Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2018 MINUTES Planning Commission PowerPoint Presentation Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, Tripp Cuttino. Absent: Peter Lehman, DeAudre Gregg (both excused) Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm and welcomed Mr. Gates as newest Commission member. 1. Approval of Minutes from March 21, 2018 Meeting Mr. Millet moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. Mr. McNeill asked about the changes to the tree and buffer ordinances. Ms. Canon answered that the Planning Committee asked staff to make some additional changes. She stated that there would be continued discussion with the Planning Committee at the May meetings being held on April 30th. Mr. McNeill asked what concerns of the Planning Committee had. Ms. Canon answered that the Planning Committee wanted to see some changes to the buffer requirements and some changes on the species and size of protected trees. Mr. Neal asked about the Medal of Honor Museum. Ms. Canon answered that the Planning Committee deferred the request for 60 days. Mr. Neal asked if the request would come back to the Commission. Ms. Canon answered that if there are significant changes, there is the possibility that the request would come back to the Commission for an additional public hearing. 3. Correspondence and Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda.  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 7 4. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process Ms. Boyles updated that Commission on the Comprehensive Plan update process. She stated that the next forum meeting would be held on May 1 st. She stated that there would be an additional open house on June 5th and would focus on LRTP and land use issues. Mr. McNeill asked about financial resiliency. Ms. Boyles answered that it refers to long-term financial implications on the recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that one issue is how the Town would maintain financial stability as the growth of the Town slows. Mr. Wren asked about the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and how this would be handled. Ms. Boyles answered that it is a separate plan being completed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that because of the land use implications, the LRTP logistically is completed after the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McNeill asked about the timeframe for approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Boyles answered that the plan will be drafted over the summer after the open house in June. She stated that once the draft plan is completed, another open house would be held and then the draft plan would go to the Commission for a public hearing and review. She stated that the Commission might need additional meetings to review the entire document. Ms. Smith agreed that there should be sufficient review time and suggested that any special meetings should be considered well in advance. Mr. Wren agreed. 5. Requests A. Case #R-10-18, Rezone two parcels from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Also request to remove both parcels from the Hungryneck Boulevard-Venning Road Overlay District (HNB-VR- OD), located at 1124 and 1126 Venning Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 558-00- 00-192 and 558-00-00-052 Mr. Rutherford reviewed the staff report with the Commission.  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Neal asked about if the two adjacent roads are town roads and fully constructed and does Lacannon connect to Hungryneck Blvd. Mr. Rutherford answered that the roads are county roads and Lacannon does not connect to Hungryneck Blvd. He stated that both roadways are not fully constructed. Ms. Smith asked how the violation was determined. Mr. Rutherford answered that it was determined through a windshield survey of the property. Ms. Smith asked if there have been any neighborhood complaints. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative. Ms. Smith asked how long the violation has occurred. Mr. Rutherford answered that based on aerial photos, it appears the violation has occurred for the past couple of years. Mr. Millet asked if the construction business was located on the property when annexed. Ms. Canon answered that in reviewing the county tax records, it appears that there was an office use at the time of annexation. Mr. Millet asked when the HNB-VR-OD was established. Mr. Rutherford answered that it was established in 2006. Mr. Millet asked the reason for approval of the AB zoning. Mr. Rutherford answered that the AB zoning was consistent with the existing use of the property at that time. Mr. Millet asked what the underlying zoning is. Mr. Rutherford answered that it is AB. Mr. McNeill asked what is located adjacent to the property. Mr. Rutherford answered that it is an orthodontist office. Mr. McNeill noted that there are commercial uses surrounding this property. He stated that a special exception would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) for the outdoor storage. Ms. Smith asked about outdoor storage on some properties on the same road. Mr. Rutherford answered that the property is in the county. Mr. Gates asked if the submittal should be accurate and are considered legal documents. Mr. Pagliarini answered that staff reviews the submittal to determine if the application is complete. Mr. Greg St. Pierre, applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that they are not opposed to remaining in the HNB-VR-OD. He stated that there have been no complaints from the neighbors on the current use of  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 4 of 7 the property. He stated that they are requesting the rezoning to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Neal asked if the reason for the request is because of a code violation. Mr. St. Pierre answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if there is a privacy fence around the property. Mr. St. Pierre answered in the affirmative and stated that there is an eight-foot privacy fence with landscaping. Mr. Neal asked how the property is accessed. Mr. St. Pierre answered that there is access from Venning Road and Lacannon Lane. Mr. Neal asked if the access is paved. Mr. St. Pierre answered in the negative and stated that it is a gravel road. Mr. Millet asked about the boat storage. Mr. St. Pierre answered that they allow boat storage in the overflow parking areas. Mr. Millet asked if they charge for the boat storage fee. Mr. St. Pierre answered in the negative. Mr. Neal stated that he is supportive of the request as it would bring the property into compliance. Mr. Millet asked about the removal from the HNB-VR-OD. Ms. Canon answered that staff explained the requirements of the HNB-VR-OD with the applicant prior to their submittal. She stated that because the request does not meet the intent of the HNB-VR-OD, staff recommended not including the property in the HNB- VR-OD; however, there is nothing in the overlay provisions that would prohibit the applicant from conducting the business as it is if it were to remain in the overlay. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith expressed concern with AB-2 as it would allow self-storage units. Mr. Rutherford answered that self-storage would require a conditional use approval. Mr. Millet asked if there are restrictions on what type of storage is included in the special exception for the outdoor storage. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that the special exception would be tied to a site plan and a specific use.  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Wren asked if hotels are allowed in AB-2. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative and stated that the overlay does restrict commercial building size to 15,000 square feet. Mr. McNeill asked if a special exception and DRB approval would still be required. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative. Mr. Gates asked if the uses would be restricted according to the corporate documents and the uses allowed under the corporate documents. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the zoning would be approved for the property and not the specific user or owner. The zoning would dictate the types of uses allowed. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Wren asked if the property should remain in the HNB-VR-OD. Mr. Millet withdrew his motion. Mr. Neal withdrew his second. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the rezoning request including all staff comments and denial of the request to remove the property from the HNB-VR- OD. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren thanked staff for their work regarding code enforcement. B. Proposal to amend the following sections of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the attendance provisions for all Board and Commission members: Planning Commission section 156.400; Board of Zoning Appeals section 156.410; Design Review Board section 156.420; Historical Commission section 156.440; Construction Board of Adjustments section 150.003; Old Village Historic District Commission section 156.430; and Cultural Arts and Pride Commission section 32.32 Ms. Canon reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Pagliarini clarified that this was initiated by Town Council. Mr. McNeill asked for clarification on the language “appears imminent”. Mr. Pagliarini agreed that this language is not clear and could be changed. Mr. McNeill asked if the excused absence would count toward the 75% attendance.  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Pagliarini answered that the excused absence would not count toward the 75% attendance. Mr. McNeill asked who would track the attendance. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this is still to be determined, but once determined that the attendance has not been met, the Town Administrator would be responsible for notifying the commission member of their removal. Mr. Millet asked if the attendance would include special meetings. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the attendance pertains to all called meetings. Ms. Smith asked how many Commissioners have not met the 75% attendance to date. Mr. Pagliarini answered that he was not sure. Mr. Wren asked if the special meetings would be included and suggested that this could be problematic as these meetings are not regularly scheduled. He expressed concern that the special meetings are not advertised in advance and based on when scheduled could be a conflict with commission member work schedules. He suggested that it should be clarified who would keep track of the absences and suggested that the chair and a staff person should be responsible for tracking the absences. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this recommendation could be forwarded for consideration. Mr. McNeill suggested that the commission members should be notified when they are in danger of not meeting the attendance requirement. Mr. Cuttino asked when the ordinance would take effect. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this would need to be clarified by Town Council as to what the effective date would be and if it would apply retroactively. Mr. Gates suggested that attendance should be tracked by Human Resources. Mr. Neal asked if it is clarified what is considered attending a meeting. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the negative and stated that this is not clarified in the current ordinance. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the request including all comments from Commission. Mr. Wren seconded the motion.  Planning Commission April 18, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Pagliarini clarified the recommended changes as follows: ➢ Change “appears imminent” ➢ Prior notice changed to chair and staff ➢ Consideration of clarifying what constitutes attendance at a meeting Mr. Cuttino asked about recommending an effective date. Mr. Pagliarini answered that a recommendation could be made if desired. Mr. Cuttino moved to amend the motion to recommend that the effective date of the ordinance be January 1, 2019. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Ms. Smith suggested that the recommended effective date was fair as it would not penalize members for prior absences. Mr. Wren suggested that having the attendance based on a calendar year would be easier to administer. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amendment. All in favor. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:03 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn04182018