Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, Alys Campaigne, Tripp Cuttino, Peter Lehman (entered at 5:09 pm), DeAudre Gregg (arrived at 5:33 pm) Staff: Jeff Ulma, Lee Cave, David Pagliarini, Brad Morrison, Kevin Mitchell, Liz Boyles, Eddie Bernard, Austin Rutherford, Marissa Poultney, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from December 20, 2017 Meeting Ms. Campaigne moved for approval of the minutes with the following correction— ➢ Ms. Campaigne stated that she is in favor of the request and that it is sensitive to the surrounding communities. She took exception to the precedent of restricting construction of ADUs. Mr. Neal 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 stated that all correspondence received prior to noon today was included with the agenda and distributed to the Commission. 4. Requests A. Case #R-01-18, Rezone two parcels from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, located at Rifle Range Road / Venning Road (MPW Location) Parcel ID (TMS No.): 560-00-00-007 and 56- 00-00-053  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 14 Mr. Lehman arrived at this time (5:09 pm). Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). There being no comments. Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. B. Case #R-02-18, Amend the Patriots Point PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, establishing development guidelines and permitted uses for the National Medal of Honor Museum. Also request approval of an Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan located at Patriots Point Road. TMS No.: 517-00-00-001 (portion thereof) Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Morrison reviewed transportation comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Wren asked if the road improvements are funded. Mr. Morrison answered that it is currently funded through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and a Municipal Improvement District (MID). Mr. McNeil asked if the funding would expire. Mr. Morrison answered that the CIP has the funds allocated. Once the MID is established it would be in place through the entire plan. Mr. Neal asked about the analysis being completed with Bridgeside II noted at 90% buildout. Mr. Morrison answered that the percentage of buildout is based on the anticipated amount of the project completed. Mr. Neal asked if this includes the additional buildings that have been approved. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if Patriots Point would be included in the MID. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 14 Ms. Smith asked for clarification on the buildout. Mr. Morrison answered that the impact analysis is based on the anticipated traffic at the completion of the project. He stated that the traffic improvements are based on the buildout of Patriots Point in its entirety. Mr. Millet asked for clarification on the daily trips. Mr. Morrison answered that the impact analysis includes peak hour trips. Mr. Millet asked how the peak hours are determined. Mr. Morrison answered that trip generation is based on a national average. Ms. Smith asked if this design would help to alleviate current traffic congestion. Mr. Morrison answered that the design would not completely alleviate congestion because there is a constriction point at this intersection with moving from a free-form 55mph section to 35 mph and traffic entering a new signalized system. Ms. Campaigne asked about the bike lanes at the intersection of Patriots Point and Coleman Blvd. Mr. Morrison answered that this would be the first bike box in Mount Pleasant because of the bridge. Mr. Cuttino asked about access for the College of Charleston (CofC) facilities. Mr. Wren suggested that Mr. Morrison continue with his presentation. Ms. Gregg arrived at this time (5:33 pm). Mr. Cuttino asked about access to the sporting facility and how the soccer fields would be accessed. Mr. Morrison answered that there is a sidewalk that runs behind the softball field that would provide pedestrian access. Mr. Neal asked if it was considered to continue the new roadway through the property for interconnectivity. Mr. Morrison answered that there is potential, but there would have to be coordination between CofC and Patriots Point as they are the owners of the property. Mr. Neal asked how many parking spaces  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 4 of 14 are along the new roadway. Mr. Morrison answered that there are approximately 90 spaces. Mr. Cuttino stated that parking is an issue, particularly with sporting events. He suggested that better consideration of the parking should be done to try to alleviate these issues. Mr. McNeill asked the distance of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Morrison answered that he is not sure. Mr. McNeill asked if it would be subject to the 800 foot requirement. Mr. Morrison answered in the negative and stated that it is not a public roadway; it is considered a parking lot. Mr. Wren asked if this would be included in the Waterfront Gateway. Mr. Morrison answered that there is the potential that it would be fully funded through the CIP, but this would be a decision of Town Council. Mr. Stuart Whiteside and Greg Reeves reviewed the request with the Commission through a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 3). Mr. Neal asked about height of the Yorktown flight deck. Ms. Canon answered that it is approximately 93 feet. Mr. McNeill asked if a different height could be considered. Mr. Reeves answered that the building would have to be redesigned if a different height was desired. Ms. Smith expressed concern with height and fire safety. Mr. Reeves answered that the Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and has indicated that there are no concerns. Ms. Campaigne expressed concern with the building being built in a VE zone and how this would address resiliency. She stated that a VE flood zone is prone to high risk of velocity and surge and many cities are taking significant steps to move from those areas and create structures to provide better protection. She expressed concern with the significant building being built in a VE zone. Mr.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 5 of 14 Reeves answered that the building meets all of the VE zone requirements and is raised to allow for flow of tides. He stated that the project has a lot of natural landscaping and would restore the natural habitat for that area. He suggested that it is a sensitive design that includes significant landscaping and pervious surface. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. McNeill asked the distance of this property from the hotel district where the property is allowed height to 80 feet and if there are any buildings in the area at 150 foot height. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. Neal asked about parking and what the parking requirements are for office buildings. Mr. Prause answered that office parking requirements is 1-2 spaces per 300 square feet. Mr. Neal asked if there is designated employee parking. Mr. Reeves answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal expressed concern the height and suggested that it is out of character with the surrounding property. He suggested that the building should be more in keeping with the surrounding property. He expressed concern with allowing the proposed height when other projects have requested a similar height and were denied. Mr. Reeves suggested that this is a very unique project and opportunity. Ms. Smith suggested that a decision should be based on the project presented and the Commission should not be asking the applicant to redesign the project. Mr. Neal asked about the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Corridor Overlay District and if the height was recently reduced. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and stated that the height ranges from 45 feet to 55 feet. Mr. Reeves suggested that this unique project and the national significance of the project should be considered. Mr. Cuttino asked about DRB approval. Ms. Canon answered that the requested PD includes design standards that DRB staff reviewed. She stated that staff is comfortable with the design standards included in the PD and that they are  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 6 of 14 measurable standards which DRB can adequately review the request as they will still be required to obtain DRB approval. Ms. Gregg asked about the traffic analysis and noted that the intersection would move from a LOS C to LOS D. Mr. Morrison concurred and stated that a LOS D has been deemed as an acceptable level of service. Mr. McNeill asked if DRB was comfortable with the height. Ms. Canon answered that DRB did not review the project. She stated that staff to DRB reviewed the design standards outlined in the PD. Mr. McNeill asked if DRB can reduce the height. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that the height is determined through the PD. Mr. Millet asked about the critical line buffer reduction request. Ms. Canon showed the buffers on the plan for the Commission and stated that they are requesting to maintain the existing 15 foot line buffer in the event the Town adopts an ordinance increasing it. He suggested that height and the critical buffer are major concerns for him. Ms. Smith agreed and expressed concern with approving these changes, particularly with recent discussions on changes to the tree and buffer ordinances. Mr. Neal asked if this request failed, what would be the current height. Ms. Canon answered that the height is 50 feet. Mr. Neal asked if the height at Bridgeside is 80 feet. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill asked if there is 150 height near this property. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and showed the height map for the Commission. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments, with the exception that the height be limited to a maximum of 80 feet. Ms. Smith seconded the motion.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 7 of 14 Mr. Neal suggested that limiting the height to 80 feet would be a compromise for this significant project. Mr. Pagliarini stated that a decision should be made based on the application submitted. He suggested that it would not be appropriate to make a motion that would change the application. Mr. Neal withdrew his motion. Ms. Smith seconded. Mr. McNeill asked how to proceed. Mr. Pagliarini answered that a motion should be made based on the application submitted. Ms. Campaigne moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the Commission should not try to redesign a project. She suggested that the height is “too much”. She suggested that the changes to the critical line is not appropriate at this time as changes are being considered. She suggested that resiliency should be promoted and averaging of a setback line should not be necessary. She suggested that for a project as this should be enduring and iconic and the reality of the flood conditions should be taken into consideration. Mr. McNeill stated that he is a veteran and expressed concern with the height and stated that he cannot support the height. Mr. Neal agreed and suggested that there should be a similar treatment to this project as previous projects that wanted similar height. Mr. Wren agreed and stated that while a unique project, the proposed height is too much. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 8 to 1 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet and Mr. Neal in favor; Mr. Cuttino opposed.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Neal asked about the impact assessment and if the allocation of cost for the roads would be done through a MID and if this development would be a participant in the MID. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the impact assessment including all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne asked if the project would be subject to the new tree ordinance once amended. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 8 to 1 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet and Mr. Neal in favor; Mr. Cuttino opposed. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the conceptual plan. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Ms. Smith expressed concern with accepting a conceptual plan with denial of the PD, particularly since the main concern was the height. She also expressed concern with the amount of parking given the proposed ancillary uses. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 6 vote with Mr. McNeill and Mr. Neal in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Ms. Smith, Mr. Millet, Mr. Cuttino, and Mr. Wren opposed; Mr. Lehman abstaining. C. Case #R-03-18, Rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District; Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 (2014 Update) Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Low Density Neighborhood to Commercial located at Location: 1236 Melvin Bennett Road (Melvin Bennett / Bowman Rd). TMS No.: 560-02-00- 038; 560-02-00-039 and 560-02-00-019 (portions thereof) Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1&2).  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Smith suggested that the applicant has not indicated any plans for the portion fronting Bowman Road. Ms. Canon answered that the property is requested to be AB-2 for the portion fronting Bowman Road. Mr. Wren asked if additional action would be needed from the Commission. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Ms. Smith asked if AB would be more appropriate than AB-2. Ms. Canon answered that the Comprehensive Plan future land use recommends commercial zoning, so either district is compatible with the commercial land use. Mr. Neal suggested that AB-2 would be appropriate since there is property adjacent that is AB-2. Ms. Smith asked if the R-1 portion was subdivided would it meet minimum standards. Ms. Canon answered that this would be determined when a subdivision request was submitted. Mr. Tim Askins reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that the intention is to subdivide the portion along Melvin Bennett into two lots with open space between each parcel. Mr. Wren asked about curb cut on Bowman Road. Mr. Askins answered that SCDOT has approved a curb cut for the property. Ms. Gregg asked about buffers. Mr. Askins answered that the buffers would meet or exceed Town requirements. Mr. Millet asked if there are homes on the adjacent lots and where access is located. Ms. Canon answered that access for the adjacent properties is from Melvin Bennett.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Sean Rudy, 1232 Melvin Bennett, stated that he was not contacted regarding this project. He stated that the area is heavily wooded. He expressed concern with family and child safety. He stated that safety and security is a major concern. He suggested that the property should remain residential. Mr. John Burn, 1411 Breckon Road, suggested that the zoning request is appropriate. He suggested that because of traffic, it would not be appropriate to have residential dwellings on Bowman Road. Ms. Melanie Ensminger, 1244 Melvin Bennett, expressed concern with drainage as problems currently exist. She expressed additional concern with tree removal and noise. She stated that this is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the Town and suggested that the character of the neighborhood should be preserved. Mr. Paul Taylor, 1336 Bluebird Drive, agreed that the portion fronting Bowman Road is appropriate as well as having residential lots fronting Melvin Bennett. He expressed concern with traffic. He asked if green space was included in the project, who would own the green space and what the width of the green space would be. Mr. Terry Orvig, 1334 Blue Bird, stated that he is not opposed to commercial property, but is concerned with commercial property in proximity to residential. He stated that as one of the oldest neighborhoods, the character of the neighborhood should be preserved. He suggested that the growth of the Town should be maintained. He stated that he is opposed to the request. He expressed concern with property values being affected. Mr. Matt Schrimm, 1440 Melvin Bennett, expressed concern with commercial property affecting his property as it is adjacent to the proposed property. He expressed concern with tree removal as there are a significant number of historic trees on the property. He expressed concern with drainage and stated that there is currently significant drainage problems. He expressed concern with having additional fill on the lot. He expressed concern with what type of buffer would be required between the commercial and residential property.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 11 of 14 Ms. Mamie Rudy, 1232 Melvin Bennett, expressed concern with the proposed commercial portion would back up to their residence. She expressed concern with child safety. She stated that there is a huge historic oak on the property and does not want the tree to be removed or impacted. Mr. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, suggested that the entire area in regard to flooding and character should be taken into consideration. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Askins stated that he intends to have water and sewer for the property and there would be a drainage plan. He stated that he intends to preserve the historic oak trees as well. Mr. McNeill asked where the drainage pipe would be located. Mr. Askins answered that he would tie in from Chuck Dawley Blvd. Mr. Millet asked if the property could be subdivided and preserve the existing trees. Mr. Askins answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked what type of commercial is proposed. Mr. Askins answered that the specific commercial use has not been finalized. Ms. Gregg asked if the oak trees would be preserved on the proposed commercial property. Mr. Askins answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if the subdivision would be reviewed by staff or the Commission. Ms. Canon answered that a sketch plan would be needed. She stated that this is a zoning request and that a sketch plan cannot be considered at this time. Mr. Neal stated that the adjacent residential property already backs up to AB-2 property. He stated that a drainage plan would be required and would be reviewed by staff. He suggested that the current issue is the zoning request. Mr. Neal asked how many lots could be accomplished with the current zoning. Ms. Canon answered that approximately five lots could be accomplished.  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 12 of 14 Ms. Campaigne asked about the 25 foot bufferyard proposed and if this would exceed the requirements. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that a minimum 25 foot buffer would be required. Ms. Campaigne asked if the buffer between commercial and residential would be more substantial than if it was residential adjacent to other residential. Ms. Canon answered that no buffer would be required between single family uses. Ms. Campaigne suggested that having commercial use with a buffer would better preserve the wooded character and “feel” of the lot and surrounding area as it currently exists than if there were only residential uses. Mr. McNeill suggested that the proposed changes to the tree and buffer ordinance would mean greater tree protection if approved. Mr. Millet suggested that the questions asked by the Commission are to try to better understand the request and thanked the Commission for those inquiries. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan identified commercial nodes, but many of those areas were rezoned or were developed as residential. He stated that this means that the commercial must developed elsewhere and sometimes is next to residential. He stated that the property would be developed and suggested that it could be more intensive with more residential units than what is proposed. Ms. Smith expressed concern with this request at the same time of updating the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that it might not be appropriate to entertain this request at this time. She suggested that this should be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Neal stated that the Comprehensive Plan already recommends commercial and suggested that this would not change with the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Canon clarified that the request includes a Comprehensive Plan update and reviewed this with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if there is concern with split zoning a parcel. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the application clarifies the request and what zoning is requested  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 13 of 14 for the specific portion of the property. Ms. Canon agreed and stated that there is a zoning plan included with the request that clarifies where the commercial and residential zoning would be located. She stated that a sketch plan would be required with the subdivision of the property following the lines of the zoning map. Ms. Gregg asked if there is follow-up on drainage plans to ensure the appropriate drainage is installed. Ms. Canon answered that staff would have certain inspections that would be required prior to certificate of occupancy (CO). Mr. Bernard agreed. Mr. Cuttino moved for approval including all staff comments. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 2 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet opposed. D. Approval of street names for streets located in Oyster Point Phase 3. Street names to include Mother of Pearl Drive and Midden Drive. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the street name change. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Other Business a. Adoption of Bylaws Mr. Neal moved for approval of the bylaws. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Mr. Millet asked if there were any revisions. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. b. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman  Planning Commission January 24, 2018 Page 14 of 14 The Commission voted Mr. Wren as chair and Mr. Neal as vice-chair by secret ballot. 6. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process Ms. Boyles updated the Commission on the Comprehensive Plan update process. She stated that the next open house is scheduled for January 30th from 5- 7 pm. Ms. Canon noted that a special Plan Commission meeting to review the tree and buffer amendments is scheduled for February 7th at 2 pm. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn01242018