Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2019 MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1—Staff Report PowerPoint Presentation Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, Tripp Cuttino, DeAudre Gregg. Absent: John McNeill, Peter Lehman. Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Brad Morrison, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Eddie Bernard, Peter Stone, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Smith moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of Minutes from February 20, 2019 Regular Meeting; January 9, 2019 Special Meeting; January 30, 2019 Special Meeting; February 6, 2019 Special Meeting; February 13, 2019 Special Meeting; and February 20, 2019 Special Meeting Mr. Neal moved for approval of all minutes as listed on the agenda. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked where the review of the update on Comprehensive Plan stands. Ms. Canon answered that a schedule will be determined at the April Planning Committee meeting.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 2 of 9 4. Correspondence No additional correspondence. 5. General Public Comment Ms. Sarah Jacob, 1152 Village Creek Lane, expressed concern with item 7a. She stated that there are three hotels planned for this development and that this would increase traffic in the area and how the employees will be accommodated. She suggested that the developer should allocate some of the apartments for affordable housing for the employees. Mr. Jim Hitchings, 266 South Plaza Court, Renaissance HOA representative, expressed concern with item 7a and that it would increase traffic in the area. He expressed concern with increasing the number of residential units for this project as well. He asked that this be considered for this item. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 6. Requests A. R-05-19, Request to amend the Bridgeside II PD, Planned Development District Ordinance (Ordinance No. 12034, as amended), to do the following: (i) allow for the conversion of amounts of office and commercial square footage, residential units, and hotel rooms, and increase the maximum allowable amount of residential units from 73 to 150; (ii) to combine the Waterfront District and the Boulevard District into a single district for all purposes under the Planned Development Guidelines and Ordinance 12034, as amended; and (iii) to specify the timing and requirements for roadway improvements and bus pull-outs along Harry M. Hallman Jr. Boulevard as contemplated under Ordinance No. 12034 in connection with the development of the Waterfront District and Boulevard District, located at Bridgeside II / Harry M. Hallman Jr. Boulevard. Parcel ID/TMS Nos. Parcels 1 through 9, Common Area, Bridge Creek Alley, Grafton Street, Rice Quarters Lane, Planters Wharf, and Port City Landing, TMS No.’s 517-00-00-245, -247, - 248, -249, -250, -251, -252, -253, -254, -126 and -018; 517-00-00-038 Mr. Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Morrison reviewed transportation comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. James Wilson, attorney for applicant, and Stuart Whiteside, SWA, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Glen Hamerbacker, 184 North Plaza Court, expressed concern with traffic studies and that they are not always accurate or reflect the reality of traffic. He suggested that no additional units are needed. He stated that an earlier meeting several years ago the HOA was assured that the road between buildings G and F would not be connected to the adjacent property. Mr. Jimmy Player, 147 North Plaza, asked if Harry Hallman could be widened to support the amount of traffic. He suggested that there is already a significant amount of traffic. He also expressed concern with there being connectivity to the adjacent property. Ms. Nancy Lerner, 214 South Plaza Court, expressed concern with traffic and that there is the possibility of being able to have additional units to the rear of Patriots Point. Ms. Wendy Baureschmitz, 1320 Woodlake Court, is in favor of mixed use developments. She expressed concern with the impacts of changing the uses within a mixed use development and that this should be studied prior to approval of the request. Ms. Justina Lasley, 233 South Plaza Court, agreed with Mr. Glen that it was previously noted that there would not be a connection to the adjacent property. She asked that the Commission to carefully consider the impact this request would have on traffic. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed public comment. Mr. Wilson stated that the plan is to have the connectivity, but it would have to be agreed upon by the property owners as well. He stated that the amendment would maintain the originally approved traffic counts. He stated that part of the Bridgeside impact assessment included construction of Harry Hallman Blvd.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Cuttino asked how the amendment would maintain the current traffic impact assessment. Mr. Whiteside answered that the development is bound by the traffic counts included in the approved impact assessment. He stated that they agree with staff that providing updates on the traffic counts as they move forward. Mr. Gates agreed that the traffic in the area is significant and asked the rationale of increasing the residential units. Mr. Whiteside clarified that the additional residential units would provide a better mix of uses. Additionally, he stated that the office and commercial uses have traffic trips associated with those uses that are included in the approved impact assessment. Mr. Gates asked why this was not included in the original request. Mr. Whiteside answered many of the residential units were built across the street. He stated that having additional residential units within this portion of the development would provide a better mix of uses. Ms. Smith suggested that the original units are not needed in this area. She suggested that only if there is a hardship should the additional units be residential units. Mr. Mike Bennett, developer, answered that the change will reduce the amount of traffic as the larger traffic impact is office use, commercial/retail and hotel uses. He stated that residential uses have the least impact. He suggested that if the original approved plan was maintained, there would be an increase in traffic. He stated that the amount of required parking is less for residential use as well. Mr. Millet asked about the models used to determine traffic. Mr. Morrison answered that it is more accurate to use the models recommended by staff as opposed those models suggested by the applicant. Mr. Wilson stated that the applicant is amenable to using the models recommended by staff. Mr. Millet asked if there are three different owners for this development. Mr. Wilson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked if the green space would be reduced. Mr. Whiteside answered that the conceptual plan was completed without knowing the specific uses. He stated that the 15% open space requirement would have to be maintained. Mr. Millet asked parking. Mr. Whiteside answered that the parking is not located on this site so it is not shown. Mr. Millet asked where the additional residential units would be located. Mr. Wilson answered that they would be located in buildings I and J. Mr. Millet asked if there could be changes to the conceptual plan. Mr. Wilson answered in the affirmative and stated that as they move through the DRB process, there could be some changes.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Wren asked if any of the proposed changes fall under the permit allocation. Mr. Wilson answered that the existing uses are vested and therefore, suggested that they would not be subject to permit allocation. Mr. Wren asked if the additional residential units would be subject to permit allocation. Mr. Wilson answered that this would have to be reviewed by legal. Mr. Gates asked about the infrastructure and if the infrastructure is sufficient for emergency vehicles. Ms. Canon answered that all the different departments reviewed this project during the impact assessment process. Mr. Prause answered that the areas between the buildings are access easements. Mr. Whiteside agreed and stated that there are private internal streets. Ms. Gregg asked if there is the potential to have residential uses within any of the proposed buildings. Mr. Wilson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet asked if combining the districts would have a significant impact. Ms. Canon answered in the negative. Mr. Wren asked the reason for the changes in the development. Ms. Canon answered that the PD allows for some changes through the DRB process. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Ms. Smith stated that the update of the Comprehensive Plan was recently reviewed by the Commission and provided a recommendation that was forwarded to Town Council. She suggested that this revision is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and Town goals to have more resiliency and financial diversity. She stated that more commercial uses provide a more diverse tax base. She suggested that there should be good, quality commercial as it puts the town in a better financial position. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 5 to 1 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. Cuttino opposed and Mr. Neal abstaining.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 6 of 9 B. R-06-19, Request to annex and zone AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, one parcel in its entirety, located at 2237 North Highway 17. TMS No. 558-00-00- 927 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Trey Sedalik, representative for the owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal moved for approval. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Wren suggested that connectivity should be considered. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. C. R-07-19, Request to annex and zone AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 1.28 acre tract of land comprised of two parcels; a request to rezone from CC, Community Conservation, to AB-2, Areawide Business District, an approximately 0.56 acre tract of land; and a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for all three (3) parcels by changing the land use designation from Community Conservation land uses to Commercial land uses, located at 1729 Halls Pond Road; 1740 & 1724 LaCannon Lane. TMS Nos. 558-00-00-915; 558-00-00-196; 558-00-00-194 Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Neal asked if Halls Pond is a paved road. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative. Mr. Wren asked if the neighboring property was annexed. Mr. Rutherford answered that Town Council’s motion for annexation failed and the zoning was therefore, not considered. Mr. Michael Rowell, owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if any other zoning was considered. Ms. Christine Rowell answered that they are open to other zoning that would allow the outdoor  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 7 of 9 storage. Mr. Wren asked if a site plan has been completed showing the access to the property. Mr. Rowell answered in the negative but stated that they intend to use LaCannon Lane for access to the property. Mr. Paul Myers, 1733 Halls Pond Road, expressed concern that the boat storage and runoff would contaminate his pond. He also stated that he owns Halls Pond Road and is not in favor of traffic on his road. He stated that LaCannon Lane is a private road as well and it is his understanding that the applicant does not have permission to use the road. Mr. Clint Tumbleston, Wando SC, stated that he is a member of the LaCannon family and expressed concern with the impact the business would have on the roadway as it is private and unpaved. He stated that he is not in favor of increasing traffic on the roadway. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Rowell stated that there is a dispute on the ownership of the roadway. She stated that she is open to sharing maintenance of the roadway. Mr. Rowell stated that there is commercial property surrounding the proposed property. Mr. Neal stated that he is not opposed to rezoning the property, but cautioned the owners to ensure that they complete all of the required information. He also suggested that they contact the surrounding property owners and provide information on future plans for the property. Mr. Wren asked if these properties were annexed, could it provide additional contiguity for other surrounding properties to annex. Mr. Rutherford answered that no new contiguity would be established as the surrounding properties are already contiguous. Mr. Millet suggested that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and existing residents should be upheld. Mr. Millet moved for denial of the request. Mr. Gates seconded them motion. Ms. Smith stated that the ingress/egress on unpaved roads is a concern.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Neal stated that he is not in favor of the motion as this use would continue to be done in the county and impact the Town. He stated that if annexed, it would provide additional revenue for the Town. Ms. Gregg asked for clarification on the parcel that was not approved for annexation. Mr. Rutherford showed this on the map for the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if a hotel is allowed in AB-2. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative and stated that a hotel would also be allowed in AB zoning and a boutique hotel in Limited Office (LO) zoning. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 3 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Wren, and Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Smith, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino opposed, and Mr. Gates abstaining. Mr. Wren stated that this request would be forwarded to Town Council with no recommendation. D. Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, to help administer the tree ordinance regulation more effectively and make the internal process more efficient by improving the review process for single family residential construction. Proposed amendments include the following: repeal the current tree replacement requirements 156.224(C)(1) & (2) establishing different standards for lots according to the date the lot was created, and where the tree is located relative to the building setback; make changes allowing the applicant to mitigate for removals concurrently while complying with the new Single Family Stormwater Management and Tree Preservation Program; and better define mitigation requirements to be more consistent with the type of trees removed. The objective of these amendments is to improve how the Town responds and guides applicants through the process. This will solve internal complications, create a stronger tree protection ordinance, and result in a better outcome for saving and preserving trees throughout the Town boundaries. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Stone reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing.  Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Page 9 of 9 Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Proposal to amend Paragraph (C), Table of Bufferyard Requirements, of section 156.201, Bufferyards, of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to bufferyard requirements located between: a) the Duplex/Townhouse land use category and existing adjacent land uses, and between b) the Multi-family or Group Dwelling land use category and existing adjacent land uses. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Proposal to amend sub-paragraph (b)(1) of section 156.225, Provisions for Tree Removal, of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances establishing a reference to the design standards of section 155.048 of Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations, pertaining to the installation of replacement trees in the public right-of-way. Includes proposal to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations. Proposed is to amend Paragraph (F), Design Standards, of section 155.048, Streets, of Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations, of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by adding a new sub- paragraph (21) thereto, establishing design standards for the location and installation of street trees. Mr. Neal suggested that a review of the amendment was not needed. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Millet moved for approval. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:56 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn03202019