Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1—Staff Report PowerPoint Presentation Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, Peter Lehman, George Gates (entered at 5:09 pm). Absent: Tripp Cuttino, DeAudre Gregg. Staff: Jeff Ulma, Lee Cave, Jim Hinchey, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Austin Rutherford, Christina Springston, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of the Agenda Mr. McNeill moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of Minutes from November 14, 2018 Meeting Mr. Wren moved for approval of the minutes with the following correction: ➢ Page 4, last paragraph under item 8A--vote should be 6 to 2 with Mr. Wren and Ms. Smith opposed. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. 4. Correspondence No correspondence.  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 2 of 7 5. General Public Comment Mr. Tom Massey, 24 Salty Tide Cove, stated that he is a local homebuilder and expressed concern with the proposed Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS). He suggested that if approved, the BPAS would affect his business. He suggested that the effective date should be delayed for six months to allow those that have pending projects be able to receive permits. He suggested that townhomes should not be treated differently from a single family residence regarding issuance of a permit. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 6. Staff Update on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Process/Discuss Special Meeting Dates Ms. Boyles reviewed the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update with the Commission and stated that the Plan Forum has completed their review and the draft plan is now before the Commission for review and a recommendation. She stated that some proposed dates for special meetings were sent to the Commission. Mr. Gates entered at this time (5:09 pm). Mr. Wren asked if the informational meeting could be completed in one special meeting. Ms. Boyles answered that it is possible, but it would depend on the amount of discussion. Mr. Wren asked if the draft plan was provided to the Commission. Ms. Boyles answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill suggested that working lunches should be reserved to the Planning Commission and not a joint meeting with the Plan Forum. Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet agreed. The Commission agreed to have a special meeting on January 9th from 11 am-1 pm, with the subsequent dates reserved for additional meetings if deemed necessary. Mr. Neal suggested that the Commission come to the special meeting with their questions ready for discussion.  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 3 of 7 7. Requests A. Proposal to amend Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances to add new sections 156.070 through 156.083 establishing a Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS); providing, among other things, the establishment of purpose and intent, applicability, annual program allocations, number of dwelling unit permits by category, submittal and administrative procedures, and appeal mechanisms. Mr. Ulma reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Zach Bearden, 918 McCants Drive, stated that he is a real estate developer that is approved for workforce housing. He suggested that workforce housing should be added to the ordinance with the amended percentages as proposed. He asked if the AMI would pertain to rental units as well. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that staff has noted that this should be clarified within the ordinance. He stated that he is in favor of ADUs as well. Ms. Katie Holba, 1202 Ambling Way, suggested that it is important to consider the young professionals and their needs. She also suggested that housing location can provide options such as different price points, can provide diversity, etc. She suggested that the ordinance should be denied and different housing options considered to provide solutions. Ms. Ashley Jackel, 2244 Ashley Crossing Dr, stated that based on an approximate growth rate of 2% and population projections, approximately 112,000 additional dwellings would be needed by 2020 within the Charleston region. She asked that the ordinance be denied. Mr. Josh Dix, Government Affairs Director for the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, stated that the Association of Realtors are opposed to the BPAS ordinance. He suggested that the “first come first serve” semi-annual allocation is not equitable for homeowners. He suggested that it also prevents families from moving into a larger home because of the uncertainty with the program. He suggested that this system would also create sprawl and more traffic congestion. He asked that the Commission recommend denial of the ordinance. Mr. Michael Samuel, 360 Stonewall Court, suggested that limiting housing options would worsen traffic as it would force families to find housing just  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 4 of 7 outside the town, causing additional traffic. He suggested that the market should be able to freely generate housing supply to address growth. He stated that the market shows a decline in the number of homes being built. He asked that the proposed ordinance be denied. Mr. Adam Baslo, 3212 Eenjy Lane, stated that he works as a custom homebuilder and is opposed to the ordinance. He suggested that the free market should not be restricted. He suggested that multi-family construction should not be restricted. He suggested that the concerns should be discussed and addressed before moving forward. Mr. Patrick Arnold, CEO of Charleston Homebuilders Association, state that the Forbes magazine did a recent article on the Town’s proposed BPAS suggesting that it would worsen traffic. He suggested that the allocation would not accomplish the desired result, it would infringe on property rights, and further expose the Town to additional lawsuits. He stated that the proposed system would restrict the housing supply and increase housing costs as was seen with the previous allocation program. He suggested that more work is needed before the ordinance is approved. Ms. Becca Zimmerman, Stanley Martin homes, stated that she is opposed to the ordinance. She asked who would be responsible for monitoring the system and suggested that this should be clarified. She agreed that the number of applications allowed per day should be clarified as well. Ms. Sarah Jacob, 1152 Village Creek Lane, stated that she is a member of the affordable housing taskforce and asked that the recommended changes to the affordable housing should be included. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal asked about the midtown development agreement. Mr. Ulma answered that it has expired. Mr. Neal asked about the allocation and how many permits would be allocated per housing type. Mr. Ulma clarified this for the Commission. Mr. Neal asked if any affordable housing project would be excluded. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked the reason for “capping” ADUs. He asked if a financial analysis has been completed and what the impact would be to the Town. He suggested that this is bad timing for the  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 5 of 7 ordinance. He suggested that there should be some type of “grandfather” clause or delay in the effective date. He suggested that the small homebuilders should not be affected. Mr. Wren asked about the financial aspects. Mr. Ulma answered that the Finance Department is reviewing this, but no final results are yet available. Mr. Ulma stated that staff reviewed ADUs as well and was considered equal to a single family dwelling for this program to keep the program easier to administer. Mr. Wren asked the difference between an ADU and a guest room. Mr. Ulma answered that the difference is whether there is a kitchen. Mr. Millet asked about the six month expiration. Mr. Ulma answered that this is based on current regulations. Mr. Millet asked if other options were considered. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that other approaches and timing was considered with managing the growth rate. Ms. McNeill asked if there has been a “rush on permits”. Mr. Ulma answered in the negative. Mr. McNeill suggested that ADUs should not be included in the BPAS. He suggested that the traffic would not be lessened with the implementation of this system. He suggested that the financial impacts should be determined before implementation. He suggested that the data does not support implementation of the system. Ms. Smith suggested that managing the growth issues of the Town on the front end through the update of the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that the proposed changes for affordable housing should be included. Mr. Wren asked how the 2.1% growth rate was determined. Mr. Ulma answered that this was proposed from comments that the growth rate was too much and that the growth rate needed to be slower to allow some of the capital improvements and infrastructure projects to be completed. Mr. Wren asked how many building permit applications have been submitted that are waiting approval and if they would count against the allocation in the BPAS. Mr. Ulma answered that some of the permits currently in the system would count toward the allocation. Mr. Wren asked how the system would be monitored. Mr. Ulma answered that staff would monitor the system and the number of permits that are issued. Mr. Wren asked if there is legal justification required for  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 6 of 7 implementation. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that Mr. Hinchey is available if necessary for additional legal advice. Mr. Neal asked when the financial information would be available. Mr. Ulma answered that the finance department is currently working on this and should have some concrete data available for the Town Council retreat at the end of January. Mr. Neal asked if all applications are submitted online. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked the reason for limiting the number of applications received in a day. Mr. Ulma answered that this is needed in order to process the application fees. Mr. Neal asked if the growth rate over the past five or ten years is comparable to what other municipalities experience. Mr. Ulma answered that an analysis has not been done. Mr. Neal suggested that it would be beneficial to have this information. He also suggested that approval of this system is being rushed and that a more thorough review should be completed before approval and implementation. He suggested that delaying implementation to the new fiscal year would be a better option. He also suggested that waiting for the Comprehensive Plan update to be approved should be considered as well. Mr. Wren suggested that a report on the impact fees and the effect the recent increases would affect housing should be provided as well. Ms. Smith asked when the recent impact fee increase was implemented. Mr. Wren answered that it has been approximately six months since the impact fee increase was implemented. Mr. McNeill suggested that it should be determined if impact fees are a major revenue generator for the town, then it should be determined how the BPAS will affect this revenue stream as it would affect the ability to accomplish capital projects. Mr. Millet expressed concern with the proposed BPAS and suggested that it is not good timing. He suggested that this entire system would not adequately address growth for the Town. He suggested that a more comprehensive growth plan should be developed to adequately address the issue of growth for the town. He stated that he is not in favor of the request. Ms. Smith moved for denial. Mr. Neal seconded the motion.  Planning Commission December 19, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Ms. Smith suggested that more work is needed before considering approval and implementation. Mr. Wren agreed and suggested that the financial implications should be determined. Mr. Neal outlined the reasons for recommending denial: ➢ A financial analysis should be completed. This is a critical component and implementation should coincide with the town’s fiscal year. ➢ There are several revisions that are needed: ▪ Language concerning affordable housing ▪ Review how ADUs are handled within the allocation ▪ Allocation better defined to address the single homebuilder ▪ Consider a grandfather clause ➢ What other growth rates are other municipalities experiencing and how does this relate to Mount Pleasant. ➢ Consider delaying implementation of the BPAS until the update to the Comprehensive Plan is completed. Mr. Gates suggested that the motion should be amended subject to receiving the information outlined by Mr. Neal. Ms. Smith suggested that it would not be appropriate to condition the denial. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 8. Other Business a. Annual Report from the Zoning Administrator on all Development Agreements Ms. Canon stated that the Commission received a copy of the report. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:37 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn12192018