on the plan were not a protected species. He stated that of the remaining trees, they did make efforts to preserve the better quality trees. Mr. McNeill asked about the historic tree on lot 5 indicated in good condition. Mr. Bernard answered that it is a 18.5-inch Laurel Oak, so it would not be considered historic. Mr. Matt Cline, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission and commended Mr. Chapman for his service on the Commission these past eight years. He stated that the 18.5-inch Laurel Oak on lot 5 could possibly be preserved with slightly changing the grade of the lot. Mr. Chapman thanked the applicant for the positive changes to the plan and preservation of the trees. Mr. Cline thanked staff for working with the applicant. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the request including all staff comments and preservation of the 18.5-inch Laurel Oak on lot 5. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. C. Request approval of street names for streets located in Central Mount Pleasant. Street names include: Martel Street, Florentia Street, Barksdale Drive, Hancock Street, Rivella Drive, Beacon Bay Drive, Cecile Street, Fortier Drive, Madero Drive, Hidalgo Drive and Upper Park Road, located in Central Mount Pleasant Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 8 of 14 D. Request approval of street names for streets located in Ferry Wharf. Street names include: North Ferry Wharf Road, South Ferry Wharf Road and Rice Quarters Lane, located from Harry M. Hallman Jr. Blvd. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Request approval of extension of vesting period for Preliminary Plat that was approved on August 19, 2015, for 30 detached single-family residential lots zoned PD-MU-SU, Planned Development-Mixed Use Suburban-Urban District, located at Snee Farm Parkway. Mr. Chapman recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Cuttino asked how many times the approval can be extended. Mr. Pagliarini answered that under the vested rights act they are allowed up to five extensions. Ms. Smith asked if this was the first extension request. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill asked if the extension is allowed, why must the Board approve the request. Mr. Pagliarini answered that it is stipulated by law that the request is approved by the Commission. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the extension request. Ms. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. Chapman abstaining. F. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.224(C)(3)(c) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to tree removal and mitigation for trees impacted by excessive pruning associated with maintenance of aerial power lines. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2).  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Wren asked if there are any requirements regarding pruning by the utility companies. Mr. Prause answered that the Town has franchise agreements with some of the utility companies. Mr. Wren asked if there is a certain distance that must be maintained. Mr. Prause answered that it depends on the width of the easement and proximity of the trees to the utility lines. Ms. Campaigne asked how irreparable damage is determined. Mr. Prause answered that it is defined and the ordinances reference ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standards. Mr. Millet asked if there is an arborist involved with the utility company pruning. Mr. Prause answered that there are times that the utility companies will consult with an arborist. Mr. Millet asked who is responsible for the trees. Mr. Prause answered that the text amendment pertains to those trees on private property. There being no comments, Mr. Chapman closed the public hearing. Ms. Campaigne moved for approval of the text amendment. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Mr. Millet commended staff for considering the interests of the homeowners. Mr. Chapman called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 5. Staff Review of Process Pertaining to Tree Removal, Clearing and Field Inspections Mr. Chapman stated that he met with staff concerning this issue to address some concerns regarding tree removal. Ms. Farrell reviewed staff’s process regarding tree removal, clearing, and field inspections through a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 2). Ms. Salomon reviewed the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) review and approval process with the Commission. Mr. Charlie Hansen reviewed the stormwater review and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) approval process with the Commission (attachment 2).  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 10 of 14 Ms. Campaigne asked what is a drainage as-built. Ms. Raby answered that as-builts plans show what has actually been constructed and if it has been correctly installed. Mr. Cuttino asked how long it takes to receive approval for clearing and grading. Mr. Hansen answered that it depends on when the MS4 letter is released and approval is received from the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). Mr. Cuttino asked what work can be done prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Hansen answered that only work allowed prior to the clearing and grading permit is to put the erosion control measures in place. Mr. Chapman asked how many inspectors are currently employed. Mr. Hansen answered that for the 265 construction sites, we have there are four inspectors— two for NPDES and two for pipe infrastructure. Mr. Chapman suggested that more inspectors are needed. Mr. Millet asked how removal of preserved trees is handled. Ms. Farrell answered that when this occurs, it becomes an enforcement issue. She stated that enforcement is handled in different ways with the most extreme being 200% mitigation required. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the final plat approval and building permit process with the Commission (attachment 2). Ms. Farrell stated that this review was provided to show the coordination between staff and the different departments for projects and new construction. She stated the Commission has purview over tree removal as previously discussed. Ms. Gregg asked how the public can be better educated on the ordinance requirements. Ms. Farrell answered that the ordinance is available on the website for review and that there have been several meetings such as the one tonight to review the ordinances. She stated that staff is also available to answer any questions. Mr. Chapman asked Ms. Farrell to review a recent tree removal issue in Indigo Square. Ms. Farrell reviewed this with the Commission and stated that it was an instance where enforcement was required for trees that were removed at the rear of the site near Wando East/ Wando Lakes. She stated that besides that matter,  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 11 of 14 many of the trees removed from the site were not protected per the ordinance. She stated that the mitigation would be planted after infrastructure and building construction. Mr. Wren asked about paying into the Tree Bank to meet their mitigation requirements. Ms. Farrell answered that this can be approved in instances where there is no room on the lot for the mitigation trees to be planted. She stated that this is not a usual occurrence. Ms. Smith asked what purview the Commission has with approval of projects. Ms. Farrell answered that the Commission has purview over tree removal and open space. She stated that the Commission should take these requirements into consideration with approvals of requests. She stated that the Commission would not be able to extend requirements beyond that allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Pagliarini agreed and stated that often the question is if conditions can be included that would be in excess of or above the requirements outlined in the ordinance or required by state law and stated conditions should not be above that allowed by ordinance. Mr. Millet asked if revisions of the tree ordinance are being considered. Ms. Farrell answered that revisions to the ordinance can be done when it is determined that they are necessary and there has been discussion with the Planning Committee. Mr. Millet asked if mitigation can be required by lot. Ms. Farrell answered that as the individual lot is developed, there could be additional removals and mitigation required. She stated that the Commission typically sees plans for entire neighborhoods where the tree removal and mitigation would be required for the entire neighborhood as opposed to an individual lot. Mr. McNeill asked what mitigation is required for commercial. Ms. Farrell answered that commercial is required to retain or plant 160 inches per acre with a minimum size of four caliper inches. Mr. McNeill asked about residential property. Ms. Farrell answered that if protected trees are removed, then mitigation would be required. She stated that often the “clear-cutting” that is seen involves trees that are not protected such as pine trees. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the Commission consider the relationship between the front yard setback in relation to the critical line and critical line buffers. She  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 12 of 14 suggested that there are instances where the front yard setbacks are causing the homes to be closer to the critical line, but if the front setbacks were reduced, then construction could impede less into that critical area. Mr. Brimmer, 2080 Parsonage Lane, thanked staff for their presentation and suggested that it shows that staff is enforcing the ordinance requirements. He stated that he sees where some revisions of the ordinances might be necessary to better preserve trees within the Town. He asked the reason for different preservation requirements between commercial and residential development. Ms. Farrell answered that residential development not only includes development of an entire neighborhood, but the individual lots as well. She stated that if the same requirements were applied for an individual homeowner, it could become burdensome, so Town Council decided to take this into consideration when enacting the ordinances. Mr. Wren suggested that the buffer requirements should be reviewed, particularly when there is infill townhome development. Ms. Farrell answered that there is a buffer required between townhome developments and existing single family residential. Ms. Gregg asked how mitigation is determined. Ms. Farrell answered that a mitigation plan is submitted indicating the size, species, and location of the plantings. She stated that any buffer requirements are included as well. She stated that the mitigation plan is reviewed and approved by staff. Ms. Gregg suggested that the mitigation species should be reviewed to ensure that there are quality species being replanted. Mr. Chapman thanked staff for their work on this issue and for the information that was provided. 6. Comprehensive Plan Planning Forum – Discussion to Determine Applicant Review and Selection Process Ms. Boyles reviewed the progress of the establishment of the Comprehensive Plan forum with the Commission. She stated that the request for participants in the forum has been advertised and sent out on various social media outlets. She stated that to date there have been almost 100 applications received. She stated that  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 13 of 14 Town Council agreed that the Commission should have purview over the selection process and asked how the Commission would like to proceed. Ms. Smith suggested that geographical location should be a top consideration when determining forum members. She suggested that those areas that are not completely built-out might need to have more representation. Mr. Chapman asked if a selection committee should be considered. Mr. McNeill asked about public meeting requirements. Mr. Chapman answered that if there is a quorum of the Commission present and discussing Commission business, then it would be considered a public meeting and would have to be advertised for the public. Ms. Campaigne suggested that a selection committee could make a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Pagliarini stated that any committee would still be subject to public notice requirements. Mr. McNeill asked about the timeline. Ms. Boyles answered that the deadline for receiving applications is August 4th. She stated that staff would organize the submittals and provide this information to either the Commission as a whole or a committee, if desired. Mr. Millet asked how this was previously handled. Ms. Farrell answered that this is the first time the Commission has been given the lead on selecting participants for the forum. Mr. Brimmer agreed and stated that the thought was that there should be an application process with the selection done by the Commission in order to be a less politically driven process. Ms. Campaigne suggested that neighborhood, age, and expertise were the main areas of interest. Mr. Chapman asked if a special meeting of the entire Commission should be scheduled. The Commission agreed. Mr. Chapman suggested that while it has been suggested that the names of the applicants be omitted, he suggested that this information might be beneficial, particularly when considering expertise. Ms.  Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Page 14 of 14 Farrell answered that staff could have this information available if needed, but not initially provided to the Commission. The Commission agreed that a special meeting should be scheduled around the third week in August. Mr. Millet suggested that plotting the participants on a map would be beneficial so that they can see potential geographic representation. Ms. Campaigne asked if there would be additional advertisement if no applications are received for a certain geographical area or age group. Ms. Farrell answered that no additional advertisement is currently scheduled after the deadline date. Ms. Boyles stated that they have several dates scheduled to send out to neighborhoods, media, etc. Ms. Gregg suggested that advertisement to the different churches would be beneficial. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:09 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn07192017  Attachment 1: July 19, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes STAFF REPORT – River Island Plantation Planned Development Amendment For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval to amend the River Island Plantation PD, Planned Request: Development District, Ordinance to allow a wireless communications tower. Location: 1750 Palmetto Isle Drive Type of Request: PD Amendment Public Hearing: Required; Held by the Planning Commission. Applicant: Jonathan L. Yates for Rivertowne Golf Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22494 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 540-00-00-066 Property Owner: Rivertowne Country Club LLC Approximate Acreage: 29.46 Acres Plat Book & Page: Book EG Page 797 Comprehensive Plan Future Recreation Open Space Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: PD – River Island Plantation Planned Development District ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Hold required public hearing. Recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, or Planning Commission 7.19.17 denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council. Recommendation for approval, approval with Planning & Development 7.31.17 modifications, or denial of the proposal. This Committee of Council recommendation is forwarded to Town Council. Approval, approval with modifications, or denial Town Council 8.8.17 of first reading of text amendment ordinance. Approval, approval with modifications, or denial Town Council 9.12.17 of final reading of text amendment ordinance (if first reading is approved). Staff Report – River Island Plantation PDD Amendment – Cell Tower Page 1 of 5 ZONING MAP Staff Report – River Island Plantation PDD Amendment – Cell Tower Page 2 of 5 PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any Annexation and PD District 4.11.95 Zoning Zone CO, Conservation-Open Space District, an approx. 5.13.03 1.147 acre marsh island (portion of TMS No. 583-13-00- 038 aka 2321 Brick Kiln Point). Amend PD to increase max building height to 40 feet for 12.9.03 select portions of two neighborhoods. Rezone all Golf Course property from previous zoning to CR-O, Conservation 6.14.06 Recreation Open Space zoning within the PD District zoning ordinance RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 (2014 Update) Future Land Use Map recommends Recreation Open Space land uses for the subject property (see map below). The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request:  Protect environmentally sensitive lands and increase access to open space and rural landscapes.  Protect priority open spaces land acquisition and the use of conservation easements.  Maintain and expand the quality and location of public spaces throughout Mount Pleasant, including the introduction of pocket parks in infill areas to serve as accessible public gathering spaces within nodes of activity.  Ensure the Town has technology in place to operate efficiently and meet the technology infrastructure needs of the community to support businesses, education and citizens Staff Report – River Island Plantation PDD Amendment – Cell Tower Page 3 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is an amendment to the River Island Plantation PDD, Planned Development District, to allow telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on an approximately 29.46 acre parcel of land which is currently comprised of one hole of the golf course and the golf course maintenance facility building. The remainder of the property is wooded, undeveloped land. 2. The Applicant is proposing a 130-foot stealth monopole tower, including a building and all ancillary equipment. 3. While the 29.46 acre parcel in question is designated for Recreation Open Space within the PD, the proposed amendment is specific to this parcel only and is not requested for other parcels with the same designation. 4. There was a second amendment to Article 3 Section 3.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Parkers Island, dated April 12, 2017, to allow the use of telecommunication facilities in addition to the golf club and its associated recreational and social activities. 5. The assumption based on the submittal is that with the PD amendment, this use would be a Permitted Use and as such, subject to no further conditions or restraints. If allowed as a Conditional Use (as is in LI, Light Industrial District) or as a Special Exception (as is in AB, Areawide Business District and AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District), the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 156.117 and 156.118, respectively, would be applicable. Staff Report – River Island Plantation PDD Amendment – Cell Tower Page 4 of 5 6. As a matter of information, per the requirements of a cell tower as a Conditional Use, the minimum setback from the center of the tower to an adjacent residentially zoned property is equal to the height of the tower, measured to the closest property line. It appears the nearest residence is a distance of no less than 400 feet from the center of the proposed tower 7. The amending ordinance will provide that, to the extent not modified by the Planned Development District ordinance, all other town requirements will apply to the development and use of the property. Staff Report – River Island Plantation PDD Amendment – Cell Tower Page 5 of 5  SHELL LANDING STAFF REPORT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) JULY 19, 2017 MEETING For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 Request: SF residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district. Location: 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road Type of Request: Preliminary Plat Public Hearing: Not required. Applicant: Matthew Cline; Cline Engineering, Inc. Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22495 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 560-06-00-001 Property Owner: 1492 Rifle Range LLC Approximate Acreage: 4.00 acres (3.97 acres according to Charleston County records) Plat Book & Page: DA 154 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R2 – Low Density Residential District TMS No. 560-06-00-025 Property Owner: 1492 Rifle Range LLC Approximate Acreage: 2.55 acres (2.51 acres according to County records) Plat Book & Page: AD 090 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R2 – Low Density Residential District Total Acreage: 6.55 acres (6048 acres according to County records) ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of Planning Commission 7.19.17 request. Planning & Development n/a n/a Committee of Council Town Council n/a n/a Staff Report – Shell Landing Page 1 of 3  PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any 10/13/2015 Annexation of both parcels 11/2015 Sketch plan denied 3/2016 Sketch plan denied 08/24/2016 Sketch plan approved With staff comments SCDOT encroachment permit 08/24/2016 approved HISTORY Preliminary Plat was denied at the May 24, 2017 meeting Staff Report – Shell Landing Page 2 of 3  STAFF COMMENTS 1. The Preliminary Plat has been updated to address comments from Planning Commission and staff. 2. Property is zoned R-2 and meets all applicable development standards. 3. Sketch Plan comments have been addressed. 4. The tree survey is now up to date and included in the submittal. 5. The buffer along Rifle Range Road is self-imposed and labeled as an HOA area. 6. The grading plan has been adjusted to protect trees scheduled to remain. Staff Report – Shell Landing Page 3 of 3  Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing - 19 July 2017 Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.224 of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to tree removal and mitigation for trees impacted by excessive pruning associated with maintenance of aerial power lines. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed text amendment was presented to the Planning & Development Committee of Council at their June 29th meeting where they gave a favorable recommendation for Planning Commission to proceed with a public hearing. 2. The text amendment was proposed for consideration following the recent tree trimming cycle for aerial powerlines in certain areas of town. Residents desired to remove trees that were significantly impacted by the tree trimming and pruning but expressed concerns with the required mitigation. As the ordinance is currently adopted, mitigation in accordance with the ordinance is required meaning that in many instances replanting of multiple 4 inch caliper trees may be required as mitigation depending on the size, species, and condition of the tree in question. The proposed amendment would not require any mitigation for trees determined to have been impacted by aerial powerline maintenance tree pruning, as further described within the draft text. new text deleted text text to remain § 156.224 EXCEPTIONS. (c) Aerial power line mitigation resulting from routine maintenance for trees not located in a required bufferyard. Where aerial power line maintenance operations cause violation of this subchapter the Tree Protection Ordinance by means such as of excessive pruning of trees not located in a required bufferyard, based upon pruning standards referenced in § 156.228, the trees may be considered irreparably damaged and require removal may be allowed; provided, however, that no mitigation will be required by homeowners, business owners or tenants for trees located on private property removed pursuant to this provision. and replacement. Damage to buffer vegetation as a part of any maintenance activity shall require replacement in kind  ATTACHMENT 2: JULY 19, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 19 July 2017  5.a. RIVERTOWNE – CELL TOWER Request to amend the River Island Plantation, Planned Development District, Request: ordinance providing for the construction, operation and maintenance of a stealth wireless communications facility including a tower not to exceed 140 feet. Location: 1750 Palmetto Isle Drive Parcel ID (TMS No.): 540-00-00-066 Type of Request: PD Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission; Total Acreage: Approximately 29.46 acres Plat Recording Info: Book EG, Page 797 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22494 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22601 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial Action to be Taken: of the request. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP Tower Locations  5.b. SHELL LANDING Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Shell Landing Subdivision, 16 SF Request: residential Lots zoned R-2, Single-family residential district. Location: 1480 & 1492 Rifle Range Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 560-06-00-025; 560-06-00-001 Type of Request: Preliminary Plat Public Hearing: Not Required Total Acreage: Approximately 6.50 acres Plat Recording Info: Book DA, Page 154 and Book AD, Page 090 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22495 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22602 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or denies the request.  5.C. CMP STREET NAMES Request approval of street names for streets located in Central Mount Pleasant. Street names include: Martel Street, Florentia Street, Barksdale Drive, Hancock Request: Street, Rivella Drive, Beacon Bay Drive, Cecile Street, Fortier Drive, Madero Drive, Hidalgo Drive and Upper Park Road. Location: Central Mount Pleasant Type of Request: Street name approval Public Hearing: Not required Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22599 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves or denies the request.  5.D. FERRY WHARF STREET NAMES Request approval of street names for streets located in Ferry Wharf. Street Request: names include: North Ferry Wharf Road, South Ferry Wharf Road and Rice Quarters Lane. Location: Harry M. Hallman Jr. Blvd. Type of Request: Street name approval Public Hearing: Not required Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22600 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves or denies the request.  5.E. SNEE FARM VILLAGE Request approval of extension of vesting period for Preliminary Plat that was Request: approved on August 19, 2015, for 30 detached single-family residential lots zoned PD-MU-SU, Planned Development-Mixed Use Suburban-Urban District. Location: Snee Farm Parkway Type of Request: Extension of vesting period Public Hearing: Not required Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22603 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves or denies the request. APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT  5.F. TEXT AMENDMENT Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.224(C)(3)(c) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to tree removal and mitigation Request: for trees impacted by excessive pruning associated with maintenance of aerial power lines. Type of Request: Zoning Code Text Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22605 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or Action to be Taken: denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. 6. STAFF REVIEW OF PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING AND FIELD INSPECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS  ORDINANCE 156.225 (B) On Sketch Plans for residential subdivisions requiring approval by the Planning Commission, trees 16 inches and greater are protected. In general, lots and infrastructure should not be sited so as to require the removal of protected trees 16 inches or greater, whenever possible. However, the Planning Commission may authorize the removal of these protected trees for that purpose at the time of Sketch Plan approval when their retention becomes inordinately burdensome in developing the property in a reasonable fashion. The approval for removal shall be judiciously exercised in consideration of the stated intent of this subchapter and with due consideration of the size and Quality and Health Rating of individual trees as provided herein.  PROTECTED TREES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other* None < 16 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches 16 inches to 8 inches to Staff Staff - - Staff ≥ 8 inches 24 inches 24 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches - - PC ≥ 16 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches - - - - *Other land uses consist of school, churches, etc.  TREE REPLACEMENT Percent Replacement Class Points Species Residential Commercial Live Oak, Bald Cypress, American Beech, Ginkgo, American Holly, Southern Magnolia, Sweetbay Magnolia, Tupelo, Chinese Pistache, I 80-100 50 50 25 100 75 50 White Oak, Willow Oak, Overcup Oak, Chestnut Oak, Eastern Red Cedar Persimmon, Ash species, Hickory species, Tulip Poplar, Sycamore, II 60-79 Swamp White Oak, Scarlet Oak, Southern Red Oak, Shumard Oak, 50 50 25 75 50 25 Post Oak, Laurel Oak Sugarberry, Hackberry, Willow species, Water Oak, Black Cherry, III < 60 50 25 0 50 25 0 American Elm, Red Maple Pine species, Sweet Gum, Callary Pear varieties, River Birch, IV - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mimosa, Chinaberry, Chinese Tallow, Camphor tree, White Poplar Health Rating Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor  CLASS IV TREES  Class IV trees are not protected trees and may be removed without replacement within new residential or commercial developments or from existing residential or commercial lots - Exception: Pines and Sweet gum are protected within the Natural Roadside, Mathis Ferry, and Critical Line Buffers. Invasive species are not protected in these buffers.  Class IV trees are not protected because of one of the following: - They are invasive species. - The tree is short lived, the structure of the tree is multi-stem resulting in significant mitigation. - The trees were added to the list of non- protected species through an ordinance amendment.  Invasive Species - Callery Pear varieties - Mimosa - Chinaberry - Chinese Tallow (very prevalent in town) - Camphor tree (rare in town) - White poplar (rare in town) - Mulberry (not listed but also invasive)  Native Species - River Birch (on list because they are short lived and usually multi-stem with significant mitigation as a result). Generally not native to Mount Pleasant as closest are around some inland rivers in Francis Marion. - Pine and Sweet Gum (added to list in early 2000’s) CAROLINA PARK TREE ASSESSMENT  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE  Deadline is 28 days prior to Planning Commission meeting  New Development Coordination Meeting - Planning & Development - Public Services - Transportation - Fire STAFF COORDINATES WITH FOUR DEPARTMENTS ONCE A PROJECT IS RECEIVED.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW  Impact Assessment Staff Report comments addressed  Conceptual Plan Staff Report comments addressed  Sketch Plan Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Survey & Tree Assessment  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF ENSURES THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE TOWN ORDINANCE.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW  Preliminary Sketch Plan Staff Review comments addressed  Sketch Plan Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Survey & Tree Assessment  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF ENSURES THE BOARD WILL REVIEW A QUALITY SUBMITTAL.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING  Planning Commission meetings are the next to last Wednesday of each month  Planning Commission approves/denies project request - Sketch Plan - Tree Removals STAFF PROVIDES ALL PROJECT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD AND TO THE PUBLIC. CAROLINA PARK TREE ASSESSMENT  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE  Deadline is 28 days prior to internal staff review  Preliminary Plat electronic submittal  Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) hard copy submittal - Drainage Report & Construction Plans  New Development Coordination Meeting - Planning & Development - Public Services - Transportation - Fire STAFF REVIEWS TO ENSURE PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH PC APPROVED PLANS.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW  Sketch Plan Staff Report comments addressed  Preliminary Plat Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Mitigation & Planting Plan  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF COORDINATES WITH DEPARTMENTS TO ADDRESS PC & TECHNICAL COMMENTS.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL  Planning & Development notifies the Public Services of the MS4 Project Approval  Approved Drainage Report & Construction Plans are transferred to Public Services - Drainage Report & Construction Plans are saved on a shared Town Server STAFF TRANSFERS THE APPROVED PROJECT TO PUBLIC SERVICES.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED  Public Services (Stormwater) releases the MS4 Approval Letter to Department of Health & Environmental Control (DHEC)  Project is entered into Cityworks for tracking  Within days, DHEC issues the State Land Disturbance Permit to Public Services  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED 9. NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT START FROM DEVELOPER  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Coordinator & the assigned NPDES Inspector are notified by Developer that they are ready to construct the project.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED 9. NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT START FROM DEVELOPER 10. PROJECT CONFIRMATION WITH TOWN DEPARTMENTS  NPDES Inspector sends out an email to all involved parties in this process, asking them to review & confirm that ALL approvals are received, or if there are outstanding reviews & approvals to be aware of. If there is a problem, Public Services works closely with Planning & will not proceed until there are no problems with approvals.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS  Project team meeting allows NPDES Inspectors a chance to review the contractor’s knowledge of the plans  Verify that the contractor is using the Town-approved set of plans, if not, work with Planning to revise approvals STAFF REVIEWS WATER QUALITY & NPDES STORMWATER REGULATIONS WITH CONTRACTOR.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED  Developer submits Clearing & Grading Permit Application to Stormwater. Stormwater allows silt fence & other erosion control measures, as well as the tree protection to be installed.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED  NPDES Inspectors check that measures are correctly installed per the Town Approved plans. If not, Public Services works with Planning to appropriately revise plans & approvals. Measures inspected include: - Proper Tree Protection per the approved plans. - Proper Silt Fence installed per the approved plans. - Construction entrance installed per the approved plans.  If ALL measures are per the approved plans, issue the Clearing & Grading Permit for the Contractor to clear the site per the approved plans.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE  Notify involved Town departments that the project has completed all necessary steps & has received their approved clearing & grading permit. - Sent to Planning, Building Inspections, Transportation, etc.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION  NPDES Inspectors complete monthly inspections of the erosion & sedimentation control measures specified in the plans, as required by the project’s NPDES permit & the Town’s MS4 Permit (Stormwater Program).  If inspectors note differences with approved plans, Planning is notified & appropriate revisions are made to plans & approvals. STAFF CONDUCTS REQUIRED COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN’S MS4 PERMIT. THE DEVELOPER CONDUCTS WEEKLY STORMWATER INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THEIR SCDHEC NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS  Collect drainage As-Builts for all sites to verify correct installation of Best Management Practices for drainage & water quality requirements.  Collect Maintenance Agreements for all sites to ensure proper function of water quality required items for the future.  Inspect for final stabilization of the site in order to terminate State Land Disturbance Permit via Notice of Termination.  Verify Stormwater/civil site requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy for Commercial sites only.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL  Field inspection reports from Public Services, Transportation & confirmation on tree mitigation.  Other agencies include Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) and warranty certifications from owner and engineer.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW  Staff level review of submittal showing requested tree removals  Staff review of trees on site in most cases  Make suggestions to applicant for any site revisions to retain or better protect trees  Permit by way of letter any required removals for site plan approval  Mitigation plan is submitted and approved prior to building permit release.  Property owner may be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) in certain instances.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW 19. BUILDING INSPECTIONS  Tree protection barricades are to be periodically checked through construction  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW 19. BUILDING INSPECTIONS 20. MITIGATION PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY  Mitigation inspection is requested by builder/owner.  Mitigation plantings and remainder of site plan are inspected against approved plan and retained trees are confirmed to be on site; mitigation sign off is part of final inspections for Certificate of Occupation issuance. COMMERCIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS  ORDINANCE 156.225 (E) For properties subject to Commercial Design Review Overlay District guidelines, the removal of protected, significant and historic trees shall be at the discretion of the designated reviewing authority, exercised through the site plan approval process. (F) For other land uses, as depicted in the Submittal Requirements Table, not subject to the Design Review Process, removal of protected, significant and historic trees shall be allowed with approval of the Zoning Administrator, or his or her designee, provided that replacement trees shall be selected from the canopy tree list provided in § 156.201(G)(1).  PROTECTED TREES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other* None < 16 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches 16 inches to 8 inches to Staff Staff - - Staff ≥ 8 inches 24 inches 24 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches - - PC ≥ 16 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches - - - - *Other land uses consist of school, churches, etc.  TREE REPLACEMENT Percent Replacement Class Points Species Residential Commercial Live Oak, Bald Cypress, American Beech, Ginkgo, American Holly, Southern Magnolia, Sweetbay Magnolia, Tupelo, Chinese Pistache, I 80-100 50 50 25 100 75 50 White Oak, Willow Oak, Overcup Oak, Chestnut Oak, Eastern Red Cedar Persimmon, Ash species, Hickory species, Tulip Poplar, Sycamore, II 60-79 Swamp White Oak, Scarlet Oak, Southern Red Oak, Shumard Oak, 50 50 25 75 50 25 Post Oak, Laurel Oak Sugarberry, Hackberry, Willow species, Water Oak, Black Cherry, III < 60 50 25 0 50 25 0 American Elm, Red Maple Pine species, Sweet Gum, Callary Pear varieties, River Birch, IV - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mimosa, Chinaberry, Chinese Tallow, Camphor tree, White Poplar Health Rating Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor  CLASS IV TREES  Class IV trees are not protected trees and may be removed without replacement within new residential or commercial developments or from existing residential or commercial lots - Exception: Pines and Sweet gum are protected within the Natural Roadside, Mathis Ferry, and Critical Line Buffers. Invasive species are not protected in these buffers.  Class IV trees are not protected because of one of the following: - They are invasive species. - The tree is short lived, the structure of the tree is multi-stem resulting in significant mitigation. - The trees were added to the list of non- protected species through an ordinance amendment.  Invasive Species - Callery Pear varieties - Mimosa - Chinaberry - Chinese Tallow (very prevalent in town) - Camphor tree (rare in town) - White poplar (rare in town) - Mulberry (not listed but also invasive)  Native Species - River Birch (on list because they are short lived and usually multi-stem with significant mitigation as a result). Generally not native to Mount Pleasant as closest are around some inland rivers in Francis Marion. - Pine and Sweet Gum (added to list in early 2000’s)  COMMERCIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE* 2. PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN STAFF REVIEW* 3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW* 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/TOWN COUNCIL* 5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PRELIMINARY REVIEW 7. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FINAL REVIEW 8. MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 9. MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 10. MS4 PROJECT LETTER RELEASE 11. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT *Step to be implemented if required PARK WEST OFFICE EXISTING CONDITIONS PARK WEST OFFICE TREE REMOVALS PARK WEST OFFICE REMAINING TREES PARK WEST OFFICE LANDSCAPE & MITIGATION PLAN INDIGO SQUARE OVERALL TREE REMOVAL INDIGO SQUARE TREE REMOVAL PLAN QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING FORUM – DISCUSSION TO DETERMINE APPLICANT REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS APPLICANT REVIEW PROCESS Makeup of Selection Committee – Subcommittee of Planning Commission, or Planning Commission as a whole? How will we make Selections? - Staff will create a spreadsheet of applicants’ information (age, gender, race, comments) without names for use by Committee.  Committee can randomly select applicants from the list as a whole.  Committee can randomly select applicants from a list grouped by neighborhood. (Perhaps 2 per neighborhood, with an additional 10-12 to ensure demographic diversity.)  Committee can select from the list, based upon applicant’s demographic information and/or comments. (Could use Census data to ensure a representative selection.)  Any combination of these ideas or others to ensure a Plan Forum that is representative of the Mount Pleasant Planning Area. PLANNING COMMISSION 19 July 2017  Attachment 3: July 19, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes " J+d- *:U¡" i tà Ft q'| fr r" t _1 l' ,\t? i', #* 1., sc- 1 077 i c ¿ .f; .ï È' [, "q+ è¿ J I t d¡ Ë - ,*: ¿,-F The Pointe and Pine lsle (}r ... Map Ke Photograph #1-Pine lsle Sarazen Drive Not Visible 1224-ft awa  Simulation #2- Pine lsle Sarazen Dr. and Rivertowne CC Dr. Partially Visible 850-ft away  Simulation #3-The Pointe Brick Kiln Pkwy. and Kiln Creek Cir. Partially Visible 1718-ft away  V \-\ ..Ðl¡ \ì,1 :.-s \-. È bv o o o- rt¡ - f I Itt Photograph #S-The Pointe N. Creek Drive Not Visible 1800-ft aw s cll g{tr Í' I \ ¿ I I I l ¡__ ¡l '- r --- rìr ,. .nÞ { t. It, ü ;-. 1''hf .$--\ ', ,{¡\ r"\..1 Marsh lsle . tfr ;".1 Map Ke lat 11.8829b!' lcrt-r -79. t ì a : I Photograph #6-Marsh lsle Crooked Stick Lane Not Visible 267}-ft away Photograph #7 -Marsh lsle Rivertowne CC Dr. Not Visible 1890-ft away Simulation #B-Marsh lsle Rivertowne CC Dr. Partially Visible 1282-ft away Photograph #9-Marsh lsle Rivertowne CC Dr. Not Visible 2247 -ft away  rolina lsle Map Key Rivertowne CC Dr. Partially Visible 3105-ft away  ulation #1 1- Car. lsle Rivertowne CC Dr. and Oakurst Dr. Partially Visible 2975-ft away  :" t: Oakhurst Drive Not Visible Photograph #13- Car. lsle Sea Pines Dr. Not Visible 4183-ft a  i, ,,..r {il 'J ,ì r'l r /¡,-l --,'t& tt 'r -'} r,..r, #' l9 sc- 1 077 .'fh ,It T+ r I ì I \ :l rr\-i+ tn '¿ F N,. .r't l/1n ' 'g) 20'6 coogle 942 tr á ".tr  t!, ,+ ""ro..€ te *¿ Palmetto lsle Dr.and Great Hope Dr. Not Visible 998-ft away  1 ,'la/4 .l '/ 1 i1"', .r. #15- Palmetto lsle Palmetto lsle Drive Partially Visible 1350-ft away Palmetto lsle Dr. (adjacent to retention pond) Partially Visible 995-ft away Palmetto lsle Drive Not Visible 969-ft away Great Hope Drive Partially Visible 803-ft away Great Hope Drive Not Visible 691-ft away  Æti Great Hope Drive Not Visible 81O-tt away BCH0466 RSCP-Before Candidate On Air Candidate E -Se <= x < -90 dBm I -SC (= x ( -94 dBm -84(=x<0dBm  7c/.t ?gf ctn: SRF (dBr) | )= -84 I >-s | )=-S | )= -104 -  DELORfYIE DeLorme Stra€t Ad¿s USA@ 2009 Oü@sutriedtoliæ 6 Ocl-m D€Læ SH Aüss USA@ 2009 ïowers to Md¿{m@m Rivertowne # ,at I  '"':å1. l" l* t" t . .l' ,¿ d {. s..#  911 calls made to Charleston County Consotidated 911 for year 2015* Thru Oct. 238'794 25o,ooo 200,000 150,æ0 100,000 50,000 72,2rO Wireless VOIP  ù 6,ourítt' Wi¡lrer r-,rf the Pu lrtzer Pl ize '.O¡ q I tl".,n."";r; En Nearly half of IJ.S. homes use cellphones only, shun landlines By MIKE STOBBE Associated Press Dec 1 2O15 12:0'l am þ: F WF  ,rF - -ilüÇ r¿"' st 3 percent of U.S. households used only cellphones a figure is closing in on 50 percent, a new study found. FILUrHEAUGUsrAcxRoNrcwAp NEW YORK - Nearly half of U,S. households use only cellphones, according to new federal statistics that show more and more people are cutting the cord on landlines, Now, only about 8 percent of households have just landlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday. More than 47 percent of American homes use only cellphones, About 42 percent have both. A dozen years ago, a mere 3 percent of U,S, SUNDAY . MONÞAY . TUE5DAY households used only cellphones. Given the trend, officials believe more than half of U.S. homes will be wireless within the next year. '"fhe tipping point is approaching," said the CDC,s Stephen Blumberg, the report's lead author. I(tchcrr& The preliminary data is based on in-person (,otììpiutY interviews in more than 21,000 homes during the first six months of this year, 8om¡¡ Pl¡ce . Þft Ple¡r¡nt,Sc . e{¡¡f9¡¡90 The researchers found: Not all homes have phones: More than 3 percent have neither a landline nor a cellphone. That percentage has been rising slightly over the past three years. Poor adults are much more likely than higher-income people to have only cellphones. Younger people rely more on wireless, too: About 71 percent of people in their late 20s live in households with only cellphones. only 19 percent of people 65 and older use only cellphones. The Midwest is the most wireless region, with 52 percent of adutts there living in cellphone- only homes. The South and West were nearly as high. ln the Northeast, only 32 percent live in cellphone-only households. Keywords J l-¡n¡llinc c I lcarlian lca¡r¡lrP,f¡rat fllf¡rcllarnrrrrrrlc.l¡ndlinacì  "3Jiïq'rjþï" ' ,',: rxflFtlx=¡pg- I |JEF ÞE- r H =Þ lË- ffi ulEF ûË- I H =) tË- rrlflF 8E- Þ x =r 9¡t- tr T ffi I -*æv'1úË-i BË- ={ M 06- ={ [ ÞB- =( I {"rtF) dHSU :JIJ Ell ï"n¿  DeLorme SûeêtAüas USA@ 2009 Data usê subject to lioense. @ DeLorme. Delorme StreetAtas USAO 2009. Nearest Towers to wwvv.delonne-com Rivertowne .'3 - - J I ffil  $rl 'j¡; iö&",n* ;*'þx*:¡' Existing Stealth Monopole IOP Connector and US Hwy 17 Existing Stealth Monopole Sullivans lsland Existing Stealth Mono Dunes West  I Existing Stealth Monopole South Windemere  .{í Existing Stealth Monopole Gregorie Ferry Road  911 calls made to Charleston County Consolidated 911 for year 2015* Thru Oct. 239,794 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Wireline  ûrtilù $,ourior, Winner of the Fulitzer Prize -:ö,: q ft Business íapps/pbes.dlVsection?category=PC05) Nearly half of IJ.S. homes use cellphones only, shun landlines By MIKE STOBBE Associated Press Dec 1 2015 12:01 am F. :'-  lf$ 3 percent of U.S. households used only cãllphönes figure is closing in on 50 percent, a new study found. HLE/THEAUGUSTA NEW YORK - Nearly half of U.S. households use only cellphones, according to new federal statistics that show more and more people are cutting the cord on landlines. Now, only about 8 percent of households have just landlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday. More than 47 percent of American homes use only cellphones. About 42 percent have both. A dozen years ago, a mere 3 percent of U.S. SUNDAY . MONDAY . TUESDAY households used only cellphones. Given the trend, officials believe more than half of U.S. homes will be wireless within the next year. 'The tipping point is approaching," said the CDC's Stephen Blumberg, the report's lead author. !:rtche n& (,ottt¡rìllV The preliminary data is based on in-person interviews in more than 21,000 homes during the first six months of this year. Sowrn¡¡ Plàúø . l{¡ Flç¡¡¡m.SC. 0ll€{9-0190 The researchers found: Not all homes have phones: More than 3 percent have neither a landline nor a cellphone. That percentage has been rising slightly over the past three years. Poor adults are much more likely than higher-income people to have only cellphones. Younger people rely more on wireless, too: About 71 percent of people in their late 20s live in households with only cellphones. Only 19 percent of people 65 and older use only cellphones. The Midwest is the most wireless region, with 52 percent of adults there living in cellphone- only homes. The South and West were nearly as high. ln the Northeast, only 32 percent live in cellphone-only households. Keywords O cellphones l/section/search&facet.filter=Keywords:cellphones) J lrnrllina e t lc.aeli¡¡¡ lcar¡,rhLf¡¡af filfar=Karnrrnrdc.l¡ndlinacì  Existing Mon Charleston National Attachment 4: July 19, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes