Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES Green arrows in Minutes are hyperlinks to the recording. Attachment 1—Staff Report Attachment 2—Zoning Administrator Letter PowerPoint Presentation Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, Tripp Cuttino, DeAudre Gregg, Peter Lehman (5:07 pm). Staff: Jeff Ulma, Lee Cave, David Pagliarini, Kent Prause, Liz Boyles, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Eddie Bernard, Austin Rutherford, Marissa Poultney, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from June 20, 2018 Meeting Mr. Millet moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Neal moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Mr. Gates suggested that some of the applications are not properly signed and are missing property owner information, particularly for those that are owned by an LLC. He suggested that they should be considered incomplete and taken off the agenda. Ms. Canon asked for clarification. Mr. Gates stated that individuals are signing for the corporations, but there is no documentation that they have the authority to do so. Mr. Pagliarini stated that an issue has not been brought to his attention to be reviewed. He suggested that this should be discussed when the item is discussed and not automatically taken off the agenda. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 2 of 27 3. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission 4. Correspondence and Public Comments Ms. Canon stated that correspondence received before noon today was forwarded to the Commission and posted on the website. Mr. John Smith, 1700 Fairway Place Lane, referred to item R-15-18 and stated that he and many of his neighbors are opposed to the request. He suggested that the site plan was not to scale and did not include detail. He suggested that the plan shows the removal of a residence and the neighborhood pool. He stated that his understanding was that the property would be kept for drainage with no additional construction. He suggested that there is not sufficient space for the requested commercial use. He expressed concern with a commercial use being located at the entrance of a residential neighborhood and the additional traffic that would result. Mr. Lehman entered at this time (5:07 pm). Ms. Eve Jonteau, 1496 Seminole St, referred to the proposed changes to the Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-OD) and stated that she is in favor of the request. She stated that she is opposed to any waivers of the land development regulations (LDR) as requested for the subdivision of property on McCants and suggested that there is not sufficient drainage for the property. She stated that she would be in favor of a moratorium for future construction. Mr. Keith Lipsky, 1677 Fairway Place Lane, stated that in regard to R-15-18, the road should remain for residential use and suggested that if developed, it should have more trees provided on the property. He expressed concern with the proposed use increasing traffic in the area. He suggested that there should be less businesses. Mr. Loren Collins, 1684 Fairway Place, referred to item R-15-18 and expressed concern with bike safety in his neighborhood. He stated that there is already significant traffic and there should not be an increase of traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Edward Smith, 1714 Greystone Blvd, referred to R-15-18, and expressed concern with green space. He suggested that the green space would be affected if  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 3 of 27 this property is developed and the requested use would be in close proximity to the neighborhood pool. He expressed concern that there would not be sufficient drainage for the neighborhood as the existing pond is part of the neighborhood drainage. He expressed concern with the proposed curb cuts and that it would pose safety issues both on US17 and at the entrance to the neighborhood. He suggested that this proposal would significantly change the neighborhood. Mr. Phillip Wolff, 1641 Fairway Place, referred to R-15-18, stated that he is not opposed to development, but expressed concern that the class code for the property states that the property is undevelopable. He suggested that a coffee shop is not needed in the neighborhood and expressed concern that the customer volume would cause traffic issues. He suggested that another location should be considered. Mr. Paul Basil, 1711 Greystone, referred to item R-15-18 and stated that he is concerned with traffic as well. He suggested that retail would not be an appropriate use at this location. He expressed concern with drainage and that this request would exacerbate the drainage issues. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 5. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process Ms. Boyles updated the Commission on the Comprehensive Plan update. She stated that the next forum meeting would be held on September 6th and would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review once the Forum has completed their review. Mr. Neal asked about additional efforts to receive more comments and response from the residents. He suggested that a 2.5% response from the public is not sufficient and asked if there is a way to receive more responses and comments. Ms. Boyles answered that staff has exhausted all avenues in trying to have residents respond and comment on these issues. Mr. Gates asked the public if they have filled out the survey. Mr. Wren raised a point of order and stated that questions should be directed to either staff or applicants.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 4 of 27 6. Unfinished Business A. Proposal to amend Chapter 156, Zoning Code, pertaining to Telecommunications Towers by adding a new section 156.121 regulating Small Wireless Facilities. (Deferred from June 20th meeting) Mr. Wren stated that the public hearing was kept open from the previous meeting. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Smith asked if staff is comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative and stated that initially it was thought that the model ordinance from the Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASC) would be sufficient, but after review by staff and legal counsel, it was determined that more modifications were necessary. Mr. Jack Mitchell, Regional Director for AT&T, stated that they have been working with staff and his legal counsel has reviewed the draft amendment. He expressed concern with some of the modifications proposed and suggested that the MASC model ordinance should be utilized. He expressed concern with the review times outlined in the draft ordinance. He also expressed concern with the potential authority of the Town to deny requests for placement in the ROW. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the text amendments as presented. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. 7. Requests A. R-15-18, Request to amend the Greystone PD, Planned Development District Ordinance (Ordinance No. 93067, as amended), with regards to the allowable uses, access, buffer requirements and drainage, specific to Tract B, located at Greystone Boulevard/N. Highway 17. TMS #557-00-00-090. Mr. Rutherford reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 5 of 27 Mr. Wren asked about the joint buffer and if this is met with the existing site plan. Mr. Rutherford answered that a survey would be needed in order to verify that the 25 foot buffer is in place. Mr. Neal asked if this use is included in the PD. Mr. Rutherford answered that the property only allows stormwater detention on this parcel. Mr. Neal asked if the Comprehensive Plan recommendation is for high density use. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative. Ms. Smith asked if the designated stormwater detention use was included when the PD was created. Mr. Rutherford answered that a PD amendment in 1994 approved the new designations for the two front parcels. Mr. Fred Whittle, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. He noted that the plan submitted is a conceptual plan and is not necessarily to scale. Mr. Gates asked about state encroachment permits for the entrance and asked if there has been any preliminary discussion. Mr. Whittle answered in the negative. Mr. Gates suggested that the applicant is “flying blind”. Mr. Whittle answered that it is not unusual that approval from SCDOT is not secured at this point of the approval process. Mr. Gates asked if it is anticipated to request a northbound left from US17 into this property. Mr. Whittle answered in the negative and stated that the intersection would be utilized to access the property from US17 heading northbound. Mr. Neal asked if the applicant has reached out to the neighborhood. He suggested that a deferral might be appropriate in order for the applicant to have that discussion with the neighborhood. Mr. Wren raised a point of order that this is a public hearing and suggested that the issue could not be deferred. Mr. Prause answered that a special meeting would have to be scheduled if the public hearing was kept open to make a recommendation within the required 30-day timeframe. Mr. McNeill asked if the property would be utilized for both the proposed coffee shop and self-storage. Mr. Whittle answered that the request is for either use, not both.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 6 of 27 Ms. Angie Inscore, 1715 Greystone Blvd, stated that she is a member of the HOA Board. She expressed concern with safety issues and traffic at the private entrance to the neighborhood. She expressed concern with traffic and child safety and suggested that this request would increase the traffic and safety concerns. She stated that it is a quiet neighborhood and suggested that if approved, the proposal would affect the character of the neighborhood. She stated that she is opposed to the request. Ms. Peggy Maulden, 1715 Greystone Blvd, stated that her understanding was that when the storage units were constructed that the other property would not be utilized. She expressed concern with property values. She suggested that this is not an appropriate use for the property. Mr. Gary Santos, 1690 Greystone Blvd, referred to the impact assessment for the property that was approved in November 1993 and stated that it indicates the property would be utilized for stormwater detention. He expressed concern with not being able to condition zoning and that the use cannot be specified. He stated that the impact assessment indicates that there would not be any vehicular access for tract B. He stated that the property has a lot of wildlife on the property. He suggested that the current zoning should remain in place and the request denied. Ms. Cherie Barotti, 1714 Greystone Blvd, stated that she would not have moved to this location if she knew that this property would be developed as proposed. She expressed concern with increasing traffic and safety issues. She expressed concern with the proposed location of the pond and its proximity to the neighborhood pool. Mr. Philip Wolff expressed concern with increased traffic and that the turn lanes at the entrance intersection would need to be lengthened and widened in order to accommodate the traffic and that there would not be sufficient right-of-way to do so. He also expressed concern that this would be an added burden for the residents of the Town. Mr. John Smith expressed concern that the request would increase traffic on Greystone Blvd. He stated that if approved, traffic would increase and cause  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 7 of 27 more cut-through traffic. He expressed concern with the property owner for the storage units and that the property is not well-maintained. Ms. Denise Mann, 1324 Bluebird Dr, expressed concern with property near residential being rezoned for commercial use. She suggested that it would adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. W.L. Davis, 3 Edenton, suggested that the property should remain as it currently exists and is zoned, particularly because it provides drainage retention. Mr. Whittle noted that the applicant does not own the storage unit property. Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Canon clarified that this is a PD amendment, so only the specific uses requested, if approved, would be allowed. She stated that the conceptual plan submitted would not be the zoning map that is required for the PD amendment. Ms. Gregg asked about the encroachment permit. Mr. Rutherford answered that along with the encroachment permit, a study could be required determine if any further improvements would be needed for the intersection. Ms. Smith stated that this has been used for drainage for 25 years and there is an expectation that it would remain for that use. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. B. SP-04-18, Request approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision of 14 Vincent Drive into two single-family residential lots zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, located at 14 Vincent Drive (on the corner of Vincent Dr. and Pearl Ave.). TMS No.: 535-13-00-066 Ms. Poultney reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Hilary White, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 8 of 27 Mr. Wren asked if the applicant is amenable to all staff comments. Ms. White answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked about drainage on Vincent and Pearl Drives and how the request would affect the existing drainage. Ms. Poultney answered that there is a ditch on Vincent Drive and suggested that the drainage would be routed to that area. Mr. Neal asked if any restrictions would be needed for drainage and if the subdivision would cause any additional drainage issues. Ms. Poultney answered that a stormwater plan would have to be submitted, but there is no concern at this time regarding impervious surface. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request including all staff comments. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. Mr. Wren expressed concern with the subdivision and what the recommendation would be with the Comprehensive Plan update being reviewed. Mr. Neal stated that it conforms with the other properties in the area and there appears to be no opposition to the request. Ms. Smith noted that the lots can be created without any LDR waivers. Mr. Wren asked if the property is posted. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that only requests requiring a public hearing are required to have the property posted. Mr. Wren asked if this has been considered. Ms. Canon answered in the negative as it is not a public hearing. Mr. Wren suggested that this should be considered for future requests. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. C. R-16-18, Request to rezone from First Baptist Church North PD-MU-SR, Planned Development – Mixed Use Suburban-Rural, to AB, Areawide Business District, located at George Browder Boulevard/ North Highway 17. TMS No.: 598-00-00-404 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 9 of 27 Mr. McNeill asked why an easement would be needed. Ms. Canon answered that a sliver of the Publix property follows along George Browder, so an easement would be needed to cross this property. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. McNeill asked if the intention is to have a bank located on the property. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if a sketch plan has been submitted. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. Neal suggested that it is difficult to support the request without a sketch plan. Ms. Canon answered that a sketch plan is not required to be submitted for rezoning requests. Mr. Neal asked if George Browder is a Town road. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked if the easement should be included in the request. Ms. Canon answered that this is a rezoning request, so conditions cannot be placed on the approval. Ms. Canon stated that she only mentioned it so that the applicant was aware on the record. Mr. Wren suggested that the requested zoning is appropriate. Mr. McNeill asked if the AB property has access from US17. Ms. Canon answered that there is currently no development plan, but suggested that access for the property would be from George Browder Blvd. Mr. Gates stated that the applicant is not present and the property is owned by a bank. He suggested that there is no indication that the bank desires the property to be rezoned and no corporate title was submitted with the application. Mr. Wren state that the applicant is not required to attend. Mr. Wren moved for approval of the request. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. D. R-17-18, Request to rezone from First Baptist Church North PD-MU-SR, Planned Development – Mixed Use Suburban-Rural, to PI-1, Public  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 10 of 27 Institutional-1 District, located at 1151 George Browder Boulevard. TMS #: 598-00-00-007 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Giles Branch stated that he is available for questions. Mr. Wren asked if the church still owns the property. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal asked if there is a conceptual plan. Mr. Branch answered that there is an approved master plan for the property. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. E. SP-05-18, Request approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision of 922 McCants Drive into two single-family residential lots zoned R-2, Low Density Residential District, and SR2-OD, Special R-2 Overlay District. Also request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations, located at 922 McCants Drive. TMS No.: 532-07-00-036 Ms. Poultney reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. John Popelka, applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if the curb cuts would remain. Mr. Popelka answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren asked if any variances would be needed. Mr. Popelka answered in the negative. Mr. Neal suggested that the LDR waiver would be appropriate as it would allow conformance with the neighboring lots. Mr. Popelka agreed. Mr. Neal asked about drainage. Mr. Popelka answered that a stormwater drainage plan was submitted with the request and stated that they will work with staff to ensure all drainage requirements are met.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 11 of 27 Mr. Cuttino asked if the homes would be kept positioned closer to McCants. Mr. Popelka answered that they intend to have a larger backyard with the homes closer to McCants. Mr. Cuttino suggested that having the homes positioned closer to McCants would provide consistency with the streetscape. Mr. Neal asked if staff has any concerns regarding drainage. Mr. Mitchell answered that drainage is a concern in this area as there is no formal drainage system. He stated that the impervious surface runoff would have to be contained onsite. He stated that staff would be working with the engineer to ensure there is no impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Neal asked if the intention is to provide improvements for the site. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that it is the reason for the new requirements for the Old Village area. Ms. Gregg asked the timeline for final stormwater approval. Mr. Mitchell answered that staff would review the drainage plans and once approved, they would be able to move forward with removal of the home, have the subdivision of the lot approved, and submit an application for a building permit. He stated that the drainage improvements would be inspected as the project progresses. Mr. Wren commended staff for their work on improving stormwater in this critical area and asked if the drainage study would be required if not subdivided. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that a drainage plan would be required prior to any construction. Mr. Cuttino moved for approval including all comments with the condition that the builder keep construction in line with streetscape. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. F. SP-06-18, Request approval of Sketch Plan for subdivision of Fulton Phase II to create 5 single family residential lots zoned PD, Planned Development District. Also request approval of Waiver from Land Development Regulations, located at Fulton Hall Road. TMS No.: 578-00-00-018 and 578- 00-00-053 Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 12 of 27 Mr. Branch reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked how lot 67 would be accessed. Mr. Branch answered that it would be accessed from a 20-foot easement. Mr. Neal asked if this would be a Town road. Mr. Branch answered that it would be owned by the HOA with an access easement for lot 67 and the HOA pond. Mr. Wren asked if this is adding more lots than was previously approved in the PD Ordinance. Mr. Branch answered in the negative. Mr. Wren asked if an impact assessment was required. Mr. Branch answered in the negative. Mr. McNeill asked if any trees would be removed. Mr. Branch answered that no protected trees would be removed. Mr. Neal expressed concern with the access easement. Mr. Mitchell answered that access is needed for the pond so it was determined that an access easement over HOA property would be the better option as opposed to having an access easement over private property. Mr. Wren asked how the plat was previously configured. Mr. Mitchell answered that the easement portion was previously part of lot 67 because the PD Ordinance allows flag lot configuration. Mr. Neal stated that he would like to see approval from all entities and expressed concern with emergency vehicle access and trash pickup. Mr. Mitchell answered that emergency vehicles would have access to the easement and trash pickup would have to be noted that it would be from the main roadway on the final plat. Mr. McNeill asked if the access to the pond currently exists. Mr. Mitchell answered that there is a drainage easement. Mr. McNeill asked if the existing drainage easement is the same one being proposed. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill asked if the HOA is comfortable with the easement. Mr. Mitchell answered that he believes the developer controls the HOA. Ms. Gregg suggested that this was a “peculiar PD” as it is in the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District (SB-OD) but allows for lot sizes and flag lots that don’t conform to the requirements of the Overlay.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 13 of 27 Ms. Smith suggested that lot 67 should be eliminated. Mr. Neal asked if the sketch plan meets the requirements, can it be denied. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the Town has rules and regulations that must be followed and any denial should be justified. Mr. McNeill agreed that he has concerns with the request, but it appears to conform with the PD. He suggested that if staff is comfortable with the request then he is comfortable approving it. Mr. Millet agreed and suggested that it is difficult to deny a request if it legally meets the requirements of the ordinances. Mr. Neal moved for approval. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. Mr. Wren agreed that this is a very unique PD, but it appears to meet the requirements. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. G. R-18-18, Request to amend the I’On PD, Planned Development District Ordinance (Ord. No. 97010, as amended) by adding an event venue as an additional Permitted Use on one parcel, located at 264 North Shelmore Boulevard. TMS No.: 535-06-00-391 Mr. Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Rutherford reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked if the restroom facilities would have to be permanent onsite. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked about the roads. Mr. Rutherford answered that they are Town- owned roads. Mr. Millet asked about parking. Mr. Rutherford answered that the I’On PD establishes its own parking standards, and where they don’t then the Town’s standards regulate. He stated that applicant has requested, through the PD Amendment, to not be subject to any parking requirements within the  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 14 of 27 PD or the Town Ordinances, but to utilize existing parking to meet the requirements. He further stated that if subject to the regular parking requirements then more spaces would be required as it is based on the ULI standards. He also stated that the ADA parking standards are based on the number of parking spaces required. Ms. Melinda Armstrong, owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. She stated that she has reached an agreement with the I’On HOA regarding requirements for the use in the neighborhood and reviewed these with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if the request can be conditioned. Mr. Pagliarini answered that any conditions would be included in the ordinance. Mr. Gates asked about access from the handicap ramp. Ms. Armstrong answered that there is a ramp located next to the driveway and pointed this out on the photo for the Commission. Mr. Gates asked how the number of participants for community meetings would be limited. Ms. Armstrong answered that the details on what community uses would be held in the space would be worked out with the HOA. Mr. Gates asked about catering and if this has been considered. Ms. Armstrong answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wilbur Davis, 3 Edenton Rd, expressed concern with traffic and parking. He stated that there is a safety issue as it is very difficult to see around the cars parked along the roadway. Ms. Debra Howard, 240 Pondsbury Rd, asked that the request be denied. She expressed concern that there is not sufficient parking for the neighborhood. She further expressed concern with access for emergency vehicles because of the on-street parking. Mr. Chris Moss, 193 N. Shelmore, expressed concern with on-street parking and that there would not be sufficient parking for the requested use. He suggested that the on-street parking renders the road a one-way street. Mr. Casy Brogden, 209 N. Shelmore, expressed concern with the lack of parking on N. Shelmore. He expressed concern with alcohol being served at the venue and suggested that this request would affect the quality of life of residents. He  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 15 of 27 expressed concern with access for emergency vehicles. He suggested that the request should be denied. Ms. Courtney Brady, 230 N. Shelmore, stated that she is in favor of the request. She stated that there are parking issues in the neighborhood, but suggested that the parking would not be an issue during the time events would be held. She stated that Ms. Armstrong has been a good and responsible neighbor. Ms. Nancy, Zisk, 151 I’Onsborough, expressed concern with the proposed use for events. She expressed concern with the on-street parking and being able to access the roadways. Mr. Mike Russo, 42 Saturday Rd, stated that the average event at the Creek Club is approximately 95 participants with approximately 100 events a year. He stated that parking is an issue in the neighborhood. He stated that even though there is parking at the Creek Club with additional parking adjacent to the Creek Club people still have to park on the street. He suggested that the event use would mean that cars are parked for several hours as opposed to a restaurant or retail use where the parking would be approximately one hour. Mr. Joseph Barnes, 27 Mobile St, stated that he is in favor of the request. He commended the applicant for being open and transparent about the request and reaching out to the neighbors regarding this request. He stated that some concerns voiced are the same voiced when the I’On subdivision was proposed. Ms. Ashley Clinton, 121 Jakes Lane, stated that she is in favor of the request. She stated that I’On is an urbanized neighborhood that supports several businesses that serve alcohol and there are no problems with these businesses affecting the character of the neighborhood. She does not see that this use would not be an issue as well. She stated that traffic is an issue, but has been for many years. She asked that the request be approved. Mr. Mark Maguire, 23 Unwin Way, expressed concern with the HOA negotiating with the applicant and stated that the residents have not been informed of any negotiations with the applicant. He stated that there is a significant parking issue for the neighborhood. He suggested that this plan would not benefit the neighborhood, but would benefit the owner. He stated that he is opposed to the request.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 16 of 27 Mr. Lawrence Otto, 313 N. Shelmore, stated that he is opposed to the request and suggested that I’On is not an appropriate location for event venues. He stated that the existing venues in the neighborhood are sufficient. He expressed concern with traffic and stated that Shelmore is essentially a one-way street because of the amount of on-street parking. Mr. David Beckman, 19 McDaniel Lane, stated that he is opposed to the request. He suggested that there is not sufficient space on N. Shelmore for two-way traffic. He stated that the church across the street uses on-street parking because it does not have its own parking lot. He expressed concern that there would be an event at the same time the church is having an event and an event at Maybank Green, which would mean the street would be completely blocked. Mr. Serge Papatakis, 197 N. Shelmore, stated that he is opposed to the request. He suggested that there are too many different uses proposed for the location. Ms. Pascale Luse, 21 Fair Lane, stated that because of the traffic issues, many people use Faye Lane and Latitude Lane, which is a one-way street, because of the traffic on N. Shelmore. She expressed concern with vehicles speeding on the residential roads and that it causes a safety issue. She suggested that it is “absurd” to have this type of use in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She suggested that an event venue use at this location is not appropriate. Mr. Jim Luse, 21 Fair Lane, expressed concern that this request is in the center of a residential neighborhood. He stated that the commercial and retail uses are located on the periphery of the neighborhood. He suggested that it is not an appropriate location for the request and that it should be located on the periphery of I’On with the other businesses and not in the center of the neighborhood. Mr. Jody McCauley, 94 Ponsbury Rd and president of I’On HOA, stated that the HOA has been working with the applicant to reach an agreement. He stated that commercial uses are allowed in the neighborhood as was approved many years ago. He suggested that it is important to support local businesses not only within I’On but throughout the Town. He stated that parking is an issue, but on- street parking was approved when the neighborhood was created and each residence is allowed two on-street parking spaces. He suggested that they have  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 17 of 27 come to an agreement with the applicant that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Amanda Williams, 176 Civitas, suggested that the HOA Board should not speak for the entire neighborhood. She suggested that the HOA should survey the entire neighborhood rather than making the decision amongst the HOA Board. Ms. Monica Von Miller, 37 Jane Jacobs St, expressed concern with child safety. She suggested that the request is not in the best interest of the community and would adversely affect the community. She suggested that the request should be denied. Mr. George Fisher, 35 Frogmore Rd, stated that business uses are confined to a two-block area at the entrance of the neighborhood. He stated that N. Shelmore is a major neighborhood thoroughfare and parking is a major issue for that roadway. Mr. Harvey Mason, 54 Sowell St, expressed concern with traffic safety and that it is difficult to see around all of the cars parked on the street. He stated that he is opposed to the request. Ms. Kimberly Moss, 193 N. Shelmore, expressed concern with the HOA Board entering into an agreement with the applicant without the neighborhood community discussing the agreement and giving approval. She suggested that the request be denied. Ms. Esther Beckman, 19 McDaniel Lane, expressed concern with parking and that the property is located in the middle of the neighborhood. She expressed concern that it would be “dangerous” to have the requested use at this location. She expressed concern with parking, traffic, and access for emergency vehicles. She expressed concern with the requested property being properly maintained. She suggested that this request would be a detriment to the residents and the community. She stated that she is opposed to the request. Ms. Armstrong, applicant, stated that the property was posted, she posted the information on the neighborhood website, and she has been available to answer any questions the residents might have. She suggested that the HOA received  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 18 of 27 favorable responses to the request and that the HOA would not be entering into an agreement with her without having that favorable response. She stated that there is illegal parking throughout the neighborhood that exacerbates the traffic issue. She suggested that the request and the agreement with the HOA would be in keeping with the I’On community. Mr. Millet asked about the agreement with the HOA and how the number of participants would be limited for events. Ms. Armstrong answered that it would be controlled through a contract with the customers and would be spelled out in the contract. Additionally, she stated that she lives onsite. Mr. Cuttino thanked Ms. Armstrong for reaching out to the HOA and asked if the agreement with the HOA has been finalized or if the number of participants could be further reduced to help the other residents be more comfortable with the request. He suggested that this type of venue could be a benefit to the neighborhood. He suggested that some additional negotiations could be accomplished that would provide a more manageable resolution for all involved. Ms. Gregg asked how the parking might be better handled during events. Ms. Armstrong answered that they have considered offering shuttle service. She stated that they encourage ride sharing and car-pooling as well. She stated that parking was addressed in the agreement with the HOA. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Wren asked what other commercial uses would be allowed. Mr. Rutherford stated that because the PD states that Neighborhood Commercial uses are permitted on the property, this would include restaurant uses, limited retail, etc. Mr. Wren asked if this was denied, would there be the ability to re-apply. Mr. Rutherford answered that a waiver from Town Council would have to be requested to apply for the same use within one year. Mr. Cuttino asked if the request could be conditioned to limit parking. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative but that that it would be difficult to enforce.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 19 of 27 Ms. Smith stated that the zoning would apply to the parcel regardless of the owner. She suggested that the developer envisioned these parcels to be utilized for small retail uses as allowed under NC zoning that would be in close proximity to residential uses to provide small retail uses. She suggested that the location of the parcel in conjunction with the proposed use and existing parking issues is a major concern. In addition, she expressed concern with noise and unruly guests. She suggested that this is not an appropriate location for an event venue. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Gates seconded the motion. Mr. Wren stated that he would like to see negotiations with the HOA continue to try to come to an amenable resolution, especially since the property is already zoned Neighborhood Commercial. He stated that the Commission makes a recommendation to Town Council and that Town Council would have the final decision. Mr. McNeill asked if a bar would be allowed under NC zoning. Mr. Rutherford answered that there are state laws governing alcohol sales in proximity to schools and churches. Ms. Canon answered that a bar, nightclub, or lounge would not be allowed, but a restaurant that serves alcohol with outdoor dining would be a permitted use, provided all applicable development standards were met. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 1 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. Cuttino opposed; and Mr. Neal abstaining. The Commission convened for a short break at 8:15 pm and reconvened at 8:23 pm. H. SP-07-18, Request approval of Sketch Plan for Carolina Park Phase G, 25 single family residential lots zoned PD, Planned Development District, located off Bolden Drive.TMS No.: 540-00-00-022 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 20 of 27 Mr. Wren asked about the critical line. Ms. Frances Timmons, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, stated that due to staff turnover at OCRM, the written approval has been delayed; however, she stated that they anticipated written approval from OCRM prior to preliminary plat approval. Mr. Neal asked if the applicant is amenable with all staff comments. Ms. Timmons answered in the affirmative and stated that if for some reason there was a change to the critical line, the setbacks would be updated and submitted to staff for final plat approval. Mr. Neal moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. I. SP-08-18, Request approval of Sketch Plan for Hibben at Belle Hall Phase 6a & 6b, 19 single family residential lots zoned PD, Planned Development District, located off Tupelo Bay Drive. TMS No.: 537-00-00-050 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Betty Niermann, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, stated that they are waiting for approval from OCRM similar to the previous request and are amenable to all staff comments. Mr. Wren asked if the critical line would impact any of the lots if changed. Ms. Niermann answered in the negative and stated that HOA property with a trail is located between the critical line and the lots. Mr. Neal moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. J. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.325(C), Use Table, to allow a Hospice Care Facility as a Permitted Use in the ED, Economic Development District Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 21 of 27 Mr. Doug Frasier, attorney for Roper St. Francis Hospital, stated that they are in favor of the request. He stated that this change is needed in order to receive a DHEC license for the facility. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal asked if this would affect the facility being able to continue operations. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative but reiterated that the request is not specific to this property, but would be applicable to all properties in the Town zoned ED, Economic Development District. Mr. Neal asked if there are any other zoning districts where a hospice use should be allowed as a permitted use. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. Millet moved for approval with all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. K. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.318, Urban Corridor Overlay District, and elsewhere within Chapter 156, by modifying the boundaries of the district to do the following: i.) remove the portion of Ben Sawyer Boulevard from Rifle Range Road to the bridge from the Overlay; ii.) to rename the Urban Corridor Overlay District to the Boulevard Overlay District, to include Johnnie Dodds Boulevard Overlay District, Coleman Boulevard Overlay District and Chuck Dawley Boulevard Overlay District; and iii.) to remove Single Family Residential Uses as a Permitted Use on properties within the Urban Corridor Overlay District whose underlying zoning is Commercial. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked about single family. Ms. Canon answered that single family would not be permitted unless the underlying zoning is residential. Mr. Neal asked if there is any vacant property along Ben Sawyer that could possibly be redeveloped. Ms. Canon showed these on the map for the Commission. Mr. Neal asked what impacts would be seen for the properties in this area with removal of this section from the urban corridor. Ms. Canon answered that it would be a loss of activity zone, build-to line, expanded permitted uses, and height. Mr. Prause answered that the commercial uses  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 22 of 27 would still require DRB approval which has build-to and setback requirements. Mr. Neal asked if there would be any adverse impact for property owners and potential litigation. Mr. Pagliarini answered that there is always the potential for litigation. He stated that when properly noticed and advertised, a reduction in value would not necessarily be considered a taking. Mr. Millet asked which properties would be negatively impacted or considered non-conforming. Ms. Canon answered that there are currently some existing non-conforming properties due to previous changes to the UC-OD, such as a reduction in height and density. She reviewed those properties that would be non-conforming such as Sawyers Landing and Sullivans Point with the Commission. Mr. Millet asked about the Atlantic project. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this would have to be reviewed and would be considered proprietary information. He stated that with any blanket changes, there could be properties that would be rendered non-conforming. Mr. Millet asked about notice. Ms. Canon answered that the public hearing was properly advertised and that signs were posted along Ben Sawyer Blvd. Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 41 Vincent Dr, stated that he supports the changes as presented. He suggested that this would help retain the character of the Town and have a more traditional zoning for the area. Ms. Lucy Gordon, 1551 Ben Sawyer, stated that there are residents in seven HOAs in favor of this request. She suggested that the change would be more in character of the area and more in keeping with the area being a gateway to the Town. Mr. Paul Mounts, 1481 Center Street extension, suggested that this area is supposed to be a gateway to the Town, but a plan was never determined to bring this to fruition. He suggested that the current zoning does not support this area being a gateway. He suggested that Ben Sawyer Blvd is already congested and does not need any additional traffic. Mr. Donald Wicks, 1551 Ben Sawyer Blvd, stated that this area should be distinguished from the rest of the urban corridor because it is unique and is a gateway to the beach. He stated that there is a portion of the roadway that is a two-lane roadway that cannot be widened. He agreed that this area should not be included in the urban corridor.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 23 of 27 Ms. Catherine Diehl, 1662 Marsh Harbor, expressed concern with the traffic along Ben Sawyer Blvd. She suggested that there should be less development and some signal improvements accomplished in the area. Ms. Denise May, 1324 Bluebird Dr, stated that she is concerned about Chuck Dawley and the area at the intersection of Chuck Dawley/Bowman road. Ms. Gregg asked about residential properties on Chuck Dawley that might have a different underlying zoning. Ms. Canon answered that if approved, single family uses would be removed as a permitted use for properties that have underlying commercial zoning. Existing residential on property with underlying commercial zoning, would be considered a non-conforming use. Ms. Gregg asked if there is damage to the home, could it be rebuilt. Ms. Canon answered that if the proposed construction was over 50% improvement, then it would not be allowed. Mr. Prause suggested that a rezoning request could be submitted as a remedy as well. Mr. Millet suggested that it is important to consider the impacts. He suggested that the area should remain as a gateway to the beach. Mr. Neal suggested that it is a misnomer that the property would be brought back to what is was 50 years ago, because those homes that have been there long-term that now sit on commercially-zoned property would be considered non-conforming and if damaged more than 50%, it could not be rebuilt unless the property was rezoned. He suggested that the real issue is the height. He expressed concern with those properties on Chuck Dawley that have single family homes but are zoned commercial and the impact the proposed amendments would have on those properties. Mr. Wren asked if consideration has been given to remove multi-family use as an allowed use. Mr. Prause answered that a special area management plan has been preliminarily discussed for the gateway area. Ms. Canon agreed and stated that these changes would be considered as part of and once the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 24 of 27 Ms. Smith stated that the majority of the residents are in favor of the request. She agreed with Mr. Neal that a major issue is height. She stated that she is in support of this request. Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the text amendment. Mr. Gates seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 8 to 1 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Mr. Neal opposed. L. Proposal 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. Also, proposal to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations. Proposed is to delete Section 155.073, Park and Recreational Areas, and to create a new Section 155.054, Greenspace Preservation Plan. New Section 155.054 will incorporate certain provisions from deleted Section 155.073, as well as establish intent, purpose, and standards for new subdivision review requirements, which will include clustered areas of preservation and internal areas of preservation and greenspace. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). She stated that there is a portion of staff’s presentation that should be discussed with the changes to Chapter §156. Mr. Prause stated that staff has an additional recommendation for consideration, but did not want to delay any comments due to time considerations. Ms. Smith suggested that the public hearing should be held open and this issue deferred. Mr. Millet agreed. Mr. Prause noted that the public hearing can only be held open for thirty days, so a special meeting would be required. Mr. Neal left at this time (9:17 pm).  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 25 of 27 Mr. Wren suggested that comments for the public hearing should be heard at this time. Ms. LeeAnn Adkins, 34 Hopetown Rd, stated that she has not seen staff’s recommendation and would like to have an opportunity to speak after staff’s presentation. Mr. Wren stated that the public hearing for the LDRs would be held by Town Council. Mr. Prause suggested that the information on the LDRs be presented before the public hearing. Mr. Wren agreed. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments and a memo dated July 18, 2018 with the Commission (attachment 2). He suggested that one remedy would be to amend the ordinance again re-establishing the original effective date. Mr. McNeill asked if the date change is approved, would it resolve the current court case. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the court case is based on existing legislation. Mr. Prause suggested that this might mean a resolution of the court case. Mr. Gates expressed concern with discussing court cases and suggested that he might need to recuse himself from this discussion due to a conflict as he was present at the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) meeting when the application and appeal were presented and heard. Mr. Pagliarini answered that a decision for recusal should be based on if a board member has an interest or conflict. He stated that legal issues pertaining to any pending court case would not be discussed as it was not appropriate. He stated that this Commission should not consider the status of any pending lawsuit. He stated that there was an issue discovered and staff has suggested that this is an attempt to clarify and rectify the issue. Mr. Wren asked if staff would recommend changing the dates or handling the issue through the I’On PD. Mr. Prause answered that there is no recommendation, but rather a reporting on the circumstances as they now exist so that that the Commission can decide on whether to recommend changing the dates. Ms. Gregg asked for clarification on what is being asked by staff. Mr. Prause reviewed the pertinent ordinance section with the Commission and the timeline associated with actions taken.  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 26 of 27 Ms. Smith expressed concern with changing the dates. Ms. LeeAnn Adkins, 34 Hopetown Rd, stated that she is encouraged with the request to possibly correct the issue, but she would like to discuss this with her attorney. She stated that the importance of the date is because the date establishes a “grandfather” date and since it is incorrect, the I’On property that should have been under the critical line buffer ordinance, is not. She expressed concern with not correcting the date, as based on the ordinance, the critical line buffer could be reduced. She also expressed concern that this issue was not properly noticed or posted on the property. Mr. McCauley, I’On HOA president, stated that there is an interest in being able to maintain the buffer and pruning the area to help with access to the trails and paths within the neighborhood. He suggested that changing the date could have an adverse effect on their maintenance of those areas. He suggested that they have been good stewards in ensuring that the buffer was properly maintained and have even hired a horticulturist and engineers in addition to having legal review. He stated that they have an interest in maintaining the existing date in the ordinance and would not be in favor of changing the date. Ms. Smith suggested that the dates should not be changed. Mr. McNeill suggested that the Commission could agree not to make a recommendation on the issue of the dates. He asked if there are any changes that were not previously reviewed. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Ms. Smith suggested that the effective date should be the same date as when final reading of the ordinance was approved. Mr. McNeill suggested that the Commission should not make a recommendation on this issue, particularly because there is pending litigation that directly relates to this issue. He asked if there are any changes to the ordinances that the Commission has not already reviewed and made a recommendation on. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. McNeill asked if a recommendation on the changes to §156 can be made without making a recommendation on the date change. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative  Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 27 of 27 and stated that a recommendation would be needed on the changes for §155 (Land Development Regulations). Ms. Smith suggested that it was agreed that the effective date for the changes would be the date of final reading of the ordinance. Mr. Prause stated that this should be included in the motion. Ms. Gregg asked about pine trees being included in level III. Ms. Canon answered that there was discussion on including longleaf pines as a protected species, but also the fact that there are few of this species and it would be difficult to enforce. She stated that those changes are included in the LDR recommended changes. Mr. Wren asked the timeframe for holding public hearings. Mr. Prause answered that there is a 30 day timeframe for zoning changes. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved effective date of the ordinance should be the date of the final reading of the ordinance. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Cuttino moved approval of the changes to §156 as originally recommended including all staff comments. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Canon reviewed changes to the LDRs with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked if the LDRs would be for residential or commercial. Ms. Canon answered that LDRs pertain to residential development. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the changes to §155. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn07182018