Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2018 MINUTES Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, Alys Campaigne, Tripp Cuttino, Peter Lehman, DeAudre Gregg. Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Eddie Bernard, Liz Boyles, Marissa Poultney, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from January 24, 2018 Meeting and Minutes from February 7, 2018 Special Meeting Mr. Neal moved for approval of the minutes from the regular and special February meetings. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. 3. Correspondence and Public Comments Ms. Canon stated that all correspondence received as of 4 pm today was distributed to the Commission and posted on the website. There being no comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 4. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process Ms. Boyles updated the Commission on the Comprehensive Plan update process. She stated that the deadline for responding to the online survey is February 28th. She stated that the next forum meeting will be held on March 6th at 12 noon. Mr. Wren asked where the meeting would be held. Ms. Boyles answered that the meeting would be held at Town Hall in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 14 5. Requests A. R-04-18—Request to amend the Carolina Park DA, Development Agreement, by deleting in its entirety Exhibit C (Governing Regulations) of the Development Agreement, including all exhibits to the same, and to supplement with a new Exhibit C with all of the exhibits thereto. Also request to amend the PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, Ordinance No. 11063, and subsequent amendments thereto, identified by Ordinance No’s. 12010, 13017, 13074 and 15045, by deleting them in their entirety, including all exhibits likewise, and supplementing with new Planned Development District Development Standards, including the exhibits thereto, located at Carolina Park (north side of US Highway 17 between the Park West and Pepper Plantation developments) Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Ms. Betsy Ellingson, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, and Mr. Brian Keels reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Keels thanked staff for their cumulative review of the revised document and clarified that no new request is being made. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith asked about page 14 of the development agreement regarding “substitute flag lots will be permitted” being allowed. Mr. Keels answered that this was included in the original PD document. Ms. Smith asked if the flag lot stipulation was part of the original agreement, why was it mentioned in the revised document. Ms. Canon confirmed that the flag lot stipulation was included in the original PD document. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. B. SP-01-18—Request approval of Sketch Plan for two single-family residential lots. Also request approval for Waiver from Land Development Regulations, located at 2839 North Highway 17 / Located between Yough Hall Road and Crystal Drive. TMS No.: 578-00-00-121  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 14 Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Wren asked if there is currently no buffer requirement. Mr. Mitchell answered that it is under the purview of the Commission to determine if a buffer should be required. Mr. Wren asked if it was a commercial use would the Commission determine the buffer. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative and stated that Design Review Board would have purview over the buffer for a commercial use. Mr. Neal asked who would be responsible for maintaining the roadway. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would be a private roadway. Mr. Lewis Seabrook, surveyor for the applicant, reviewed the request with Commission. Mr. Neal asked how the road would be maintained. Mr. Seabrook answered that this has not been determined to date but would ensure a maintenance agreement in perpetuity was put in place prior to final plat approval. Mr. Wren asked if the existing home would remain. Mr. Seabrook answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren suggested that front portion could potentially be commercial and asked if the applicant would be opposed to having a 50-foot buffer. Mr. Seabrook answered in the negative and stated that there is currently a 30-foot easement along US17. Mr. Millet asked what material the driveway would be. Mr. Seabrook answered that it would be a combination of rock and dirt. Mr. Millet asked if the property was requested not to be included in the overlay district when annexed. Ms. Canon answered that an overlay district is not automatically assigned at the time of annexation; it must be requested. Mr. Pagliarini asked if there is an existing access easement. Mr. Seabrook answered in the negative. Mr. Pagliarini asked if the current rendering shows the access easement extending across the property line. Mr. Seabrook answered in the affirmative and stated that there is also a SCDOT curb at the proposed access from US17.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 14 Ms. Gregg asked if both lots would be conforming. Mr. Seabrook answered in the negative. Mr. Seabrook also noted that the property currently has septic. He stated that sewer service is desired, so annexation must be requested. Mr. Neal expressed concern with the access extending across the property line and how this could be remedied. Mr. Mitchell answered that the easement would be on the property line. Mr. Pagliarini stated that an easement does not currently exist, only a driveway. Mr. McNeill asked where the curb cut is located. Mr. Mitchell showed the location on the plat for the Commission. Mr. McNeill asked if the two properties would share the existing curb cut. Mr. Pagliarini answered that an additional easement might be necessary as well. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the easement would be on the requested property. Ms. Smith agreed and stated that the driveway would need to be moved. Mr. Mitchell agreed. Ms. Gregg asked if the easement would be recorded. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and suggested that other elements as noted in the staff comments should be included on the plat as well. Ms. Gregg asked if there is a way to have both future parcels conforming. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative. Mr. Millet asked what is adjacent to the requested parcel. Mr. Mitchell answered there is a car wash on the south parcel and the north parcel is vacant. Mr. Millet asked if there is access to the car wash. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments with the added condition that a satisfactory easement and access plan in accordance with Town roadway standards to be approved by the Transportation Department. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked if Fire Department approval would be needed prior to the Transportation Department giving final approval for the roadway. Mr. Mitchell answered that the information and all approvals are provided prior to approval of the final plat.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 5 of 14 Ms. Campaigne asked about buffers. Mr. Neal suggested that the buffer is included in the staff comments. Mr. Mitchell stated that staff noted that if a buffer was desired, it should be included in the approval. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to establish a 50-foot buffer along US17 for the newly created lot. Mr. Wren seconded the amendment. Mr. McNeill suggested that there is currently a 30 foot easement and asked if the buffer would be outside of the easement. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the buffer should include the easement. Mr. McNeill suggested that if the property were commercial, a 20-foot buffer outside of the easement might not be sufficient. Mr. Neal suggested that a larger buffer would be too onerous. Ms. Gregg asked if the requested buffer width is standard. Mr. Wren asked what the buffer requirements are. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would be 100 foot width for major arterials with a minimum 50 feet width for collector streets and minor arterials. Mr. Millet asked for clarification on the requested buffer and if the 50 foot buffer requirement would include the easement. Mr. Wren answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amendment. Motion passed on a 7 to 2 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Mr. McNeill and Mr. Neal opposed. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 6 of 14 C. SP-02-18—Request approval of Sketch Plan for 10 single-family residential lots, located at 651 McCants Drive / Corner of McCants Dr. & Jackson St. TMS No.: 532-10-00-001 Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. McNeill asked about lots 4-9 and if access would be from Jackson Street. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren asked about access for lot 10. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would be from the easement (hatched section). Mr. Cuttino asked about the trees near lot 7 and lot 9. Mr. Bernard answered that they are a laurel oak and live oak. Mr. McNeill asked who owns the right-of-way. Mr. Bernard answered that they are state streets. Ms. Campaigne suggested that SCDOT approval could be stipulated in the motion. Mr. John Tarkin reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that they would like to preserve as many trees as possible including some pine trees that have sentimental value. Mr. Millet asked if the applicant would be amenable to having a sidewalk on Jackson Street. Mr. Tarkin answered that he is not opposed to a sidewalk, but if constructed, the sidewalk would not connect to an existing sidewalk and would mean significant trees would need to be removed. Ms. Smith stated that staff did not recommend a sidewalk on Jackson Street and suggested that impervious surface should not be increased in this area. Mr. Wren asked if the trees in the right-of-way can be preserved. Mr. Tarkin noted that tree removal is not necessary for installation of driveways. Mr. Tony Wooddy answered that the main reason for the laurel oak and live oak are being proposed for removal is because of installation of a sewer line. He stated that  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 7 of 14 the trees would be preserved if possible but wanted to have the option in the event they needed to be removed. Mr. Neal asked about the laurel oak by the easement for lot 10 as well as the other trees between lot 9 and the easement and asked if they can be better preserved. Mr. Tarkin answered that the easement is 20 feet wide, but the driveway would only be twelve feet wide and would have pervious material of sand shell or plantation mix. He stated that the rendering shows a more meandering driveway so that the trees are not as impacted. Mr. Neal suggested that the lot 9 property line should be moved so that the trees fall within the HOA property and preserved. Mr. Tarkin answered that this could be done. Ms. Campaigne commended the applicant on the smart design and the preservation of the trees for the property. Mr. Tarkin stated that they would mitigate all of the protected trees removed but would like to preserve as many trees as possible. He stated that there is a bio-swale and garden to the rear of the property that would carry runoff to the dry pond. Mr. Wren asked about the trees not included on the submittal. Mr. Wooddy answered that the original tree survey had some incorrectly labeled trees. He stated that the revised tree survey is correct. Mr. Wooddy reviewed the reasoning for the LDR waiver request with the Commission. ➢ Topography and pattern of the lots—there is a natural low area near lot 10 and significant trees. He stated that rather than regrade the area that would alter the drainage pattern and impact the protected trees, the access easement was determined the best option. ➢ Detrimental to adjacent property—He stated that the only property not developed is to the north and a pipe drainage easement is being provided for future development. ➢ Protecting health, safety, and welfare—He stated that the storm drainage system along Jackson Street flows into the low area of this property. He stated that improvements proposed would increase the storm coverage to 50% which is above the required percentage. Mr. Neal asked the width of lots 5-8 compared to lot 9. Mr. Tarkin answered that lot 9 is approximately 20 feet wider than the other lots.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Ms. Gregg asked if lot 5 and 6 are buildable given the canopy of the protected tree. Mr. Tarkin answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren asked how the Old Village drainage study improvements would impact this property. Mr. Mitchell answered that the property is within the Royall Avenue basin and there would be improvements in the near future in the area including along Jackson Street. Mr. Cuttino asked about landscaping and how it would be maintained. Mr. Tarkin answered that it would be maintained by the HOA. Mr. McNeill asked how the maintenance would be accomplished. Mr. Neal suggested that the property could be deed restricted through the HOA. Ms. Campaigne moved for approval including staff comments; emphasizing the desire for the applicant to work with staff so trees currently shown on lot 9 are protected by adjusting the lot line between lot 9 and the proposed easement with final approval by staff. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked if the motion is intended to have the trees located in the HOA property. Ms. Campaigne answered in the negative and stated that she would not want the better quality trees to be potentially impacted because of moving the lot line. Mr. Wren amended the motion to include preservation of trees 54 and 39 with SCDOT approval. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked how the motion can be amended when the trees are in an SCDOT right-of-way. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this cannot be done and therefore the amendment is not valid. Mr. Wren withdrew his amendment. Mr. Neal withdrew his second. Mr. Neal asked if motion includes sidewalks on Jackson Street. Ms. Campaigne answered in the negative. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 9 of 14 D. Request to amend the Vegetation and Tree Protection divisions of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, pertaining to various sections regarding bufferyard requirements, special bufferyards including the Critical Line Buffer, and tree protection, removal and replacement requirements. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Mr. Wren asked the reason for the 160 inch requirement. Mr. Bernard reviewed the history of how this requirement was determined. Mr. Neal asked if the 160 inch requirement would be for residential and if they do not meet the requirement, they would have to plant additional trees. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if trees on HOA property would count toward the 160 inch requirement. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if trees on the perimeter of a pond would count. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill stated that when this was discussed in October 2017, surrounding municipalities have the same requirement. Mr. Bernard reviewed the critical line buffer requirements for Beaufort County with the Commission. Ms. Denise Holtz, Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, expressed concern with property rights and the inclusion of pine trees as a protected species. She suggested that pine trees should not be protected as they can be hazardous during storm events. She suggested that tree mitigation for pine trees should be one-to-one and not 1½. She suggested that pine trees should not be protected. Ms. Betty Niermann, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, suggested that pine and sweetgum trees should not be protected. She suggested that if pine trees are protected it should be specified that only long leaf and white pine trees are a protected species. She suggested that buffers for duplexes and townhomes when adjacent to other single family dwellings, vacant land, and streets should  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 10 of 14 not apply. She suggested that trees within wetlands, right-of-way, and ponds should count toward the 160 inch requirement. Mr. Mickey Seabrook, 732 Chatter Road, stated that he affirms his comments from the previous meeting regarding changes to the tree ordinance (attachment 3). He referred to an opinion from Snyder Tree Care regarding the suitability of pine, pecan and sweetgum trees and read a portion for the Commission. He stated that over the past few storm events there was significant property damage to his home due to falling pecan trees. Ms. Joan Spier, 1848 W. Canning Drive, expressed concern with tree removal for homes on custom lots and suggested that the tree ordinance should be enforced and the tree protection zones increased to better protect the trees during construction. She stated that she is in favor of protecting pine trees in groupings in common areas where they would not damage homes. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. McNeill suggested that the reason for protecting pine trees was to preserve a predominant species. He stated that he is opposed to clear cutting lots and suggested that this can only be done through preservation of the pine species. Mr. Millet suggested that the diameter requirement should be changed so that more trees are considered protected for all species. He suggested that lowering the diameter of residential trees that are protected to 13 inch trees would preserve more trees, including more oak trees. Ms. Smith suggested that moving the pine trees from category IV to category III is appropriate for retention of stormwater, mature root systems for better water quality, etc. Mr. Wren suggested that the replacement schedule could be changed if desired to allow less mitigation for existing residential. He asked if pine trees are protected in buffers. Mr. Bernard answered that only for special buffer areas. Mr. Neal suggested that the critical line setback should not be 50 feet for all property. He suggested that different areas should have different critical line  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 11 of 14 requirements. He suggested that the majority of correspondence was not in favor of protecting pine trees and suggested that this should be considered. Ms. Gregg referred to the Comprehensive Plan open house feedback and stated that the majority of the comments were in favor of protecting existing trees and buffers. She stated that the Town would be in line with other municipalities if the 160 inch requirement is applied to residential properties as well as commercial. She suggested that protection of pine trees is comparable to other municipalities as well. Ms. Campaigne stated that based on the correspondence, she has consulted forestry experts, refuge managers, and studies on long leaf pine trees and storm events. She stated that there is a difference with the pine tree species and suggested that there should be specification on which species are protected. She stated that the studies indicate that there was significantly more damage to other pine tree species when compared to the long leaf pine species. She suggested that flooding risk should be lessened and suggested that construction should not be allowed where there has been 50% or more damage from flooding and storm events. Mr. Lehman agreed with Ms. Gregg, Ms. Campaigne, and Ms. Smith’s comments. Ms. Smith agreed with Ms. Campaigne regarding the pine species but suggested that the majority of the pine species are the faster growing species planted for harvesting. She suggested that trees should be maintained to preserve the overall tree canopy. Ms. Campaigne moved to define the inclusion of pine species as protected to long leaf pine species. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that white pines were also recommended for protection and asked if this should be included. Ms. Campaigne answered that she is not as familiar with the white pine tree and suggested that there would be limited numbers of these types of trees. Mr. McNeill asked the difference between the pine species. Mr. Bernard answered that often the surveyors do not know the difference between species.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 12 of 14 He stated that there are small clusters of long leaf pines; loblolly and slash are the predominate species. Mr. McNeill expressed concern with enforcement. Mr. Bernard answered that it can be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Ms. Campaigne stated that other municipalities make the species distinction. She suggested that there would be more exceptions where the particular pine tree was not protected. Mr. Millet suggested that more trees should be preserved. Mr. Millet moved to amend the motion to include that the caliper of tree protected be reduced from 16 inches to 13 inches for all protected tree species. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this would not be an amendment to the motion and is therefore not valid. The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. Neal asked if removal of a pine tree would require approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA). Mr. Bernard answered that only historic trees would require BOZA approval. Ms. Smith stated that the Commission has extensively worked on these changes and suggested that while everyone could have certain aspects that they would like to change, as a whole the amendments reflect the majority of the Commission. Mr. Wren asked how many long leaf pines are in the Town. Mr. Bernard answered that there are approximately 4 areas where they are predominant or approximately 3% of the pine trees for the entire Town. Mr. Neal stated that this is on the agenda for discussion and should be fully vetted before moving forward to the Planning Committee. Ms. Smith agreed. Ms. Gregg stated that there are several neighborhoods that have a significant number of pine trees that have survived storm events.  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 5 to 4 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, and Ms. Smith opposed. Mr. Millet moved to approve the reduction of the caliper of protected residential trees from 16 inches to 13 inches to preserve more trees in the protected classes. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. Mr. Wren asked if after 13 inches, is there a better root system. Mr. Bernard answered that it depends more on soil conditions, aeration, and water supply. Mr. Neal asked what other municipalities’ requirements are. Mr. McNeill referred to the information provided at the October 2017 meeting. Mr. McNeill suggested that 8 inches across the board should be considered. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 6 vote with Mr. Wren, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Ms. Smith, Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino opposed. Mr. Millet moved to reduce the caliper of protected residential trees from 16 inches to 8 inches. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 7 vote with Ms. Gregg and Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino opposed. Ms. Campaigne moved for approval for existing homes damaged 50% or more must be rebuilt to 50 ft buffer standard or request a waiver. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked if this would apply for zoning code. Mr. Prause answered that this requirement currently exists in the Zoning Code under §156.132. Ms. Campaigne withdrew her motion. Mr. Neal withdrew his second. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the amendments to the tree and buffer ordinances including the amendment of inclusion of protecting long leaf pine tree species. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 2  Planning Commission February 21, 2018 Page 14 of 14 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Ms. Lehman, and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino opposed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn02212018