Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2019 MINUTES Green arrows in Minutes are hyperlinks to the recording. Attachment 1—Staff Report Attachment 2—Pat Sullivan photos PowerPoint Presentation Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, John McNeill, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, DeAudre Gregg, Peter Lehman. Absent: Roy Neal, Tripp Cuttino. Staff: Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 2. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Smith moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Approval of Minutes from March 20, 2019 Meeting Mr. Millet moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. 4. Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed the Town Council decisions with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if the Ferry Wharf request was approved. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative, but with the request for additional multi-family units removed. 5. Correspondence All correspondence was forwarded to the Commission and linked to the agenda.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 10 6. General Public Comment There being no comments, Mr. Wren continued with the agenda. 7. Requests A. R-08-19, Request to rezone six parcels on Theodore Road from CC, Community Conservation District, to R-2, Low Density Residential District, located at 982, 984, 986, 988, 990 and 992 Theodore Road. TMS Nos. 614- 00-00-614, -615, -616, -617, -618 and -619 Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. McNeill asked if they reduced the lots would they meet the criteria under the current zoning. Mr. Rutherford answered that one reason for the rezoning request was to be able to keep the current number of platted lots. Ms. Gregg asked about the question of the deeds. Mr. Rutherford answered that staff did not have confirmation that the deeds had been recorded and therefore the property was not showing as separate lots of record, but rather one parent parcel. Mr. Wren asked if the subdivision was created in the Town. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative and stated that it was zoned R-4 and subdivided in the County according to their regulations. Mr. Jason Esposito, owner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked the reason the zoning and annexation didn’t happened at the same time. Mr. Esposito answered that they inquired whether the lots needed to be reconfigured to meet the CC zoning and they were told there would be no issue. He stated that the issue is that six of the eight lots are nonconforming and they would like to keep the same number of lots and not aggregate them. Mr. Wren asked if the lots meet the square footage requirements. Mr. Esposito answered in the affirmative and stated that the only issue is the width of the lots.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, distributed some photos for the Commission to review (attachment 2). She stated that the property is currently rural and backs up to the Sewee Preserve. She suggested that it appears to be part of a settlement community and suggested that it should remain as such. She expressed concern that the zoning would allow smaller lots and suggested that the request should be denied. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Rutherford noted that maximum number of lots allowed would be eight, and that even with the requested R-2 zoning no additional lots could be created as the density would not allow it. Mr. Millet asked the depth of the lots. Mr. Rutherford answered that they meet the length requirement. Mr. Esposito answered that each lot is approximately 200 feet in depth. Mr. Millet asked if the lots were created prior to annexation. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative, but staff was not aware of this at the time the application was made. Mr. McNeill asked if the lots were recorded. Mr. Esposito answered in the affirmative and stated that it was done prior to annexation. Mr. McNeill asked if there is a recorded plat showing the eight lots. Mr. Esposito answered in the affirmative. Ms. Gregg asked how it was not known that the property had been subdivided. Mr. Rutherford answered that staff was not made aware that the property had been subdivided. Mr. Esposito noted that eight separate applications with separate TMS numbers were submitted to the Town for annexation, but staff only accepted the parent parcel information. Mr. Rutherford stated that staff could not verify at the time the application was made that the property had been subdivided, so only the parent information was used. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the request. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. Ms. Smith suggested that this is an unusual situation. She suggested that since the R-2 zoning would not allow for additional lots and if developed under the CC zoning could mean the loss of two lots. She suggested that the property owner  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 4 of 10 should not be penalized and that the lots as subdivided should be allowed to remain. Mr. McNeill asked what the criteria is for settlement communities. Ms. Canon answered that it is 12,500 square feet. Mr. McNeill suggested that the difference in width is not significant and that there would not be a detriment to the community if allowed to remain. Ms. Gregg suggested that the issue is the character of the neighborhood in that for this area the homes are typically farther apart, so the lot size matters. She suggested that the character of the neighborhood should be preserved. Mr. McNeill suggested that if larger lots are created, there is the danger of there being larger homes in the area that could be out of character for the neighborhood. He suggested that there was an error in recording that might not be the fault of the property owner. Mr. Millet suggested that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan should be upheld. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan update recommends better preservation of the settlement communities. He suggested that the property should remain zoned CC in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and preservation of the settlement communities. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 1 to 6 vote with Mr. Wren in favor; Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet opposed. B. R-09-19, Request to rezone one parcel on Johnnie Dodds Boulevard from PD-MU-SU, Planned Development – Mixed Use Suburban - Urban District, to AB, Areawide Business District, located at 1081 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard. TMS No. 535-00-00-256 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. McNeill seconded the motion.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 5 of 10 Ms. Smith asked if there is a mechanism to remove the planned development (PD). Ms. Canon answered that this could be initiated by Town Council if desired. Mr. Millet suggested that the Comprehensive Plan update recommends reviewing this type of issue. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. C. R-10-19, Request to remove two parcels on Coleman Boulevard from the Boulevard Overlay District (BOD). Properties to maintain underlying AB, Areawide Business District Zoning, located at 860 & 862 Coleman Boulevard. TMS Nos. 532-03-00-086 and 532-03-00-087 Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Wren asked if the requested height pertains to the overlay district and the zoning. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that the height for AB zoning would be 35 feet or 40 feet if in a flood zone. Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Gates asked if the proximity of the school is an issue. Mr. Branch answered that they met with the surrounding residents to review the project and there was a concern with parking. He suggested that the main access would not be from Coleman Blvd. Ms. Smith asked if other uses were considered. Mr. Branch answered that the current owner is looking to retire and would like to sell the property. Mr. Gates asked if it would be a mechanical system. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Jim Anderson, 815 Armsway St, expressed concern with school traffic and that school traffic could potentially block the entrance to the car wash. Ms. Amy Warble, 125 N. Shem Drive, expressed concern with child and pedestrian safety. She stated that children bike and walk to the nearby school.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 6 of 10 She expressed concern with the location of the entrance to the car wash and that it might mean that traffic would be diverted to other residential streets. Mr. Steve Brock, 34 Hopetown Rd, suggested that the regulations of the overlay district are reasonable and should be upheld. He suggested that the reason for the request is to not have to comply with the requirements of the overlay district. He suggested that this request does not meet the criteria under §156.031 and suggested that the request should not be approved and the overlay district should be upheld. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Branch suggested that this is an opportunity to redevelop two parcels within the Town. He suggested that there are some challenges with the site, but would like to move forward with the zoning request and to work with the neighborhood and staff on the redevelopment. Mr. Millet asked if the car wash would be similar to the Liquid Highway car wash on Hungryneck Blvd. Mr. Branch answered in the negative and stated that there would be an attendant handling the vehicular traffic. Mr. Millet expressed concern with using Camelia Drive as the main entrance for the car wash and that there could be a backup of vehicles waiting to utilize the car wash. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Ms. Smith suggested that due to the location and proximity of the school, and in upholding the Comprehensive Plan, the request should be denied. Mr. McNeill suggested that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan should be upheld. Mr. Wren suggested that the aggregation of the properties is an important consideration. Mr. McNeill suggested that a car wash is not appropriate for this location. Mr. Wren suggested that it is important that the overlay district is upheld. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 7 of 10 D. R-11-19, Request to Annex and zone four parcels AB-2, Areawide Business- 2 District; Rezone two parcels from AB, Areawide Business District to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District; and Amend the official Building Height Plan Map to allow up to 60 feet in building height for all six parcels, located at 409, 415 W. and 423 Coleman Boulevard; 24 Broadway Street. TMS Nos. 517-06-00-063, -064, -065, -120, -062, and -122 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Michael Harper, representative for the owner reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Frank Tolen, 949 Shem Creek Drive, stated that the height for the town and county is 45 and suggested that additional height should not be allowed. Ms. Lisa Turansky, 930 Tall Pine, with the Coastal Conservation League, stated that she is in favor of the request as the property should be developed in the Town. She suggested that the additional height would not disrupt the skyline, but if not allowed to have mixed uses, that would be contrary to the character of the area. She suggested that it is also a way to develop in a way that is consistent with the surrounding area and Shem Creek park. Mr. Glen Hammerbacker, 184 Mount Pleasant Court, agreed that the additional height should not be allowed. He suggested that a storage unit is not appropriate for Coleman Blvd. Ms. Eve Smither, 419 Bayview Drive, agreed that mixed uses would provide a more vibrant community. She stated that the goal was to have a walkable community and suggested that the proposed project would allow such. Mr. Brock expressed concern with the notice of the public hearing as it was unclear on what the request was. He suggested that the additional height and additional cell tower would not be consistent with the character of the corridor. He suggested that the request does not meet the criteria for a zoning change and should not be approved. Mr. Randy Cooper, representative for Broadway St property owners, stated that they are in favor of the request. He stated that the project is allowed in the  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 8 of 10 county and suggested that allowing to annex in the Town would provide the Town purview over the design of the project and provide a better community. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Harper noted that the height would be stepped back from Coleman Blvd. He stated that if developed in the county, the building would have to be set back from the road and suggested that this would not be consistent with the overlay district or the Coleman Blvd area. He reiterated that they would like to work with the Town to have a project that is aesthetically pleasing and a benefit for the Town and Coleman Blvd area. Ms. Smith asked why a plan was not submitted with the request. She expressed concern that there is no guarantee that the buildings would be developed as presented. Mr. Pagliarini stated a point of order that the rezoning request cannot be conditioned and a conceptual plan is not required for submittal of the request. Mr. Harper stated that they have other buildings along Coleman Blvd and have worked with the Town to ensure the other projects meet the Town requirements. Mr. Millet asked if the AB zoning allows storage units. Ms. Canon answered in the negative, but noted that the current county zoning would allow the storage unit. Mr. Millet suggested that there is an opportunity to build within the guidelines. He suggested that some types of uses should not be built along a major thoroughfare but from the side streets. Mr. Wren asked the amount of retail that would be proposed. Mr. Harper distributed a copy of a conceptual plan and suggested that the retail would be approximately 12,000 square feet. Mr. Wren asked what impact fees would be generated. Mr. Harper answered that he is not sure. Mr. Wren asked if more retail would be considered. Mr. Harper answered that they are considering a mixture of uses for the project. Mr. Gates asked how the building height is measured an if the property is in a flood zone. Mr. Paul Peoples answered that it is in a flood zone. Ms. Canon stated that the overlay district allows 45-foot height.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Lehman asked if height allowed in the county is different from the Town. Mr. Harper answered that the county allows up to 45 feet to be consistent with the Town’s overlay district. Mr. Wren asked if there is an approved plan for development in the county. Mr. Harper answered in the affirmative. Mr. McNeill stated that uses are not under consideration for the zoning, but rather if the zoning requested is consistent and should be approved. He stated that staff has indicated that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that one issue with the Comprehensive Plan update was financial stability of the Town and having a diversity of uses, but again, this is not a consideration of the request. Mr. Millet asked if each portion of the request could be taken separately taken. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative. Ms. Gregg asked the premise for the request for additional height. Mr. Peeples answered that the additional height is to allow the mixture of uses and that Broadway Street is in a flood zone, so the building would need to be elevated. He stated that the additional height would allow for a more consistent height of the building. Mr. McNeill asked what the applicant would do if the height was not recommended for approval. Mr. Harper answered that it would be difficult. He stated that the additional height would allow the building height to be stepped back and would not be right up on Coleman Blvd. Ms. Gregg asked the difference in uses between AB and AB-2. Ms. Canon reviewed the uses for AB and AB-2 zonings with the Commission. Ms. Smith moved to deny the request to rezone two properties from AB to AB-2. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. Ms. Smith suggested that the property should remain as currently zoned. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, and Mr. Lehman opposed.  Planning Commission April 17, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Smith moved to deny the request to zone four parcels to AB-2. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, and Mr. Lehman opposed. Ms. Smith moved for denial of the request for additional building height to 60 feet. Ms. Gregg seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:47 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn04172019