Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2019 MINUTES Green arrows are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1—Staff Report PowerPoint Presentation Present:Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, Rodly Millet, Kathy Smith, George Gates, DeAudre Gregg, Don Campbell. Absent:John McNeill. Staff:Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Michele Canon, Kevin Mitchell, Liz Boyles, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm. 1.. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Neal moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. All in favor. 2.Approval of Minutes from May 22nd meeting Mr. Neal moved for approval of the minutes with the following correction: Ømotion for item G--should be “one year” not one hear Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. All in favor. 3.Update on Planning Commission Recommendations Ms. Canon reviewed Town Council decisions with the Commission. 4.Correspondence Ms. Canon stated that all correspondence was received. 5.General Public Comment Mr. William Pascatore, 2259 Sandy Point Lane, expressed concern about item 7B on the agenda and that if there is a fire, there would not be access to or from Rivertowne or Planters Pointe subdivisions. He expressed concern for public safety and access of emergency vehicles to these neighborhoods. He expressed concern with the amount of traffic and that this request would increase traffic in the area. Ms. Mercedes Papaharris, 2717 Sarasen, expressed concern with item 7B and that there is currently traffic congestion on Hwy 41 and at the intersection. She suggested that the location is not feasible for a gas station, particularly given the proposed improvements to Hwy 41. Ms. Jill Cragg, 2479 Bergeron Way, expressed concern with the proposed gas station at Rivertowne Parkway (item 7B). She expressed concern with the gas station increasing traffic and that it would also affect pedestrian and bike safety. She asked that this request be delayed until the improvements to Hwy 41 are finalized. Ms. Elena Carraminana, 2632 Alderly Lane, suggested that the improvements to Hwy 41 should be considered before approval of the request for a gas station (item 7B). She suggested that there is currently a significant amount of traffic on Hwy 41. She expressed concern with bike and pedestrian safety. Mr. Gregg Rothchild, 1320 Carol Oaks Drive, expressed concern with item 7B and the Hwy 41 traffic. He suggested that the gas station would not cause significant increase in traffic. He suggested that a gas station in that area is needed. He suggested that Harris Teeter is a part of the community, has been a good business partner for the community, and suggested that having “one-stop shopping” would be a benefit and reduce traffic in the area. Mr. Rob List, 254 River Oak Drive, asked if about the greenway trails and if this would be considered. Mr. Wren answered in the affirmative and stated that it is a public hearing on tonights agenda. Mr. List suggested that D.R. Horton has “backed out” of several amenities and development. He suggested that the trails should not be allowed to be removed. Ms. Elizabeth Nagle, 1984 Shields Lane, expressed concern with the proposed gas station (item 7B) and suggested that a different alternative should be considered. She expressed concern with the potential for accidents in the area. She suggested that a gas station is not needed in that area. 6.Requests A. R-16-19, Request to amend the Belle Hall PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, and Conceptual Plan, pertaining to the Seacoast Parcel (Ordinance No. 13034 adopted in 2013 and subsequently amended), to remove the requirement for a 5-foot pervious mulch trail located within the wooded buffer along I-526, located at Tidal Walk /  Seacoast Parkway Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Smith asked if the residents have access to the public amenities. Ms. Canon answered that in the affirmative that this is the understanding of staff but suggested that the applicant could better address this question. Mr. Campbell asked if there is a significant decrease in traffic noise with the trees remaining in place. Ms. Canon answered that it has been represented that the residents along I-526 have voiced a request to not have the trail installed and suggested that the applicant could better address this. Mr. Chuck Munn, representative for Tidal Walk, LLC, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked if the HOA has transitioned from developer control. Mr. Munn answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal stated that he understands the reason not to maintain the trail, but this was an amenity that was approved not only for this neighborhood, but for surrounding neighborhoods. He asked if there was a majority vote from the HOA to not have the trails. Mr. Munn answered that he was not sure. Mr. Neal expressed concern with not allowing the trail to be completed. There being no comments, Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Wren asked how many homes are in the neighborhood. Mr. Munn answered that there are 119 homes. Mr. Neal moved for denial of the request. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that this was an amenity that was contentiously debated and ultimately approved. He expressed concern with removing the amenity for a few homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Smith agreed with Mr. Neal that a majority of the homeowners should be in favor of removal of the trail before this is approved. Mr. Gates asked if the tree ordinance would be a factor in installing the trail. Ms. Canon answered that the installation of the trail was approved. Mr. Mitchell stated that the alignment of the trail has not been finalized and would be aligned to meander around significant trees. Mr. Wren asked if the tree removal would affect drainage. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would be a pervious mulch trail, so there would not be any impervious surface that would cause runoff. Ms. Gregg asked if there was discussion of duplication of trail and sidewalk. Mr. Neal answered that his recollection is that it would be a mulch trail and not concrete. He stated that the Commission desired to have the installation of the trail in addition to sidewalks. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. B.Request to review a Conditional Use Permit per Section 5.2 c)(c)(1) of the Rivertowne PDD, Planned Development District Ordinance, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 156.112 of the Town of Mount Pleasant Zoning Code (Oct. 1993) for an automobile service station to be located on site and associated with the existing Harris Teeter grocery store, located at 2035 Highway 41/Rivertowne Harris Teeter. TMS #540-00-00-229 Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Campbell asked if a peak trip is one automobile or could be a vehicle with trailer or boat attached. Ms. Canon answered that a peak trip does not specify the type of vehicle. Mr. Neal asked if the traffic counts are from the previous impact assessment. Ms. Canon answered that the estimated traffic counts presented were based on this proposed use. Mr. Neal asked if an original traffic study was completed in 2001. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and stated that this parcel was included in the original impact assessment as a retail/restaurant use. Mr. Bryan Hellman and Mr. Jonathan Yates reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Hellman asked for additional time for their presentation. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this is not a public hearing, so the ten minute requirement could be extended if the Commission desired. The Commission agreed to allow additional time for the applicant. Mr. Jonathan Guy reviewed the traffic counts with the Commission. Mr. Jody McAnerny, real estate appraiser, reviewed the compatibility and if the request would affect the character or general welfare of the area with the Commission. Mr. Wren asked if the gas station would be less impact than the approved impact assessment approved in 2001. Mr. Guy answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wren asked if this would be a lesser use than the proposed fuel center. Mr. Guy answered in the affirmative. Mr. Campbell asked if there are plans to expand services in the future. Mr. Hellman answered in the negative and stated that the kiosk is only 240 square feet. Mr. Campbell asked if a risk assessment was completed to determine impacts such as need, traffic, etc. Mr. Hellman answered that the need is demonstrated based on the application being submitted. He suggested that they are meeting all of the impacts outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Millet asked if there would be access from Hwy 41. Mr. Hellman answered in the negative, but suggested that improvements to Hwy 41 would be determined in the future. Mr. Millet suggested that further investigation on the traffic impacts might be necessary. Ms. Smith suggested that based on staffs analysis, an additional traffic study might be warranted. She suggested that based on the amount of traffic currently on Hwy 41, the traffic flow would be hindered. Mr. Neal suggested that impact assessments and traffic studies are completed by the applicant with review by staff. He asked if there would be additional parking. Mr. Hellman answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked about impact fees. Mr. Hellman answered that this would be calculated based on the final design, but could be approximately $3,000. Mr. Neal asked if the site would be buffered. Mr. Hellman answered in the affirmative and stated that there would be a 50 foot buffer along Hwy 41. He stated that additional plantings would be installed. He stated that near the dentist office, the buffer would be approximately 30 feet, even though a ten foot buffer is required. Mr. Neal asked if the potential improvements to Hwy 41 have been taken into consideration. Mr. Guy answered in the negative and stated that once the final improvements were known, would they then be considered. Mr. Neal asked if safety measures have been considered in the event of an emergency. Mr. Hellman answered that the Mount Pleasant Fire Department (MPFD) has been contacted. He stated that there are safety measures put in place with the installation of the fuel tanks and federally regulated. Mr. Neal asked if the applicant would be amenable to completing a traffic study. Mr. Hellman answered that they do not feel that the study is warranted, but would complete a study if included as a condition. Mr. Neal asked the timeframe for completion. Mr. Guy answered that it could be completed within a short amount of time. Mr. Ulma stated that timing would be based on staff time needed to review. Ms. Canon clarified that the information was not a complete traffic study. Mr. Wren asked about access of the tanker trucks. Mr. Hellman answered that they would access from Hwy 41 during off-peak times. He showed the proposed route on a map for the Commission. Mr. Wren asked about road ownership. Mr. Hellman answered that it is jointly owned. Ms. Smith expressed concern with moving forward until the improvements to Hwy 41 have been determined. Mr. Gates asked if there would be sufficient space for any improvements on Hwy 41. Mr. Hellman answered in the affirmative, but if changes were needed, this could be accomplished during design review approval. Mr. Gates asked if a change in the Lowes site was approved. Ms. Canon answered that an update impact assessment was reviewed by the Commission, but was withdrawn by the applicant prior to Town Council approval. Mr. Neal asked if Rivertowne Parkway is a town road and suggested that this roadway would be significantly impacted. Mr. Hellman answered that this could be determined during the design review process. Mr. Neal suggested that if a traffic study is completed, this roadway should be included to be able to see the impacts. Mr. Wren asked if Rivertowne Parkway is a town-owned road. Mr. Prause answered in the affirmative. Mr. Millet suggested that a traffic study should be completed. Ms. Smith asked if a traffic study is desired, would it mean a deferral. Mr. Neal answered that it could be approved with conditions or deferred. Ms. Gregg asked a point of order and if there were any other questions were for the applicant. Ms. Gregg asked when Rivertowne was approved. Ms. Canon answered that it was approved in 1994. Ms. Canon noted that staff could not approve a traffic study. Mr. Pagliarini agreed and stated that staff would review the study, but would need to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Neal moved for deferral of the request pending submission of a traffic study and additional relevant information regarding parking and traffic mitigation, with information required for study to be determined by transportation staff. Mr. Wren seconded the motion. Mr. Neal suggested that the traffic study should be completed by the applicant and then brought back to the Commission for review. Ms. Smith suggested that the traffic study should be deferred until the improvements to Hwy 41 are known. She suggested that the Commission has an obligation to ensure that the impact is as minimal as possible. Mr. Campbell suggested that some risk assessment data should be included as well. Mr. Wren suggested that this would be included with the traffic study. Mr. Neal suggested that the trip standard should differentiate or capture the vehicle type within the traffic analysis data. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote with Ms. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Wren, Mr. Millet, and Mr. Neal in favor; Mr. Gates and Ms. Smith opposed. C. Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by changing the Coleman Boulevard Overlay District Development Guidelines Table, as provided in Section 156.318(P)(4), as it relates to the maximum heights in subarea B2 of the district, along with any associated provisions in Section 156.318(P) which might affect the measurement of and allowance of building heights and stories within the overall overlay district Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Smith asked if this is part of a negotiation with the developer and Town Council to bring the property into the Town. Mr. Campbell asked the benefit to the Town. Ms. Canon answered that she was not sure, but this height was previously allowed prior to 2015. Ms. Smith stated that this would also allow the property to be annexed. Mr. Neal asked if any other parcels would be affected. Mr. Ulma answered that it would apply to the entire block. He stated that this would allow for a step back building approach that is desired. Mr. Millet suggested that this would allow for redevelopment of this area. He asked what the height would be on Broadway. Mr. Ulma answered that it would be 50 to 55 feet and showed the different heights on a depiction for the Commission. Ms. Gregg asked about grade. Ms. Canon answered that Broadway Street is approximately five feet lower than Coleman Boulevard. Ms. Gregg suggested that this could set a precedent for future similar requests. Mr. Gates concurred that this could set a precedent. Mr. Ulma answered that there are other sections with different height requirements. He stated that with the updated Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended to review the Boulevard overlay districts. Mr. Gates asked about flood zones and if the proposed height would be allowed within the flood zone. Ms. Canon answered that the flood zone would not limit the height of the building. Ms. Smith suggested that because it includes a block, there is cohesion and would not be considered spot-zoning. Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Mr. Millet moved for approval of the request. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that while this could set a precedent, it was a request from staff and not from an applicant. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote with Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Millet, and Mr. Neal in favor; Ms. Gregg opposed. D. Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by amending the requirement of a minimum of 160 caliper inches per acre be retained on site, as provided in Section 156.225(E)(5). Proposed is to reduce this minimum requirement for certain land uses, such as civic and park uses. Also proposed is to amend the language in Section 156.225 to clarify that the minimum caliper inches required is a development standard that must be provided on site and/or covered by a payment into the tree bank. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Campbell asked how this would affect these types of areas. Ms. Canon showed some examples for the Commission. Ms. Smith asked the difference if the current requirement remained in place. Ms. Canon answered that it would mean a smaller open area. Mr. Todd Richardson, Synchronicity, stated that he designed the Midtown development and found that it was difficult to design and would mean that approximately 90% of the area would be covered with trees. He suggested that the proposed amendment would meet the intent of the ordinance in regard to parks and gathering spaces. He asked that the following should be considered for inclusion in the amendment: ØParks, whether public or private, should have public accessibility and should include corner nodes. ØAllow credit for understory trees. ØAllow payment into the Tree Bank when plantings cannot be completed. Mr. Wren closed the public hearing. Ms. Smith moved for approval. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Mr. Neal moved to amend the motion to include the following: ØParks, whether public or private, should have public accessibility and should include corner nodes. ØAllow credit for understory trees. ØAllow payment into the Tree Bank when plantings cannot be completed. Mr. Campbell seconded the amendment. Mr. Neal suggested that the inclusion of Mr. Richardsons suggestions are valid and should be included in the amendments.  Mr. Wren asked about the inclusion of Mr. Richardsons suggestions. Mr. Bernard answered that inclusion of the understory trees would be contrary to what is currently in place. He stated that typically the understory trees are smaller and not included in a tree survey. Mr. Wren asked if the tree bank option is included in the proposed amendment. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Ms. Gregg noted that the amendment included allowance of understory trees that is a concern of staff. Mr. Wren stated that the amendment to the main motion included the suggestions of Mr. Richardson, but they have not been voted on by the Commission. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment failed on a 2 to 5 vote with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Neall in favor; Ms. Gregg, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Millet opposed. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the main motion as originally stated. All in favor. E.Approval to name an access easement Masters Studio Way. Access easement is located between Rifle Range Road and New Parish Way. This request was withdrawn by the applicant. F.Approval to name an access easement Cape Remley Place. Access easement is located off Second Street. Mr. Campbell moved for approval of the request. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn06192019