Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 2019 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, George Gates, Tripp Cuttino (left at 5:45 pm). Absent:DeAudre Gregg. Staff:Jeff Ulma, Julia Copeland, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1.Approval of the Agenda Mr. Neal moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 2.Approval of Minutes from April 17th meeting Mr. Neal moved for approval of the minutes with the following correction: ØPage 1, item #4, last sentence—should read “Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative, but without the request for additional multi-family units.” Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor. 3.Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. 4.Correspondence No additional correspondence. 5.General Public Comment Ms. Laurie Bixler, 144 3rd Avenue, spoke regarding short-term rentals. She stated that short-term rentals are a means of supplementing income. She stated that staff has worked hard on this issue and asked that the Commission recommend approval. Mr. George Bixler, 144 3rd Avenue, spoke regarding short-term rentals. He suggested that because of having their short-term rental for the length of time they could be considered the “poster child” for short-term rentals. He asked that the request should be approved. Mr. Kevin High, owns homes in the Charleston area including Mount Pleasant. He suggested that the short-term rental provision as outlined is a good program and should be approved. Mr. Tom Donaldson, 1649 Lauda Dr, spoke regarding short-term rentals. He asked that multi-family uses be allowed to have short-term rentals. He suggested that this is a last-minute addition to the regulations that should not be included. He suggested that communities should self-regulate and many neighborhoods already self-regulation. Ms. Madeleine Donaldson, 1649 Lauda Drive, spoke regarding short-term rentals. She suggested that multi-family uses should be allowed to have short- term rentals if allowed within their HOA. Ms. Michele Whitbeck, 712 Hibbens Grant, spoke regarding short-term rentals. She expressed concern with the fee to cover the administrative costs and that it was too high and should be reviewed. Ms. Sarah Jacob, 1152 Village Creek Lane, expressed concern with allowing short-term rentals in condominiums. She suggested that it is very disruptive because of the close proximity of the residences and the fact that there is more activity with short-term rentals. Ms. Alicia Lockwood, 316 Appling Way, suggested that the fees should be reviewed as the paperwork and additional fees might prevent someone from being able to have short-term rentals as a supplement their income. Ms. Mary Ricosi, 615 Bay Tree Court, suggested that there are more controls with a short-term rental than with long-term rental. She suggested that as a whole short term rentals are controlled and not a nuisance to the neighborhood Mr. Craig Snook, 920 Wando Park Blvd, stated that they have a short-term rental unit in their home that is used to supplement their income. He suggested that the fees should be lowered. Mr. Michael Barnett, 603 Center Street, stated that he was allowed a special exception for his short-term rental. He agreed that multi-family units should be allowed to have short-term rentals. He expressed concern with not having fire inspections. He suggested that the units should be regulated. Mr. Walter Brown, III, 437 Venning St, spoke regarding item 7B. He referenced §156.117 suggested that a conditional use should be considered as opposed to the proposed text amendment. He suggested that if approved, it would affect the landscape and destroy a part of the history of the Town. He asked that the text amendment should be denied. Mr. Thomas Tisdale, 211 Sixth Avenue, spoke regarding short-term rentals and only allowing short-term rentals for 1% of the total dwelling units. He suggested that dealing on a first come, first serve basis might not be a fair solution. He suggested that it could mean that someone might not be able to use short-term rentals as supplemental income. He stated that he is in favor of having regulations to protect the short-term rental owner and neighbors. Mr. Mike Dugan, 666 Bank St, expressed concern with the 1% maximum for short-term rental units. Ms. Kimberly Moore, 1041 Marsh Court Lane, spoke regarding short-term rentals. She suggested that the 1% maximum should be reviewed and the data used to determine the maximum percentage should be provided. She suggested that the fee should be reviewed. She expressed concern with having unlimited access to the homes where short-term rentals are provided and suggested that this should be clarified. Mr. Jonathan Yates spoke regarding the text amendment regarding telecommunications facilities. He suggested that it would bring the regulations more in line with other regulations across the state. Mr. Craig Tozzolino, 1496 Indian St, spoke regarding short-term rentals and that they should be allowed. He suggested that there should not be additional fees assessed for having a short-term rental. Ms. Sara Goodwin, Itrip Vacations, spoke regarding short-term rentals and fees assessed. She suggested that the fees should be assessed for all rentals and not just short-term rentals. She suggested that the parking is stricter than they should be. Ms. Karen Keyes, Turnkey Rentals, spoke regarding the short-term rental regulations and suggested that the fees seem high. She asked that the fees be reconsidered. She also expressed concern with having a 1% maximum and that many of the neighborhoods already prohibit short-term rentals. Mr. Alec Graham, 1321 Belleview Dr, spoke regarding short-term rentals. He suggested that the number of short-term rentals allowed is in disproportion to the number of hotels in the area. He suggested that this should be taken into consideration and the maximum reconsidered to ensure that it would not limit someone from having a short-term rental to supplement their income. Mr. Kenny Craft, 204 Spooner Lane, stated that he is in favor of short-term rentals and commended staff on their work. He suggested that there should not be additional parking requirements for short-term rentals. He suggested that the fees seem a little high and suggested that they should be reviewed. There being no additional comments, Mr. Wren closed public comment. Mr. Cuttino left at this time (5:45 pm). 6.Requests A.Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by adding a new section entitled Short Term Rentals. The purpose of this new section is to define and regulate the use of residential units as short term rentals in order to protect the integrity and character of the Towns existing neighborhoods, as well as the health and safety of occupants of short term rental units. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Laurie Bixler, 144 3rd Avenue, expressed concern with the enforcement restrictions and that it could allow a neighbor to force someone from being allowed to have a short-term rental because of the way the violation section is worded. She suggested that if the owner calls about a violation of their own property, they should not be penalized. Mr. Thomas Donaldson, 1649 Lauda Drive, suggested that more time should be taken to review allowing multi-family units for short-term rentals. Mr. George Bixler, 144 3rd Ave, asked for clarification on allowing events and how this would be enforced, particularly with distinguishing between events held by the homeowner or those by a short-term renter. He asked for clarification on the parking regulations. Mr. Kevin High, Walkway Stays, suggested that allowing short-term rentals for multi-family units should be reviewed as well as having a maximum of 1%. He suggested that the parking regulations are unfair. Ms. Sarah Jacob, 1152 Village Creek Lane, suggested that short-term rentals take away from long-term rentals and affordable housing units. She suggested that the inventory should not be taken away. Ms. Mary Ricossi suggested that the number of short-term rentals currently operating might not be correct. She expressed concern with having a maximum allowed and why this was not done for other business types. Mr. Zach Moore, 1041 Marsh Court Lane, suggested that who is driving this issue to be reviewed should be provided and which Town Council members wanted to have this issue addressed. He suggested that there is currently not an issue with short-term rentals and that regulating them is unnecessary. He suggested that allowing blanket access to a home is in essence giving a “blanket search warrant or writ of assistance”. Mr. Tozzolino expressed concern with a small portion of business owners having to fund these regulations as it should be shared by all of the tax payers. Ms. Elizabeth Benson, 152 Sixth Avenue, stated that using short-term rentals to supplement income should be treated separately from other short-term rentals. Mr. Kenny Craft agreed that there should be tiers of types of short-term rentals. He suggested that the maximum is unfair. Mr. Alex Graham expressed concern with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) not being allowed for short-term rentals. Ms. Smith stated that this was incorrect. He suggested that the maximum is unfair and is not similar to hotel uses. He suggested that the fees should be assessed at the same rate as hotels. Mr. Thomas Tisdale agreed that the maximum should be assessed in a fair manner. Mr. Neal stated that there are several items that he questions about this issue. He stated that the Planning Committee spent over a year discussing this issue and suggested that more time should be taken to fully review this issue. Mr. Neal moved to defer this issue to the next meeting for further discussion. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that there are multiple questions that need to be fully discussed. He suggested that if a special meeting is needed, he would be in favor of that as well. Mr. Wren asked staff what options the Commission has regarding continuing discussion. Mr. Prause answered that it could be discussed at the next meeting, but it is anticipated to be a large agenda. He suggested a special meeting might be more appropriate. Ms. Smith agreed that this is an important issue and should be discussed at a special meeting. Mr. McNeill agreed that this is a complex issue and should be fully discussed before making a recommendation. Mr. Gates agreed that more discussion is needed. Ms. Gregg suggested that additional training on short-term rentals and regulating short-term rentals should be considered as well. Mr. Millet thanked staff on their work on this issue. He agreed that this is a complex issue and should be fully reviewed and discussed. Mr. Neal asked if questions could be sent to staff ahead of the meeting. Ms. Copeland suggested that any questions should be sent to the chair and then forwarded to staff prior to the next meeting. Mr. Wren asked about the grandfather provision. Ms. Canon answered that these could be considered if either approved through a special exception or proof of taxes being paid and then implementing the maximum allowed. Mr. Prause clarified that these would be considered non-conforming uses and the use could continue as long as it was done legally before the regulations changed. In addition, all other regulations would have to be upheld. Ms. Gregg suggested that there should be a comparison between hotels and short-term rentals. Ms. Canon suggested that the tax assessment is generally the same and stated that a comparison could be provided. Ms. Smith suggested that there are different types of short-term rentals and suggested that a tier fee system might be appropriate. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. B.Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by removing Telecommunications Towers as a Special Exception in PI-2, Public Institutional-2 Zoning District, as provided in Section 156.118, and allowing them as a Conditional Use, subject to the Conditional Use Provisions in Section 156.117. Also proposed is to amend Section 156.118 to clarify the language pertaining to Telecommunications Towers for public or quasi-public service providers. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Jonathan Yates stated that this is a text amendment, therefore, the Town would be the applicant. Mr. Walter Brown, III provided a petition of over 200 signatures in opposition of removing the water tower. He expressed concern with having a cell tower in a historic district in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Don Slavick, AT&T, stated that the tank is in poor condition and needs to be removed. He stated that the tank provided co-location of cell carriers and without it the cell service in the area would significantly decline. He stated that the tank would be replaced with a stealth tower; this means that more height is needed in order to have sufficient room for co-locations and service. He stated that the stealth tower also provides service for emergency services. Ms. Canon stated that this was thought to be the best option rather than rezoning to Light Industrial (LI) zoning that would allow additional uses that might not be appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Ms. Smith suggested that this is a text amendment and should be considered as such. She suggested that the previous zoning request to LI was of concern and the reason this was not approved. Mr. Neal suggested that this could be deferred, but changes would not be allowed under this application. He suggested that the Commission should move forward with the request. Mr. McNeill asked the reason for Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) wanting to defer the issue. Mr. Prause answered that he is not sure why MPW would want to delay the issue. Mr. Wren asked what is allowed under the PI-2 zoning. Mr. Prause suggested that all of the current uses of the property would be allowed under the PI-2 zoning. Mr. Neal suggested that PI-2 might not be appropriate as it includes more industrial municipal type uses. Mr. McNeill asked the difference between LI and PI-2. Ms. Canon answered that LI would include uses such as tattoo parlors and adult dance clubs as special exceptions. Mr. Wren asked if multiple towers could be erected if zoned to PI-2. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative and stated that if the conditions were met, there could be multiple towers. Ms. Gregg recused herself due to a conflict of issue. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. All in favor with Ms. Gregg abstaining. C.R-12-19, Request to amend the Dunes West PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, adopted in 1990, to reduce the number of residential units in Park West by 2,030, from 5,281 to 3,251 units. 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 of the request. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. D.R-13-19, Request to rezone one parcel from R-1, Single Family Residential District, to CC, Community Conservation District located at 1570 Mathis Ferry Road and known as Grace Bible Church. TMS No. 559-00-00-080 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Neal asked if this would be a home for clergy. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and that it would be a parsonage for the church. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. E.R-14-19, Request to rezone one parcel from NC, Neighborhood Commercial District, to R-1, Single Family Residential District. Current CB-OD, Coleman Boulevard Overlay District zoning to remain in place, located at 1208 Schirmer Avenue. TMS No. 532-07-00-143 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Neal asked if the density would be the same. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Tim Askins reviewed the request with the Commission. Ms. Jacob expressed concern with changing the Comprehensive Plan, especially for areas that would be better suited for affordable housing. Mr. Wren asked if R-1 was removed for all overlay districts. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that the permitted use of single family was removed within the boulevard overlay districts. Ms. Smith stated that when the height was changed, it meant that some buildings, if significantly damaged, would not be able to rebuild to the previous height. There being no further comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that while he agrees with the comments that this area could be redeveloped, it might not be done for some time in the future. He suggested that this would allow for improvements to be done sooner. Ms. Gregg expressed concern with being consistent in the Commission decisions. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 4 vote with Mr. Gates, Mr. McNeill, and Mr. Neal in favor; Ms. Gregg, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet opposed. F.R-15-19, Request to rezone one parcel from CC, Community Conservation District, to R-3, Medium Density Residential District, located at 2183 Annie Laura Lane. TMS No. 558-00-00-326 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. David Wilkes reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Millet asked if the plan is to subdivide the property to build a home and move into it. Mr. Millet answered in the affirmative. Ms. Smith asked if R-3 would only allow the subdivision. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the request. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Mr. Neal asked if the surrounding properties are R-3. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Ms. Smith asked what the recommendation is in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Canon suggested that it is recommended for Community Conservation (CC) zoning. Ms. Smith expressed concern with changing the zoning against the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McNeill asked what the surrounding properties are zoned in the county. Ms. Canon answered that she wasnt sure but thought it was R-4, Special Area Management, in the County. Mr. Millet suggested that this is another example of “chipping away” at a historic settlement community. He suggested that the zoning should not be changed. Mr. Neal agreed that there should be consistency with the Commission decisions; however, each application should be evaluated on its own merits. He stated that there are properties adjacent to this property that is zoned R- 3 and the plan is to subdivide the property to provide for his family. Mr. McNeill agreed that this is not the first property recommending this zoning in this area and suggested that the request is consistent with surrounding property. Mr. Millet suggested that each request should be reviewed on its merits. He suggested that just because there are other properties that were similarly zoned. He suggested that there is not a respect for the neighborhood or the residents in those neighborhoods. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 2 to 5 vote with Mr. McNeill and Mr. Neal in favor; Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet opposed. G.Request approval of extension of vesting period for Preliminary Plat that was approved on June 22, 2016 and received approval for a one-year extension on May 23, 2018, for 28 detached single-family residential lots zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District located off Rifle Range Road / Behind Scotts Creek Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Smith asked if the ordinance amendments would mean that the vested right extension could not be granted. Ms. Copeland answered in the affirmative.  Mr. Kurt Sands, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that the approved site plan would not be impacted by the amendments. Mr. Wren asked if the site plan meets the new requirements. Ms. Canon answered that she is not sure as staff has not reviewed the site plan. Mr. Prause suggested that it should be clarified that the plan meets the current regulations and therefore extended; if not, then need to come back for approval. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the extension of vested rights for one year; however, the request is granted under the assumption that the plat exceeds the requirements for greenspace, bufferyards, and critical line. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Neal moved to amend the motion to add that plat is compliant according to staff. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor. H.Request approval of street name for the Retreat at Carolina Park. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the street names. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. 7.Other Business A.Adoption of Amended Bylaws Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Gates asked if changes could be made after adopted at this meeting. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Ms. Lynes noted that seven days notice of changes would be required. Mr. Gates moved for approval. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:39 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn05222019