Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2018 MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1—Staff Report Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, Tripp Cuttino, Peter Lehman. Absent: DeAudre Gregg. Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Julia Copeland, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Marissa Poultney, Eddie Bernard, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Millet moved for approval of the agenda. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of Minutes from October 24, 2018 Meeting Ms. Smith moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Lehman seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed the Town Council decisions with the Commission. 4. Correspondence Ms. Canon stated that all correspondence was forwarded to the Commission. 5. General Public Comment Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 47 Vincent Drive, expressed concern with the extension of vested rights for Earls Court. He suggested that the project is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Ms. Ashley McGraw, 401 Patjens Lane, expressed concern with the extension of vested rights for Earls Court and asked that the request be denied. She stated that she is opposed to the request. Mr. Vince Graham, developer for Earls Court, stated that they have been working on this project for a long time. He stated that the project meets the zoning and the requirements of the Coleman Blvd overlay district. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 6. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process Ms. Boyles stated that the final edits of the Comprehensive Plan update have been completed and will be forwarded to the Forum for review prior to their December 4th meeting. She stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan will then be forwarded to the Commission for review. 7. Old Business A. Proposal to amend the Vested Rights division of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Zoning Code Section 156.049, to amend provisions related to extensions of vested rights and prohibitions for approval thereof. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked if there were any legal concerns. Mr. Pagliarini answered that an important point is that the state mandate is not being changed. He stated that this amendment is clarifying the rules in order to obtain those extensions. Mr. Neal expressed concern with the “rules” being changed on the developer when they already have an approved plan. He suggested that the developer “should not be harmed”. He asked how many planned developments exist. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this would not change the vested rights and the extensions are not being changed. Mr. Neal asked about regulations changed between the time the plan is approved and a request made for an extension. Mr. Prause stated that part of the extension requirement is that a building permit application has been submitted as well.  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Smith suggested that the amendment was an appropriate course of action. Mr. Neal reiterated that this amendment would mean that if the land development regulations changed, then the extension would not be approved. Mr. Pagliarini answered that current state law states that the developer can apply for and receive a vested rights extension. If the land development ordinances have not changed or do not affect the original site specific development plan, then the vested rights extension would be approved. Mr. Wren asked for clarification of state law. Mr. Pagliarini answered that existing state law for a two year vesting period and five one-year extensions, unless there is a land development change that would prohibit it. He stated that this is not being changed. Mr. McNeill asked if there is an appeal process with state law if there has been a change that could prevent the extension. Mr. Pagliarini answered that a property owner could take legal action if desired. There being no public comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the amendment as presented. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 1 vote with Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Mr. Neal opposed. 8. Requests A. Case #: R-27-18, Request to rezone two parcels from CO, Conservation Open Space, to AB, Areawide Business District. Properties to remain in the Boulevard Overlay District (formerly UC-OD), located at 214 Lucas Street / both parcels located between Lucas and Scott Street. TMS No.: 517-16-00- 036 and 517-16-00-055 Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Justin Lucy, owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Mel Mauer, 525 Mill St, expressed concern with the parking in the area. He suggested that any additional commercial uses would exacerbate the parking issue and would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 9 There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Wren asked why not revert back to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning. Mr. Rutherford answered that they are allowed AB uses under the Coleman Boulevard Overlay District (CB-OD). Mr. Cuttino asked what the previous zoning was. Mr. Rutherford answered that it was NC zoning with AB uses allowed because it is part of the overlay district. Mr. Millet asked if there are AB uses in the vicinity. Mr. Rutherford reviewed the current zoning with the Commission and noted that all of the surrounding property was within the overlay district. Ms. Smith asked about the Comprehensive Plan update and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. She expressed concern with the overlay district being removed and AB zoning being applicable. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that this is a narrow piece of property and would be restricted in the uses that could be located there. Ms. Smith stated that this is an established neighborhood and expressed concern with a commercial zoning. Mr. Wren agreed that NC zoning would be more appropriate; however, the property is located in the overlay district and therefore, AB uses are allowed. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 2 vote with Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet, Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Mr. Wren and Ms. Smith opposed. B. Case #: SP-11-18, Request Approval of Sketch Plan for three lots on 7th Avenue zoned R-1, Single family residential, located at 7th Avenue near 4th Street / Scanlonville. TMS No. 514-00-00-065 Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 5 of 9 Mr. John Popelka, developer, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if the property is located in a flood zone. Mr. Popelka answered in the negative. Mr. Neal moved for approval including all staff comments. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Neal commended the developer for his work with support from the neighborhood and donation of property. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. C. Request approval of Updated Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan for the development known as The Market at Mill Creek, located at the intersection of S.C. Highway 41 and Wood Park Drive. TMS No. 594-05-00- 228 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Jack Copeland, representative for owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked about parking. Mr. Copeland answered that they still meet the parking requirements for the site. Mr. Neal asked if Design Review Board (DRB) approval would be needed. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the revised impact assessment and conceptual plan including all staff comments. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. D. Request to amend Chapter 156, Zoning Code, pertaining to Telecommunications Towers by adding a new section 156.121 regulating Small Wireless Facilities. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Jack Mitchell, AT&T, expressed appreciation to staff and legal counsel for their work on this ordinance. He suggested that the ordinance should clarify where additional historic review would be required as mandated by federal law and could be included as an appendix to the ordinance. He suggested that a timeframe for review and notification of deficiencies should be determined for all applications. He suggested that electrical poles should be considered for inclusion as allowable locations. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Request to amend Chapter 150, Building Regulations, by adding a new section establishing new procedures and guidelines ensuring the protection of property from unmanaged stormwater and construction site sediment while minimizing impacts to existing trees and buffers. These new guidelines shall apply to all properties in the Town of Mount Pleasant on which a single family detached residence is a permitted use. Also proposed is an amendment to Chapter 153, Stormwater Management and Water Quality, by increasing the single family residential National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Fee from $25 to $225. Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked the reason for the increased fee. Mr. Mitchell answered that this is to help offset the impact to staff and the increased number of inspections that would be required. Mr. Neal expressed concern with the increase in fees and asked if additional staff would be needed. Mr. Mitchell answered that initially the workload would be handled with existing staff. He stated that additional staff is planned within the next five years. Mr. Millet asked if this new permit process would cause additional delay before a building permit could be issued. Mr. Mitchell answered that there might be a slight delay, but the land development component would be able to move forward while the building permit is under review. He stated that a higher level of review will be completed then currently required as the drainage will be  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 7 of 9 reviewed prior to any construction being started. He stated that this new process and permit would allow better management of drainage and stormwater runoff. Mr. Millet suggested that this is a good step in maintaining and preventing future drainage and stormwater issues. Mr. McNeill agreed that this should be enacted and asked if there is a similar process for commercial sites. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that it is completed through the current MS4/NPDES process. Mr. Millet asked about penalties. Mr. Mitchell answered that the penalties would not change from what is currently enforced. Mr. Wren asked about larger subdivisions. Mr. Mitchell answered that subdivisions would require MS4/NPDES approval similar to commercial projects. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Request approval of Vested Rights Extension Application for 404, 410 and 412 Hibben Street (Earl’s Court), located at 404, 410 and 412 Hibben Street / Earl’s Court. Mr. Prause reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Ross Appel, attorney for applicant, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked if there is an appeal process. Mr. Appel answered in the negative and stated that the only remedy would be an appeal to Circuit Court. Mr. Neal asked if the applicant’s interpretation is that local government must approve the extension. Mr. Appel answered in the affirmative and suggested that the State recognized that the development process could be challenging and extensive, so they allowed for additional time. Mr. Neal asked what damages would be incurred if the extension is not granted. Mr. Wren stated that this is not under the Commission’s purview and suggested that it would be speculative. Mr. Appel answered that the damages would depend on what was approved versus what would be allowed under the new regulations.  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Gates asked the reason for the delay in development of the property since the original sketch plan was approved in 2011 and 2012. Mr. Appel answered that development of property involves several “moving parts” that involves buyers, sellers, and is dependent on the economy and market climate. He stated that the developer has been working on this project from the time the original sketch plan was approved. He suggested that this would not be relevant to the issue as the vested rights extension is a right allowed by state. Ms. Smith suggested that the state law does allow denial if there is a change in the land development ordinances. Mr. Appel disagreed and contended that the state law specifically states “unless an amendment to the land development ordinance or regulations has been adopted that prohibits approval”. He stated that the referent to the “prohibits approval” is the application for a vested rights extension and not the underlying substance of the zoning change. He stated that this is the crux of the disagreement with staff’s interpretation. Mr. Millet asked if the local body must approve the extension. Mr. Pagliarini answered that legal counsel supports staff’s decision and legal advice pertaining to this issue was provided to the Commission through a confidential memo and suggested that any additional legal advice should be provided in executive session. He stated that there is a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation. He stated that the Town’s position is that the substantive application of the statute that since 2011, land development regulations were changed that would prevent approval of the vested rights extension. Mr. Wren suggested that in reviewing previous issues with this development it was contended that the vested rights extended to the end of this year and asked if the position has changed. Mr. Appel answered that the previous issues were for a different parcel and stated that this request only applies to 404, 410, and 412 Hibben Street. Mr. Lehman asked if this issue can be resolved or will it require court action. Mr. Neal answered that it would depend on this Commission’s decision. Mr. Neal moved to convene into executive session for legal advice pertaining to this request. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 9 of 9 The Commission convened into executive session at 6:40 pm for legal advice and reconvened at 6:51 pm. No action taken while in executive session. Mr. Millet moved for denial of the request for a vested rights extension. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 1 vote with Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Millet, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Mr. Neal opposed. 9. Other Business A. Establish 2019 Meeting Schedule Mr. Neal moved for approval. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:53 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn11142018