Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2017 MINUTES Present: Roy Neal, vice-chair, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, Alys Campaigne, Joseph Wren, Peter Lehman, DeAudre Gregg Absent: Tripp Cuttino (excused) Staff: Christiane Farrell, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Michele Canon, Kevin Mitchell, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 5:07 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from June 27, 2017 Special Meeting and July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Ms. Campaigne moved for approval of the minutes with the correction of Mr. Millet’s name. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission (attachment 1). 3. Correspondence and Public Comments Ms. Canon read a letter from Mr. Chapman expressing his thanks to the Commission for their words of appreciation and for the gift he received. Mr. Neal stated that he received a note from both Mayor Page and Mr. Eric DeMoura expressing their thanks and appreciation for the work the Commission recently did in selecting the members for the Comprehensive Plan forum. 4. Requests A. Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to R-3, Medium Density Residential District. Property to remain in the SR2-OD, Special R-2 Overlay District. Location: 425 Bank Street Parcel ID (TMS No.): 532-05-00-128  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 11 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 2 & 3). Mr. Neal asked which properties are zoned R-2 in the surrounding area. Ms. Canon showed the zoning for the surrounding properties on the map for the Commission. Mr. Neal asked which properties are non-conforming. Ms. Canon answered that she did not have information on the exact number but based on the map it appeared there were multiple non-conforming lots. Ms. Smith asked if redevelopment of the lot under R-2 zoning is precluded if the structure is removed. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that any new structure would have to comply with the R-2 zoning standards and uses, which does not allow duplexes. Mr. Wren asked if the property could be subdivided if it remained under the R- 3 zoning. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that the units are attached. Mr. Wren asked if the adjacent public housing is still owned by the City of Charleston and if the zoning is R-2. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill asked if the surrounding property is zoned R-2. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Ms. Campaigne asked if the adjacent property has apartments or duplexes. Ms. Canon answered she was unsure if they were multi-family or duplexes. Mr. Nick Collins, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that the property was purchased with the duplex existing. He stated that because of fire and water damage, the entire structure needed to be demolished. He stated that they would like to rebuild the duplex and have similar affordable housing available. Mr. Neal asked if it was previously a duplex. Mr. Collins answered in the affirmative and stated that it has been a duplex for the past 20 years. Mr. Neal asked if there are other duplexes in the area. Mr. Collins answered in the affirmative but was not sure of the exact location. Mr. Neal asked if the units would be affordable housing. Mr. Collins answered in the affirmative and stated that they do not intend to change the building from its original design.  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 11 There being no comments, Mr. Neal closed the public hearing. Ms. Campaigne asked if the property is adjacent to apartments. Mr. Prause answered that he was not sure if the City of Charleston project pre-dates the R- 2 zoning designation. He reviewed the difference between townhouse, duplexes and apartments with the Commission. He stated that the zoning was designated in 1979. Ms. Smith suggested that the apartments were existing before the zoning was established. She asked if it is required to bring a non-conforming lot into compliance if redeveloped. Mr. Neal answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lehman asked if the duplex is “grandfathered in”. Mr. Prause answered that the use was allowed as non-conforming and would not have to be brought into compliance until after it met the 50% threshold. Mr. Lehman asked if this request was approved, would it set a precedence. Mr. Neal answered that there are apartments in the area and there are non-conforming lots as well. He suggested that there have been requests for subdivision of lots in the area with the desire to redevelop. He suggested that this changes the character of the neighborhood and he is not in favor of this. He stated that there have been occasions where rezoning was desired because it would mean a non-conforming use would then become conforming. Ms. Smith suggested that subdivision was allowed when the lots met the lot requirements for the designated zoning. Ms. Campaigne stated that she is in favor of having more affordable housing, but expressed concern with changing the zoning from what is seen with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Gregg expressed concern with setting a precedent and that there would be subsequent similar requests. Mr. Wren asked the difference between this property being in the overlay district and remaining zoned R-2. Ms. Canon answered that the overlay district allows reduction of the front setback.  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Neal asked if this was denied, could there only be one unit on the lot. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative and stated that there is a 40% lot coverage requirement. Ms. Campaigne suggested that a single family unit could be constructed with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that could then be leased. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne suggested that different structure types other than single family units should be considered to provide more affordable housing. She suggested that affordable housing is a critical issue and should be discussed during the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith agreed but suggested that the current zoning should be taken into consideration. She suggested that approval of the request would set a precedent. She suggested that there is not a hardship for the request. Mr. Neal suggested that there is a hardship in the fact that there was a fire and is in proximity to other apartments and multi-family units. He suggested that because there is no one at the meeting desiring to speak, there is no opposition to the request. He stated that he is in favor of more affordable housing. Ms. Gregg suggested that this property not being in the historic district has a bearing on the involvement of the community. She suggested that the character is changing in this area because of not having the more stringent regulations. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 2 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Lehman being in favor; Mr. Millet and Mr. Neal opposed. B. Request to annex and zone AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, one parcel of land; Also request to rezone from NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, and OP, Office Professional District, to AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, four parcels of land, located at 1378, 1374, 1356, and 1344  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 11 Old Georgetown Road. Parcel ID (TMS No.):559-13-00-030; 559-13-00-031; 559-13-00-032; 559-13-00033; and 559-13-00-050 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 2 & 3). Mr. Pagliarini stated that the parcels were included on one application and should be treated as one request. Mr. Millet asked the zoning of the property adjacent to the proposed lots. Ms. Canon answered that they were zoned AB. Mr. McNeill asked the county designation. Ms. Canon answered that they are zoned commercial. Mr. Kyle Hoyt, applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. McNeill asked if the property lines would be abandoned. Mr. Hoyt answered in the negative but that there would be some adjustment of lot lines. Mr. McNeill asked what is proposed. Mr. Hoyt answered that they are proposing a mixed use site with commercial uses. Mr. Shawn Barnes, 1418 Barber Street, stated that his business is across from the proposed property. He stated that currently the road ends in a cul-de-sac. He stated that he would like to have better access to I-526 and asked that as the requested property is redeveloped that consideration be given to constructing access to I-526. Mr. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, agreed that there is an access issue. He suggested that this could cause an issue with emergency vehicle access. Mr. Larry Spears, 4253 Hwy 17 North expressed concern with preservation of trees and the drainage issues in the area. There being no further comments, Mr. Neal closed the public hearing.  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Neal asked how transportation issues should be addressed. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this is a zoning request. He suggested that any transportation issues or concerns should be forwarded to the Transportation Department. Mr. Hoyt stated that all of the trees have been surveyed and they would take every effort to preserve as many as possible. Ms. Campaigne moved for approval of the request. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. All in favor. C. Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations (LDR), Section 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for Lieben Forest Subdivision, 18 SF Residential Lots zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, located at Lieben Road. Parcel ID (TMS No.): 614-00-00-025 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 2 & 3). Mr. Neal asked about sidewalks and the kiosk. Mr. Bernard answered that there are only sidewalks on one side and staff recommends that the kiosk be moved to a more central location. Mr. McNeill asked about lot 17 in regard to tree removal. Mr. Bernard answered that it is in the middle of a ditch and the lot. Ms. Campaigne asked which lots are included in the waiver request. Mr. Bernard answered that it is lots 9-18. Mr. Wofford Stribling, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that they are amenable with all comments with the exception of #5 regarding tree preservation. He stated that they may need to preserve tree #22. He asked that tree #77 and #92 be allowed to be removed. Mr. Neal asked the intention of the green area behind lots 15-18. He expressed concern that this would not be used as green space but would be included in the lots. Mr. Stribling answered that it would be HOA property with the potential for a future trail. Mr. Neal asked about sidewalks and if sidewalks  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 7 of 11 could be included on both sides of the street. Mr. Stribling answered that they are trying to limit the amount of impact to the jurisdictional wetlands. Mr. Neal asked if a pervious surface could be used. Mr. Stribling answered that additional fill would be needed and would be an impact to the wetlands. He stated that they are willing to further work with staff on this issue. Mr. Neal asked if the reason for requesting some of the tree removals is to allow the removal up front as opposed to addressing individually with development of each lot. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the waiver was to have additional lots. Mr. Stribling answered that the waiver is mainly needed because of the location of protected trees. He stated that having the increased acreage for the lots allows more flexibility. He stated that if not approved, then the lots would have to be shortened to meet the requirements. Ms. Gregg asked if having lots 14-18 deeper would provide more tree preservation. Mr. Stribling answered that the current lot configuration would allow for more preservation of trees. Mr. Neal asked if the drainage easement configuration is typical. Mr. Mitchell answered that it was probably configured to avoid conflicts with other utilities and the drainage for the rest of the subdivision drainage. Mr. Neal asked if there is another alternative. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Ms. Gregg asked if the drainage could be farther back. Mr. Mitchell answered that there is some flexibility to move the easement back but there is some interference with the trees. Mr. Neal asked if a LDR waiver can be conditioned. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the LDRs cannot be changed. Mr. Neal asked if the LDR waiver and sketch plan could be taken separately. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked if the applicant would consider a different drainage layout could be accomplished. Mr. Stribling answered that this could be considered and work with staff. Mr. Millet asked if all the trees could be preserved with a new drainage configuration. Mr. Stribling answered that he was not sure but the proposed configuration was determined to be the best and preserve the most trees.  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Campaigne suggested that a reduction of lots could be considered so that there was sufficient drainage and tree preservation. Mr. McNeill suggested that the drainage could be reconfigured. Mr. Stribling answered that in order to maintain the hydrology of the area, the easement was located as close to the existing system. Ms. Campaigne moved for denial of the sketch plan and LDR regulations. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne suggested that she is not comfortable with approving the waiver to maximize the number of lots. She suggested that the number of lots should be reduced. Ms. Smith and Mr. Neal agreed. Mr. Millet stated that some options have been brought up for consideration. Ms. Gregg suggested that sidewalks on both sides should be considered for pedestrian safety. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. D. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.007 of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances adding a definition for Story, including Building Floor. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 2 & 3). Mr. Wren moved for approval. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Review and Discussion of the Tree Protection Ordinance as directed by the Planning Committee of Council, which may include Tree Retention, Protected Species, Roadside Buffers, Mitigation, Enforcement, and Related Matters.  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 9 of 11 Ms. Canon reviewed the tree and buffer ordinance with the Commission (attachment 3). Mr. Neal asked about rating of trees. Ms. Canon answered that this was implemented last year to better understand the condition of the trees that are requested for removal during sketch plan and preliminary plat approval. Ms. Gregg asked about the classification of pine trees and sweet gums. Mr. Bernard answered that the class system was implemented in 2000 and follows International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) regional standards. Mr. Millet asked if the pine and sweet gums were included under Class IV in 2000. Mr. Bernard answered that prior to 2000, the trees were excluded according to species and were not classified. Mr. Neal suggested that this be brought back to the next meeting. Ms. Canon suggested that a few special meetings would be needed to fully discuss. Ms. Gregg suggested that native trees should be protected as well as pine trees and sweet gums. She suggested that clear cutting should be reduced. Ms. Gregg asked about buffers and if they can be allowed to be removed and then replanted. Ms. Canon answered that there are times where the natural buffer can be disturbed. Mr. Prause agreed and state that there are provisions for allowing disturbance of a buffer or replanting a buffer. Ms. Canon stated that grading of property has an impact on trees as well and will need to be discussed. Mr. Wren asked that this information be provided to the Commission. Ms. Canon answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. Wren suggested that penalties for violations should be considered and reviewed as well. Mr. Neal suggested that some incentive for leaving areas natural could be considered. Ms. Campaigne suggested that grading would have an impact on preservation of trees. She suggested that enforcement of the regulations should be reviewed as well including the availability of staff resources. She suggested that there could be  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 10 of 11 different requirements regarding tree preservation between a single existing lot, vacant land, and a buffer. Ms. Smith expressed concern with future development and preservation of trees. She suggested that mature trees require and are able to absorb more groundwater which is helpful from a stormwater management perspective and this should be a consideration. Mr. Millet asked if buffers between single family uses and increasing natural roadside buffers should be discussed separately. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. She stated that they were included together in the presentation for convenience. Mr. McNeill suggested that there should be consideration of drainage and fill requirements for lots. He agreed that these issues should be reviewed and potential changes recommended. Mr. Neal suggested that there should be a distinction between a vacant lot and a redeveloped lot with different requirements. He suggested that some dates be provided for the Commission to consider. 6. Review and Discussion of Draft Text Amendments to Land Development Regulations Pertaining to Drainage, Lot Fill, and Grading. Mr. Mitchell reviewed current Land Development Regulations (LDR’s) with the Commission (attachment 3). Mr. Neal asked how these requirements compare to other municipalities. Mr. Mitchell answered that the recommended changes would be more in keeping with what other municipalities like the City of Charleston are doing. Mr. Wren asked the difference between a small and large subdivision. Mr. Mitchell answered that a small subdivision does not typically require dedication of infrastructure. Mr. Neal suggested that additional staff would be needed in order to implement these recommendations. Mr. Mitchell answered that many of the  Planning Commission August 23, 2017 Page 11 of 11 recommendations are being accomplished, but this would allow a more formalized process. Ms. Gregg asked if tree protection and erosion control measures are required before a clearing and grading permit is issued. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that a field inspection is completed to ensure that all of the tree protection and silt fencing is installed. He stated that the recommendation is to require this town-wide for all projects. Mr. Neal suggested that these recommendations should be accomplished. Mr. Mitchell answered that if agreeable then staff can work toward making those changes. The Commission agreed that the recommendations should move forward. Mr. Prause stated that the text amendments would come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neal suggested that other jurisdictions and municipalities should be considered and any other recommendations considered. 7. Election of Chairman and Vice-chairman The Commission voted Mr. Wren as chair by secret ballot. The Commission voted Mr. Neal as vice-chair by secret ballot. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:16 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn08232017  Attachment 1: August 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes TOWN COUNCIL DECISIONS AUGUST 2017 Town Council approved first reading for the following items: 1. First Reading: An Ordinance to amend the River Island Plantation Planned Development District Ordinance by allowing the erection, operation, and maintenance of a stealth wireless facility including a tower not to exceed 140 feet above ground level and related ground equipment as an allowed use on that 29.46 acre parcel designated as TMS No. 540-00-00-066. (Ord. No. 17039) 2. First Reading: An Ordinance 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. (Ord. No. 17040) 3. First Reading: An Ordinance to provide for the temporary suspension of the issuance of certain permits for construction of accessory dwelling units and for the subdivision of lots in certain areas of Mount Pleasant due to the risk of flooding. (Ord. No. 17041) (Although First Reading was approved, Town Council has sent this item back to Public Services Committee for further discussion) Town Council approved the following item: 4. Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan for Home Depot, proposed to be located on a 9.90 acre parcel at 2213 North Highway 17 and identified by TMS No. 558-00-00-145. Town Council approved final reading for the following items: 5. Final Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 18.64 acre tract of land comprised of five parcels, located off Rifle Range Road and Venning Road, identified by TMS Nos. 560-00-00-006, 560-00-00- 008, 560-00-00-014, 560-00-00-016 and 560-00-00-017 and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book S, Page 021, Book L12, Page 0242 and Book L17, Page 0149. (Ord. No. 17033)  6. Final Reading: An Ordinance to zone PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, an approximately 18.64 acre tract of land comprised of five parcels, located off Rifle Range Road and Venning Road, identified by TMS Nos. 560-00-00-006, 560-00-00- 008, 560-00-00-014, 560-00-00-016 and 560-00-00-017 and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book S, Page 021, Book L12, Page 0242 and Book L17, Page 0149. (Ord. No. 17034) 7. Final Reading: An Ordinance to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, and PD, Planned Development District, to PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, an approximately 1.86 acre tract of land comprised of two parcels in their entirety and a portion of a third parcel, located off Rifle Range Road and Old Landing Road, identified by TMS Nos. 560-00-00-044, 560-00-00-063, and a portion of 560-00-00-012, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L17, Page 0094, Book L12, Page 0242 and Book P, Page 022. (Ord. No. 17035)  Attachment 2: August 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes STAFF REPORT – 425 Bank Street For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to R-3, Request: Medium Density District. Property to remain in the SR2-OD, Special R-2 Overlay District Location: 425 Bank Street Type of Request: Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Applicant: Nick A. Collins III Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22791 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 532-05-00-128 Property Owner: Nick A. Collins III Approximate Acreage: 0.17 acres Plat Book & Page: Plat Book E page 168 Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation: R-2, Low Density, Low Density Residential District, SR2-OD, Special R-2 Current Zoning: Overlay District ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Hold required public hearing. Recommendation Planning Commission 08.23.17 for approval or denial of zoning request. 09.05.17 *Subject Recommendation for approval or denial of Planning & Development to change (Labor zoning request. Committee of Council Day) Approval or denial of first reading of zoning Town Council 09.12.17 ordinance. Approval or denial of final reading of zoning Town Council 10.10.17 ordinance (if first reading is approved). Staff Report – 425 Bank Street Page 1 of 4  ZONING MAP Staff Report – 425 Bank Street Page 2 of 4  RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 (2014 Update) Future Land Use Map recommends Low Density Neighborhood 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:  Recognize and protect the character of Mount Pleasant’s existing residential neighborhoods and communities.  Recognize the significance of historic, traditional, rural, and planned communities, and maintain their desirable characteristics such as prevailing densities, building types, and quiet streets.  Ensure that new development in residential districts is compatible in scale and character and conserves important neighborhood characteristics. Staff Report – 425 Bank Street Page 3 of 4  STAFF COMMENTS 1. Subject parcel is currently zoned R-2, Low-Density Residential District, and is within the SR2-OD, Special R-2 Overlay District. 2. The original structure was constructed in 1920 and was more recently used as a duplex, which is not a permitted use in the R-2 District. The structure has since been removed. 3. Requested is to rezone to R-3, Medium Density Residential District, which would allow a duplex as a permitted use. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map recommends Low Density Neighborhood land uses for this area. The requested R-3 zoning is not consistent with this land use recommendation. 4. The lot is currently nonconforming as lot width is 50 feet and lot area is approximately 7,250 square feet. The R-2 district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet and minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet. 5. While the proposed R-3 zoning would make the lot conforming (R-3 requires minimum 50 feet width, 70 feet depth and 6,000 square feet lot area), there are multiple lots in this area that are also zoned R-2 but do not conform to the R-2 District standards. Staff Report – 425 Bank Street Page 4 of 4  STAFF REPORT – Old Georgetown Road/Bowman Road For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request to annex and zone AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, one parcel of land; Also request to Request: rezone from NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, and OP, Office Professional District, to AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, four parcels of land. Location: 1340,1344, 1356, 1374, and 1378 Old Georgetown Rd. Type of Request: Annexation and zoning; Rezoning Annexation: Not Required Public Hearing: Zoning: Required; held by Planning Commission Applicant: Hoyt + Berenyi, LLC (c/o Kyle Hoyt) Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22792 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 559-13-00-030 Property Owner: Bowman MTP Land, LLC Plat Book & Page Plat Book P page 033 Approximate Acreage: 0.13 Acres Comprehensive Plan Future Urban Corridor Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: Charleston County (MP-OD) TMS No. 559-13-00-031 Property Owner: Bowman MTP Land, LLC Plat Book & Page Plat Book P page 033 Approximate Acreage: 0.36 Acres Comprehensive Plan Future Urban Corridor Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) TMS No. 559-13-00-032 Property Owner: Bowman MTP Land, LLC Plat Book & Page Plat Book V page 055 Approximate Acreage: 1.30 Acres Comprehensive Plan Future Urban Corridor Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: Office Professional District (OP) TMS No. 559-13-00-033 Property Owner: Bowman MTP Land, LLC Plat Book & Page Book E66, Page 562 Approximate Acreage: 0.66 Acres Staff Report – Old G’Town Rd/Bowman Rd Annex/Zone-Rezone AB Page 1 of 5  Comprehensive Plan Future Urban Corridor Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: Office Professional District (OP) TMS No. 559-13-00-050 Property Owner: Bowman MTP Land, LLC Plat Book & Page Book EL, Page 126 Approximate Acreage: 0.31 Acres Comprehensive Plan Future Urban Corridor Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: Office Professional District (OP) Total Acreage: 2.70 acres Staff Report – Old G’Town Rd/Bowman Rd Annex/Zone-Rezone AB Page 2 of 5  ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Hold required public hearing. Recommendation Planning Commission 08.23.17 for approval or denial of zoning request. 09.05.17 *Subject Recommendation for approval or denial of Planning & Development to change (Labor request. Committee of Council Day) Approval or denial of first reading of annexation Town Council 09.12.17 and zoning ordinance. Approval or denial of final reading of annexation Town Council 10.10.17 and zoning ordinance (if first reading is approved). ZONING MAP Staff Report – Old G’Town Rd/Bowman Rd Annex/Zone-Rezone AB Page 3 of 5  PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST date type of approval conditions of approval, if any 09.21.99 Rezoning R1 to NC TMS No. 559-13-00-031 11.09.99 Rezoning R1 to OP TMS No. 559-13-00-032 RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 (2014 Update) Future Land Use Map recommends Community Conservation land uses for the subject property (see map below). The Urban Corridor land use is intended to foster an active, pedestrian-oriented commercial environment with a variety of uses, activities, and scales. Form is as important as use within Urban Corridors, with buildings and primary entrances near the public realm and high quality pedestrian streetscapes in front. There should be a high degree of design quality for the building façade and a strong interaction between buildings and the public realm. Public spaces such as plazas should be integrated with surrounding development. Mixed use, multistory development is encouraged, generally with the most public uses, such as retail, on the first floor, and more private uses, such as residences or offices, on upper floors. The following list of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies is provided so that they may be considered along with this zoning request:  Promote appropriate infill and redevelopment while protecting the context of existing neighborhoods. [TARGET STRATEGY]  Encourage development of infill properties with appropriately scaled redevelopment to utilize infrastructure already in place.  Encourage appropriate commercial development to increase the property tax base and minimize the tax burden on homeowners.  Encourage the location of workplaces and educational facilities in close proximity to concentrations of residential development to provide convenient access from home to work.  Promote the growth of existing businesses and the recruitment of new businesses that are compatible with the Town’s future vision. Staff Report – Old G’Town Rd/Bowman Rd Annex/Zone-Rezone AB Page 4 of 5  STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is to annex and zone one parcel AB, Areawide Business District, and to rezone four parcels from NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, and OP, Office Professional District, to AB, Areawide Business District. All properties are within the UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map recommends Urban Corridor land uses for this area. The proposed AB zoning is an appropriate underlying zoning district classification for the land use recommendation. 3. The Urban Corridor Overlay District expands permitted uses on commercially-zoned properties (regardless of the underlying commercial zoning district) to include all uses permitted in the OP, NC, AB, CO, and PI-1 zoning districts. 4. The application does not indicate a proposed use; however, the applicant has expressed their desire to make the underlying zoning consistent so that lot lines can be adjusted. 5. Surrounding parcels are either commercial land uses located in Charleston County or have been rezoned from Residential to a Commercial Zoning Designation in the Town. 6. Development of the parcels are subject to the Design Review Process. Staff Report – Old G’Town Rd/Bowman Rd Annex/Zone-Rezone AB Page 5 of 5  LIEBEN FOREST STAFF REPORT (SKETCH PLAN & LDR WAIVER) AUGUST 23, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations Section 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for Lieben Forest Request: subdivision, 18 SF Residential Lots zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District. Location: Lieben Road Type of Request: Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required. Applicant: Wofford Stribling Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22793 SUBJECT PARCELS TMS No. 614-00-00-025 Property Owner: Robert S. McGillis Approximate Acreage: 9.40 Acres Plat Book & Page: Book EL, Page 624 Comprehensive Plan Future Community Conservation Land Use Map Designation: Current Zoning: R3 – Medium Density Residential District Total Acreage: 9.40 Acres ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Planning Commission approves, approves with Planning Commission 08.23.17 conditions, or denies the request. Planning & Development n/a n/a Committee of Council Town Council n/a n/a Staff Report – Lieben Forest, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 1 of 3  PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST conditions of approval, if date type of approval any 10.09.07 Annexation/zoning STAFF COMMENTS 1. Proposed is a request for approval of Sketch Plan and Waiver from Land Development Regulations for 18 single family residential lots. 2. The Applicant met with Staff for Preliminary Review. 3. The sidewalk ramps at the entrance road intersection need to be better aligned to allow for ease of pedestrian access as they traverse Lieben Road to avoid the multiple 90 degree turns. 4. Town Encroachment permits will be required for Lieben Road sidewalk. 5. Tree 77 on lot 18 and tree 92 on lot 16 should be retained; however, if they need to be removed during residential site plan review, their size will permit staff to approve removal at that time. 6. The sidewalk on Misty Grass Court should extend to connect to the existing sidewalk at the cul de sac. The pedestrian crossing at Lot 7 should be located at the mail kiosk. Sidewalk at Lot 6 is to terminate at the property boundary. Staff Report – Lieben Forest, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 2 of 3  7. Stormwater analysis is to include the culvert crossing at Lieben Road. Offsite runoff is to be considered in the model. 8. Fire Department is to evaluate and approve access to Lots 1, 2 and 3. *** A waiver is requested for exceeding the 2.5 : 1 ratio for lot width to depth. Staff Report – Lieben Forest, Sketch Plan & LDR Waiver Page 3 of 3  Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing - 23 August 2017 Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.007 of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances adding a definition for “Story”, which includes “Building Floor”. STAFF COMMENTS 1. The proposed amendment is intended to provide clarification of what constitutes a distinct building level (Floor or Story) for the purpose of applying the limitations contained in the zoning code imposed upon these building elements with respect to maximum allowed building height. 2. The emphasis is upon ground level parking and habitable space above the maximum allocation of building levels allowed. 3. How these areas are treated varies in the building and flood regulations from that proposed in the zoning code; this amendment provides clarity and removes uncertainty. new text deleted text text to remain § 156.007 Definitions. STORY (including BUILDING FLOOR). An articulated, distinct level of separation in a building or structure located between the finished surface upon which one may stand and the finished ceiling, having a minimum vertical distance of seven feet at its apex, specifically including a ground level component used for parking or storage, and excluding the following: unfinished attic space, without permanent stair access, located within a roof structure, and used exclusively for storage or building support components such as water heaters, HVAC components and the like, and a basement, or crawl-space area.  Attachment 3: August 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION 23 August 2017  5.a. 425 Bank Street Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to R-3, Medium Request: Density Residential District. Property to remain in the SR2-OD, Special R-2 Overlay District. Location: 425 Bank Street Parcel ID (TMS No.): 532-05-00-128 Type of Request: Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 0.17 acres Plat Recording Info: Book E, Page 168 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22791 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22940 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP  5.b. Old Georgetown Rd/Bowman Rd Request to annex and zone AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, one parcel of land; Also request to rezone from NC, Request: Neighborhood Commercial District, and OP, Office Professional District, to AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, four parcels of land. Location: 1378, 1374, 1356, and 1344 Old Georgetown Road 559-13-00-030; 559-13-00-031; 559-13-00-032; 559-13-00-033; and 559- Parcel ID (TMS No.): 13-00-050 Type of Request: Annexation and Zoning; Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 2.79 acres Plat Recording Info: Book P, Page 033 Book V, Page 055 Book E66, Page 562 Book EL, Page 126 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22792 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22941 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP  5.C. LIEBEN FOREST SUBDIVISION Request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations, Section Request: 155.047, and approval of Sketch Plan for Lieben Forest Subdivision, 18 SF Residential Lots zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District Location: Lieben Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 614-00-00-025 Type of Request: LDR Waiver and Sketch Plan Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 9.40 acres Plat Recording Info: Book EL, Page 624 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22793 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22942 Action to be Taken: Planning Commission approves, approves with conditions, or denies the request. Proposed Sketch Plan  5.D. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.007 of Chapter 156 of the Mount Request: Pleasant Code of Ordinances adding a definition for Story, including Building Floor. Type of Request: Zoning Code Text Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission 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. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE AS DIRECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL, WHICH MAY INCLUDE TREE RETENTION, PROTECTED SPECIES, ROADSIDE BUFFERS, MITIGATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS. TREE PROTECTION  Protected Tree - Any tree with a DBH of eight (8) inches or greater Significant Tree – Any tree with a DBH of sixteen (16) inches or greater Historic Tree – Any tree with a DBH of twenty-four (24) inches or greater 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. •Replacement for protected trees removed without permission shall be twice the number of inches removed (200%)  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 Good – 100% to 75% live crown ratio / minimal structural defects Class IV Species: Exempt from this section except that pines and Fair – 75% to 50% live crown ratio / minor or tolerable structural sweet gums shall be maintained in buffer areas. defects that can be overcome through arborist intervention Points: Average Quality Rating guide for Local Tree Species Poor – Less than 50% live crown ratio / severe structural defects that would classify it as a hazard  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) ASSESSING TREES AND DETERMINING MITIGATION  TREE REPLACEMENT •For Residential Subdivisions where Planning Commission approves removal of protected trees, replacement trees shall be selected from the provided tree canopy list and may be located: • On HOA property (reviewed/approved by ZA) • Within public street ROW in accordance with approved plan • On private lots •Mitigation must be accomplished as described above OR by providing a cash bond for 200% of tree replacement •Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Final Plat will not be granted until mitigation and landscaping is installed • Exception – Developments where HOA land will have plantings  TREE REPLACEMENT •For Townhouse, Multifamily, Commercial, and Other Land Use developments (schools, churches, etc.), a minimum of 160 caliper inches per acre must be retained or planted canopy species • This does not include caliper replacement of historic trees in excess of 160 inches • Plantings must have a variety of species • Trees to be protected and removed and their condition must be shown on plans • Saved or planted canopy trees within buffer can count towards the 160 inches • Trees planted in parking lot islands can count towards the 160 inches •Developers shall try to save historic trees whenever possible during site design •Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Final Plat will not be granted until mitigation and landscaping is installed • Exception – Developments where HOA land will have plantings BUFFERYARDS EXAMPLES OF REQUIRED BUFFERS BETWEEN USES Existing Uses (in feet) Proposed Land Use SF TH MF Comm Single-Family 0 0 0 0 Townhouse 15-40 10-12.5 10-25 10-25 Multifamily 15-40 10-25 10-12.5 10-25 Commercial 25-75 15-40 15-40 10-12.5 • Widths very based on type and quantity of vegetation and use of walls, fences, and/or berms (the more narrow the buffer, the more intense the plantings) • Ordinance specifies quantities of plants and types (canopy trees, understory trees, shrubs, etc.)  STREET BUFFERS Standard Street Buffers – • Single-family – 0 feet • Townhome – 10 to 25 feet • Multifamily – 10 to 25 feet • Commercial – 10 to 25 feet • Widths very based on type and quantity of vegetation and the use of walls, fences, and/or berms • Ordinance specifies quantities of plants and types (canopy trees, understory trees, shrubs, etc.) • Planned Developments – widths of buffers and type and quantity of vegetation can be specified otherwise Urban Corridor Overlay District • Canopy trees (3 required for each 100 linear feet of frontage), Palmetto trees • Generally no understory or shrub plantings are required in an effort to accomplish wider sidewalks SPECIAL BUFFERYARDS  ROADSIDE BUFFERS Natural Roadside Buffer – • Along designated scenic highways, US Hwy 17 North of Long Point Road, SC Hwy 41, Rifle Range Road (portions) • Major arterials – 100 foot buffer or determined during planning process • Minor arterials/collector streets – 50 foot buffer or determined during planning process • Trees less than 3” in caliper can be cleared • Select pruning of limbs • Any additional plantings must be of a native species • Turf/grass is prohibited Joint Town/County Hwy Corridor Overlay • 15 foot • All portions of Chuck Dawley Blvd, US Hwy 17 North from IOP Connector to I-526/Chuck Dawley Blvd, Old Georgetown Road Loop area, and along Long Point Road between the SPA Wando Terminal and I-526 • 50 foot • All remaining portions of US Hwy 17 east of the IOP Connector (except for Old Georgetown Road Loop area) and on Long Point Road between I-526 and Whipple Road  ROADSIDE BUFFERS Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District • Old Georgetown Road Loop Office Area • 20 foot buffer is required along the Old Georgetown Road right-of-way • Fencing may be required during design review • Village Commercial Area (from Old Georgetown Road to Hamlin Road) • Minimum 50 foot vegetated right-of-way buffer along US Hwy 17 • Village Commercial Area (from Hamlin Road to Porchers Bluff Road) • Minimum 35 foot buffer along US Hwy 17 for commercial properties • Requires two 6-inch caliper street trees to be planted within the right-of-way along the property pending SCDOT approval Mathis Ferry Road Buffer – • Boundary – 7th Avenue to Whipple Road • Property owners encouraged to plant canopy trees along roadway • New Developments – • Single-family – 25 feet • Multi-family – 50 feet • Nonresidential – 75 feet Where roadside buffers overlap, the more strict buffer is used  CRITICAL LINE BUFFER • Undeveloped, naturally vegetated buffer along tidally influenced areas designated by SCDHEC-OCRM (only applies to lots platted after September 12, 2000) • Vision corridors allowed, but can not exceed 33% of buffer length • Development of pedestrian trails, vehicle access to docks and piers, utility lines, swales, and erosion control devices are allowed • Width – • Cooper River Bridge to Ben Sawyer Bridge – 15 feet • Cooper River Bridge up Wando River, and Ben Sawyer Bridge northward along Intracoastal Waterway – 35 feet average (minimum 20 feet) • Critical areas subject to change upon a parcel’s subdivision through DHEC- OCRM  ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: -Explore ways to increase tree preservation / a more natural environment is desirable; -Explore expanding protected tree list / perhaps certain Class IV Species should be protected; -Explore requiring buffers between single-family uses and expanding/increasing intensity of Natural Roadside Buffers; -Explore reducing mitigation measures by retaining more trees on site (increase minimum inches retained and/or perhaps mitigate Class IV Species); -Explore increasing penalties for removal of protected trees/bufferyards without permission; and -Explore ways to simplify the ordinance **Recommendations should be ready to go back to Committee within 90 days- beginning of November 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DRAINAGE, LOT FILL AND GRADING  RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Includes small and large subdivisions CURRENT PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • LOT LAYOUT – zoning compliance , • LOT LAYOUT, to include existing and access, ability to provide services proposed grades for building pads and • TREE PLAN – 16 inches DBH drainage. Manage fill height and in close proximity to adjacent neighbors, and • OPEN SPACE – min area, encourage ensure consistent drainage pattern with usable location either the land development plan or with existing adjacent neighborhoods. • TREE PLAN – protection in the form of tree wells, swales, and pipes • OPEN SPACE – as a means to separate proposed lots from existing neighbors using features such as ponds, trails and/or undisturbed buffers.  RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CURRENT PROPOSED STAFF REVIEW STAFF REVIEW • CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS • CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS • STORMWATER POLLUTION • STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN (SWPPP) • FINAL GRADING, AND • SEQUENCING CONSTRUCTION to ensure INFRASTRUCTURE perimeter safeguards from construction related runoff are in place to protect surrounding FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS PRIOR TO neighbors. BUILDING PERMIT • COORDINATED FIELD INSPECTION – field verify improvements are in place and • DESIGN ENGINEER AS-BUILT maintained CERTIFICATION • TREE PROTECTION – improve type of • FIELD INSPECTION REPORTS barricades FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT • FIELD INSPECTION REPORTS • DESIGN ENGINEER AS-BUILT CERTIFICATION • AS-BUILTS “PAD-READY” ELEVATIONS  EXISTING BUILDABLE LOTS DEVELOPMENT NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION CURRENT PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION • SITE PLAN WITH CERTIFICATE OF • NEW BUILDING SITE GRADING AND TREE COMPLIANCE. PLAN – WITH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. • INTERNAL COORDINATION REQUIRES o EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES, TREE PROTECTION/MITIGATION SIMPLIFIED DRAINAGE PLAN o TREE PROTECTION BARRICADES IMPROVED • INTERNAL COORDINATION TREE PLAN o STAMPED BY ENGINEER IN SPECIAL STORMWATER AND MITIGATION SENSITIVE AREAS • BUILDING PERMIT IS RELEASED • BUILDING PERMIT IS RELEASED INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS • SPECIAL FIELD CHECKS TREE • NEW CLEARING AND GRADING PERMIT – PROTECTION, DRAINAGE 1. FIELD CHECK TREE PROTECTION, STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, SPECIAL DETAILS FOR PROTECTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE INSPECTION TRACKING SYSTEM. 2. PAD-READY PRIOR TO NEXT INSPECTION • FINAL CHECK PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE 3. DURING CONSTRUCTION – MIDPOINT OF OCCUPANCY. 4. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO INSPECTION DEPT RELEASING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 August 2017