Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2017 MINUTES Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, Alys Campaigne, Peter Lehman, DeAudre Gregg. Absent: Roy Neal, Tripp Cuttino. Staff: Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Michele Canon, Eddie Bernard, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 10:35 am. 1. Correspondence and Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 2. New Business A. Review and discussion of possible zoning code text amendments pertaining to tree retention, protected species, roadside buffers, mitigation, enforcement and related matters. Ms. Canon reviewed items for consideration with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Campaigne asked if comment #1 and #5 could work with #5 being a solution to comment #1. Ms. Canon answered that the Commission can discuss whether to have different requirements between existing residential, new residential and commercial projects. She stated that staff recommends that if new residential projects are to have similar requirements as commercial, then the concern is to not be overly burdensome on existing single family residential. Mr. Bernard stated that going to a “pad ready” system, the trees should not be as impacted as has previously been seen. Ms. Campaigne asked if other municipalities have species that are exempt. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative and stated that the list might differ. Mr. Wren asked about the definition between a small and large subdivision. Ms. Canon answered that those lots that are subdivided and require infrastructure would be considered a large subdivision. She stated that there is currently a definition for Subdivision in the Land Development Regulations but this could be determined through other means such as acreage if desired.  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Millet asked about the correspondence from Mr. Edgar Barnard and the difference between Charleston County regulations and the Town and if it would be appropriate to discuss at this time. Mr. Bernard answered that this would be addressed under item #4 of the presentation. Mr. McNeill asked when a decision should be made. Mr. Wren answered that it could be done at this meeting and if necessary finalized at the regular Commission meeting on Oct 18th. Mr. Pagliarini answered that it can be handled as the Commission desires. He stated that a formal ordinance amendment would not be completed until after reviewed by the Planning Committee of Council. The Commission discussed how to proceed with recommendations and agreed that the information would be reviewed and then any recommendations determined after the staff information was reviewed. Ms. Gregg expressed concern with redevelopment of a single residential lot where an existing home would be demolished and a larger home constructed as it could affect the mature trees on the lot. Ms. Canon stated that as expressed by the Commission, staff’s recommendations took into consideration of the impact the regulations would have for a single residential lot as compared to a new neighborhood subdivision. Ms. Smith suggested that there could be a distinction between new residential construction and existing residential, but expressed concern with this. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this could be a legal concern. Ms. Smith agreed and suggested that there should be consistency. Mr. Millet stated that there was previous discussion between determining how trees would be protected for single residential lots and larger neighborhood subdivisions. Ms. Campaigne asked if there is a way to distinguish between existing and new lots. Ms. Canon answered that as previously mentioned it is done in other municipalities but should be defensible. Ms. Canon stated that it would need to be decided if there should be different regulations between a small subdivision and a large subdivision. Mr. Bernard answered that depending on the recommendations, it could be burdensome to the property owner wanting to develop a single residential lot.  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Smith suggested that larger subdivisions is of greater concern than an individual single residential lot. Ms. Smith suggested that the definition of a subdivision should be clarified. Mr. Prause answered that some subdivisions do not require Commission approval as it is being subdivided from an existing roadway. He stated that often the property owner or future property owner wants to have some comfort on what trees can be removed prior to purchasing a lot. He stated that in that instance, the subdivision can be brought before the Commission for approval through a sketch plan, which would also be vested. The Commission discussed the definition of a subdivision and if it should be clarified. The Commission also discussed how trees could be better preserved. Mr. Pagliarini asked if there is language that currently distinguishes between categories of residential property for tree removal. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that City of Charleston distinguishes between amount of acreage. Mr. Prause stated that there were changes to townhomes within the last few years. Mr. Bernard agreed. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the protected size would not change for residential construction, but that pine species and sweet gum be protected. Ms. Canon continued with the review of staff’s comments for the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Pagliarini expressed concern with separating and categorizing regulations as it should be a measurable, defendable reason and not single out a particular class or group. He stated that the Commission’s recommendations can be as specific as desired. Mr. Pagliarini asked if there is any information from the City of Charleston on whether the acreage delineation is successful. Mr. Bernard answered that they do not have that information. Mr. McNeill suggested that any division of property would be considered a subdivision of property and would be included under the tree protection requirements. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that there could be concern as there would be one standard for subdivision but not for a single lot. Ms. Canon stated  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 4 of 8 that this was discussed with the City of Charleston and once it is a lot of record, the requirements change and it would be considered an existing lot. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this would have to be reviewed to ensure there is legal justification if the Commission decided on these requirements. Mr. McNeill suggested that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) could be required to review all protected tree removals. Ms. Smith suggested that protecting native trees is a good solution. Mr. Wren asked if staff had any issue with the recommendation of having pine trees protected. Mr. Bernard answered in the negative and suggested that moving pine trees and sweet gums to category III could be a consideration. Ms. Gregg asked what the majority species is in the Town. Mr. Bernard answered that it depends on the area. Ms. Gregg asked if moving sweet gum and pine species into a protected category would make a measurable difference. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative. Ms. Canon reviewed the threshold recommendation with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Smith asked if there is a legal obligation to ensure that the number of structures allowed to be built can be built with the threshold. Mr. Pagliarini answered that it typically looked at whether it is an overly burdensome regulation. He stated that the property rights must be balanced with the overall rights of the community. Ms. Gregg asked if there was any feedback on whether the citizens of other municipalities were satisfied with the threshold requirements. Mr. Bernard answered that the City of Charleston has a tiered BOZA process. He stated that some of the municipalities have several inspection and policing procedures to ensure tree protection. Ms. Canon stated that if maintaining a mature canopy is desired, then having some type of threshold would be one means of protecting the more mature trees. She suggested that there should be some flexibility allowed to address those instances where mitigation cannot be met by replanting trees on the lot. Mr. Wren asked if the threshold and how removals would be handled. Ms. Canon answered that the current commercial requirements are reviewed by the  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Design Review Board (DRB), similar to the Commission reviewing tree removals through the sketch plan process. Mr. Millet asked if a minimum threshold should be considered. Mr. Bernard answered that the 40 inch minimum deals with those lots that do not already meet the 160 inch per acre requirement. Ms. Campaigne suggested that there should be a minimum threshold that applies to both commercial and residential. Ms. Canon suggested that the requirements should be easy to administer and enforce as well as for the public to understand. Ms. Smith asked if staff has a recommendation on a percentage of native plantings that could be required. Mr. Bernard answered that the majority of the plans have approximately 25%-33% native plantings. He suggested that increasing that percentage to 50% might not be too burdensome. He suggested that requiring all native plants could be difficult. Mr. Wren asked if there is any legal concern with making a recommendation regarding definitions. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the recommendations could be made and then any legal concerns determined at that time. Ms. Smith moved to recommend that a subdivision be defined as any lot that is divided into two or more lots. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Mr. McNeill suggested that a more specific definition might need to be determined. Ms. Gregg asked how this definition would be beneficial. Ms. Smith answered that this would be a level playing field with regard to subdivisions whether it is subdividing a single lot or a larger parcel. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. McNeill moved to recommend that the size of protected residential trees be kept at 16 inches diameter breast height (dbh). Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. All in favor.  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Gregg suggested that there should be consideration of having additional staff to be able to have multiple site visits completed. Mr. Millet moved to recommend that pine species and sweet gum be moved from Class IV to Class III. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the national standard rating guide should be followed so the pine tree species would be placed in Category I. Ms. Smith asked if staff has concern with moving the pine tree species to Category I. Mr. Bernard answered that having a pine tree as a Category I could be considered burdensome by the average citizen with a single residential lot. He stated that staff would be comfortable with moving these two tree species to Category III. Ms. Gregg asked about staff’s recommendation for additional changes to the rating chart. Ms. Canon answered that the pecan is a type of hickory species, so it was added to category 2 for clarification. Mr. Bernard stated that some of the species in Category IV are either the Leland Cypress and Mulberry species were added because of being extremely susceptible to disease, or not a desirable species. Ms. Gregg asked if these changes should be considered as well. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to recommend acceptance of the species and categories in the revised tree removal chart as presented by staff. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren asked how the recommendation would affect the joint Town and County property for the proposed park. Mr. Bernard answered that the tree removal chart deals mainly with residential and commercial. He stated that the park would be considered a recreational use, which would have different requirements. He stated that the pine and sweet gums would be considered protected. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amended motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Campaigne opposed.  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Mr. McNeill moved to recommend that there be an on-site minimum retention of 20 protected trees per acre or at least 160 inches of protected trees per acre. Mr. Lehman seconded the motion. Ms. Smith asked if wetlands and buffers should be included in the calculation. Mr. Bernard answered that currently the ordinance includes the wetland and buffer acreage. He stated that the exhibit provided by staff shows the number trees not including the acreage for the right-of-way. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to recommend that wetlands, retention ponds, and right-of-way not count toward the acreage calculation in determining the minimum threshold for retention of protected trees. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Campaigne expressed concern that this recommendation might not be legally defensible and requiring 20 trees per acre to be retained on site for all protected trees might be too burdensome. The Commission discussed if the minimum retention of protected trees should be amended and if it should pertain to residential and commercial properties. Mr. McNeill moved to amend the motion to recommend an on-site minimum of 160 inches of protected trees per acre be retained for residential and commercial parcels. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Amendment failed on a 1 to 6 vote with Mr. Lehman in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet opposed. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to recommend there be an on-site minimum of 160 inches of protected trees retained for all residential and commercial subdivisions. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Ms. Smith withdrew the amendment. Ms. Gregg withdrew her second. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to recommend an on-site minimum of 160 inches of protected trees per acre be retained for all new residential subdivisions. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion as amended. All in favor.  Special Planning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Ms. Gregg moved to recommend to remove the language providing flexibility, “where this number cannot be feasibly retained" for both commercial and residential. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren moved to recommend to add new residential subdivisions to the Commercial column for tree replacement in the tree replacement table. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Smith moved to recommend that no changes be made to the monoculture language. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Smith moved to recommend that all new subdivisions be required to have 40% native species. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. The Commission discussed whether the percentage should be increased. Mr. Millet moved to amend the motion to recommend that the percentage of native species required be increased to 50%. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Millet withdrew his amendment. Ms. Smith withdrew her second. Ms. Gregg moved to amend the motion to recommend a requirement of 50% native species for canopy and understory replacement trees for all commercial development and new residential subdivisions. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor. The Commission agreed that a special meeting should be scheduled to review the buffers and any remaining tree items. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:53 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComsn10052017  Attachment 1: October 5, 2017 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION 5 October 2017 SPECIAL MEETING  ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: -Explore ways to increase tree preservation / a more natural and mature environment is desirable;  Could include expanding protected tree list / protecting certain Class IV Species;  Could include reducing mitigation measures by retaining more trees on site (increase minimum inches retained and/or mitigate Class IV Species); -Explore requiring buffers between single-family uses and expanding/increasing intensity of Natural Roadside Buffers; -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 TREES ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Existing For Consideration  TREE PROTECTION Goal: More natural and mature canopy and appearance Considerations: Protection of Quality trees.  The current ordinance requires an assessment of trees with the goal of preserving those trees that are larger in size, a higher class of species (live oak versus water oak, for example), and in good condition while allowing removal of poorer quality trees or that are in poor condition. The current ordinance provides a good foundation for the protection of quality trees. To meet the goal of having a more natural and matured canopy, ordinance amendments to the following would need to be considered:  The size (inches) of a protected tree  Protected species  Protection requirements based on the quality rating of the tree  In Commercial development, the number of required inches per acre to be retained  In Residential development, if there should be include an inches per acre requirement to be retained or planted  Note: Residential requirements may apply similarly to new development as they do to existing residential lots. Modifications to standards may equally affect current homeowners desiring to remove trees.  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)  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 BUFFERS ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Existing For Consideration 15 trees/acre - 10 acre site (excludes r/w) 10 trees/acre -10 acre site (excludes r/w) 5 trees/acre -10 acre site (excludes r/w) ~20’ Street front buffer option ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Current Bufferyard Definition/ Purpose: BUFFERYARD is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. (a) Both the amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each bufferyard required by this chapter are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses, or between a land use and a public road. (b) The planting units required of bufferyards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to buffer. (2) Bufferyards shall be required to separate different land uses from each other, in order to: (a) Eliminate or minimize potential nuisances, such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights, signs, and unsightly buildings or parking areas; or (b) Provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, or danger from fires or explosions. Current Residential Requirements New Single Family to Existing Single Family: No Buffer Required New Single Family to Existing Town House or Multifamily: No Buffer Required New Town House or Multifamily to Existing Single Family: Buffer Required (minimum buffer width 15 feet with 8 foot tall stockade fence) 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  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Should we require a buffer where new single family is built adjacent to existing single family Considerations: Defining when a buffer is required? -Staff does not believe it is the intent to apply a buffer in between two individual single family lots within the same development. The goal is to buffer an existing single family neighborhood from a new adjacent single family neighborhood. In consideration of the goal, if a new neighborhood is built next to vacant land, then no buffer is required. The buffer is only required next to existing homes. This would need to be clearly defined. Refer back to current definition and purpose of a bufferyard. Define neighborhood? To what extent would this apply in a master planned community? To what extent would this apply to areas that are not actually “neighborhoods”? Would the buffer only be required where the new neighborhood abuts existing lots? Or required to “encircle” the new neighborhood?  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Considerations cont.: Would the buffer be allowed to count as open space and meeting open space requirements? -This buffer area may present opportunities for a pedestrian trail system therefore usable open space if clearing for a path is allowed. Adjacent neighbors may object to an adjacent trail system. Should this be accomplished by requiring buffers within yards, easements, or separate HOA parcels? -If required in a backyard the buffer area will be sold to a homeowner with the buffer included within the lot area, setbacks will be measured from the property line (not the buffer line) which reduces usable rear yard area. Because of this, if contained on private property, the buffer will likely be cleared- and very difficult for the Town to enforce. Requiring on an HOA parcel is likely best, most enforceable. However, consideration should be given towards the buffer strip that will be created should property owners on each side decide to construct a fence. This may result in a strip of land in between two fences with certain maintenance or access concerns.  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Considerations cont.: How much vegetation should be required? Fences? Natural buffer or planted buffer? -If no vegetation exists in the pre-development state, would a planted buffer be required? If vegetation does exist in the pre- development state, would it be required to be augmented? How wide (range of widths) should the buffers be? -The buffer should not be required to be any wider than required between a single family and townhome use. Are any encroachments (drainage) or uses permitted within the buffer? -If the buffer is required to be vegetated or even undisturbed, then the drainage easement should be required outside of the buffer area. In requiring such, however, there is the potential for two parallel drainage systems meaning more infrastructure and more maintenance. If the goal of the buffer is to create greater separation but not necessarily require vegetation, there may be opportunities to create a more efficient drainage infrastructure system. 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 EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Mathis Ferry Road – near Muirhead Road (Chabad of Charleston) EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Mathis Ferry Road – Muirhead Road Roundabout EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Mathis Ferry Road – near Anna Knapp (library)  EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Mathis Ferry Road – Stuhrs – before (vines) and after EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Highway 17 North – New Lowes EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Highway 17 North – Mellow Mushroom EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Long Point Road– Seacoast Church EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Long Point Road– Wendy’s and Sonic (Belle Hall) EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS IOP Connector – Seaside Farms EXAMPLES OF BUFFERS Town Center COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TREE ORDINANCES: OTHER JURISDICTIONS Hilton Head Island Kiawah Island Charleston City Charleston County Summerville  HILTON HEAD ISLAND Varies upon species and DBH size of "Specimen tree" Minimum Size Protected Variance for removal; Exemption: SF Lots • Tree retention as well as mitigation is calculated through a combination of caliper Species Not Protected Invasive Species inches and DBH (diameter breast height) inches • Caliper Inches are adjusted (ACI- adjusted Supplemental (if less than 900 inches caliper inches) depending on the category or before building): 15% of difference Kept or Planted classification of tree through a formula that from 900 ACI/acre of pervious applies DBH times a multiplier: surface area. • Category I: DBH * 1.00 • Category II: DBH * 0.75 Replacement: 30% of difference from 900 ACI/acre of pervious surface • Category III: DBH * 0.50 Mitigation area (trees removed during • Category IV: DBH * 0.25 development). • Trees planted at rate of 1 tree/10” ACI No more than 20% into dripline for difference, must be native, and of like impervious/soil compaction. Must be Encroachment category. more than 15 ft. from trunk; Can be more if pervious • Forestry is exempt to all tree protection.  KIAWAH ISLAND Oaks 3"+ and 6"+ caliper or greater at DBH for all species "may" be • Enforced by the Kiawah Island Minimum Size Protected protected, oaks over 24" must be Architecture Review Board. preserved. • All trees planted or replaced Species Not Protected Popcorn (Tallow) trees must be of a native species. 1 tree (3"+) per 1,000 sq. ft. gross lot area (Palmetto only count as 1/3rd a Kept or Planted tree) Kept: Generally 70%, but case by case New: For oaks 24"+, all inches must be Mitigation replaced with trees 6"+ in size. Oaks 6"+ may require replacement. Encroachment Case by case basis  CHARLESTON CITY Grand Trees - 24"+ DBH Protected tree - 8"+ DBH (exempt: Residential) All exempt: Forestry, Agriculture, Utilities, Gov. Agencies Minimum Size Protected Colonnades/Allees - 2 or more parallel rows with min. of 4 trees total and 2 trees (20"+) except pine or in ROW Species Not Protected Pine trees or sweet gum • Mitigation based on species listed in category. Prior to Dev. - No more than 25% of protected trees (8"+) can be removed. Must maintain at least 15 protected • Category I: 100% Kept or Planted trees/acre. During Dev. or after - Min. 15/acre protected trees (8"+) (variance) unless less than that already existed. Then just that number. • Category II: 75% (variance) • Category III: 50% (special Protected Tree (8" to 23") - for every tree, two 2 1/2" exception) caliper trees planted. Grand Trees - variance or special exception depending on • Category IV: 25% (special category. If removed for health/damage - 1 tree of equivalent exception) Mitigation species. % mitigation depends on species. 75% of replacement trees must provide similar habitat, shade, erosion control or water purification. Inspected after 1 year. During construction - Protected trees 23" or less - 10' min. If greater than 23" - 1 ft. for 1 inch. Impervious, etc. - Trees 8" to 16" - min of 8 ft. required. Trees 17" to 23" - min of 10 ft. required. Grand Trees - min Encroachment of 12 ft. + 1 ft. for every additional 3" in excess of 24". Can be less per Zoning Admin. All roots severed clean and 2" of mulch laid over exposed roots. CHARLESTON COUNTY Grand Tree - 24"+ DBH (exempt: forestry, except for Live Oaks) Minimum Size Protected Protected Trees – 8”+ DBH (exempt: SF detached and agriculture) Partial except: SCDOT and CCPW Species Not Protected Pine or Sweet Gum For trees 8"+ DBH, 20 trees/acre; or any number of trees with combined DBH of at least 160"/acre. Wetlands/retention pond Kept or Planted do not count towards acreage. If less than 160"/acre exists, 6"+ DBH trees are counted. If less than 40"/acre, trees must be planted to 40"/acre. Trees removed (except for health/safety/etc.) must be approved by Mitigation BZA. Replacement Trees must be 2 1/2"+ caliper. Tree inspected within 3 years. Grand Tree: 1" for 1" Protection zone is drip line or 1 1/2' per inch of DBH. Can be modified in either direction. Encroachment No more than 25% paved under a tree. If more, must be approved by Planning Director.  SUMMERVILLE Grand Tree - 16"+ DBH Minimum Size Protected Protected Tree - 6"+ DBH (not for subdivisions) None (invasive needs permit, but allowed • Tree Advisory Protection (T.A.P.) Species Not Protected automatically) Committee • Made up of four citizens Protected Trees: Excluding the buffer, 1) If less (including at least one Kept or Planted than 20 trees, need combined 160"+ DBH/acre; arborist) and three staff or 2) Twenty trees per acre. Grand Trees do not count. members. • Any member can issue Protected Tree - 50% tree removal permit for Grand Tree - 100% Mitigation protected trees. Quorum Replacement trees must be 3"+ caliper. Trees inspected after one year for Grand Trees. Protection zone is the drip line or 1 ft. for every 1 inch DBH. Encroachment of construction - staff level with Encroachment plan. 1 foot of mulch and plywood/ rubber mats to protect tree underneath. Impervious construction generally not allowed. CHARLOTTE, NC “TREE SAVE REQUIREMENTS” - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: A minimum of 15 percent of the overall commercial site must be preserved as tree save area (hereinafter for purposes of this section, "commercial tree save area"). If less than 15 percent of the site has existing trees, additional trees shall be planted at a rate of 36 trees per acre to meet the commercial tree save area requirement. In the event any area of the commercial tree save area cannot be protected trees must be re-planted at 150 percent of the area removed. CHARLOTTE, NC “TREE SAVE REQUIREMENTS” – SF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:  Whenever the existing tree canopy of a single-family development site is at least ten percent of the total property area, a tree save area equal to ten percent of the total property area must be saved during development of the site.  If the existing tree canopy of the site is less than ten percent but more than five percent, a tree save area equal to ten percent of the total property area must be achieved by saving the entire existing tree canopy and planting new trees to reach the required percentage area.  Single-family development sites with an existing tree canopy of less than five percent of the total property area must have a tree save area equal to five percent of the total property area, which may be achieved by saving the existing tree canopy and planting new trees.  CHARLOTTE, NC “Incentives apply to single-family development”: (1) Reduced yards. For single-family development requiring a tree save area, setback requirements as specified in subsections 12.805(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the zoning ordinance are reduced as follows:  Front setbacks can be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet for all lots; front loaded garages must maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet; and  Rear yards can be reduced to 30 feet on all internal lots. Rear yards forming the outer boundary of a project must conform to the minimum rear yard of subsection 9.025(1)(g) for the zoning district in which the development is located. (2) Density bonus. Single-family development sites may be granted a density bonus provided the entire tree save area is dedicated to common open space. Such dedication must be to a homeowners' association or a public or private agency that agrees to accept ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the space. The density bonus is calculated as follows: the entire dedicated tree save area in acres multiplied by the maximum residential density number of the underlying zoning district. (3) Reduced lot sizes. A development need not meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements set forth in table 9.205 of the zoning ordinance if it complies with one of the following incentives:  Sites with more than ten percent and up to 25 percent of tree save area(s) in common open space may apply the cluster provisions for lot size and lot width of that zoning category.  Sites with greater than 25 percent of tree save area(s) in common open space, including the buffer area and where the perimeter protection is provided either by perimeter lots that meet the underlying zoning cluster provisions or by a minimum 20-foot perimeter tree save area, may apply the cluster provisions for lot size and width of the next lower zoning category as shown in the following table and in accordance with section 9.205(5) of the zoning ordinance PLANNING COMMISSION 5 October 2017 SPECIAL MEETING