Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 5, 2017 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Public Meeting Room 1 Present: Bob Brimmer, Chair, Joe Bustos, Mark Smith, Elton Carrier. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, David Pagliarini, Jody Peele, Kevin Mitchell, Christina Springston, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Brimmer called the meeting to order at 11:42 am 1. Approval of Minutes from the May 1, 2017 meeting Mr. Bustos moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments There being no public comments, Mr. Brimmer continued with the agenda. 3. Employee years of service recognition Ms. Farrell recognized Christina Springston for five years of service. She stated that Ms. Springston worked to create the permit review procedures and the electronic submittals for Inspections. Mr. Brimmer commended the Planning Commission for their work. He stated that it is a volunteer position and service on the Commission takes a lot of time and commitment to review the items before them. He also commended the Planning staff for their support and information they provide to the Commission and Town Council. 4. Request to annex an approximately 0.83 acre tract of land according to Charleston County Tax Records (0.99 acres according to submitted Plat and Legal Description) located at 1271 Hamlin Road, identified by TMS no. 578-00- 00-195, and depicted as Lot G on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC office in book BW, page 120. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Commission (attachment 1).  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Smith asked if there is a rezoning request associated with the annexation. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the annexation request. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Bustos asked how many lots would be allowed. Ms. Farrell answered that she is not sure the exact number, but the minimum lot size allowed would be 12,500 square feet. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 5. Request approval of updated Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan for Hilton Garden Inn outparcel. The requested update to the impact assessment proposes a change in use from a 5,000 square foot restaurant to a 40,000 square foot office building. (Previously deferred) Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant has requested withdrawal. She stated that the previously approved impact assessment would still be in effect. Mr. Bustos asked if they would have to wait one year to bring back a request. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative and stated that the one year waiting period would not apply. Mr. Carrier asked if an updated impact assessment would be required. Ms. Farrell answered that one might be required depending on the uses proposed. 6. Review and discussion regarding policies, regulations, and procedures related to the installation of drainage during the construction or land development process. Mr. Bustos stated that he asked for this discussion because of the number of drainage issues that have been recently seen. He suggested that there are areas flooding. He stated that the drainage study preliminary report indicates there are areas within the Town that do not have drainage installed. He suggested that the drainage infrastructure should be installed before the lot is developed. He suggested that this would prevent areas where the last lot in a neighborhood is  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 3 of 7 causing drainage issues for the surrounding lots. He suggested that adequate drainage should be confirmed before a building permit is issued. Ms. Farrell reviewed staff recommendations with the Committee through a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 1). She stated that some of the recommendations would require amendments to the current ordinances and would require legal review. Mr. Bustos agreed that some regulations should be amended to provide more enforcement. Mr. Bustos moved to direct staff to move forward with draft amendments to the current ordinances for consideration and bring back to the Planning Committee in August. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Carrier stated that this is becoming a major issue in the historic district because of demolition of smaller homes and building larger homes on the same lot. Ms. Kari Kim, 673 Atlantic, asked how this would affect existing homes that are experiencing drainage issues and flooding and would there be any action that could be retroactively taken. Mr. Bustos suggested that this should be reviewed as well. Mr. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, expressed concern with grading that occurs on new lots that affects existing homes. He expressed concern with lots that have been vacant for a number of years and then when developed, the amount of fill brought in to grade the lot causes a drainage issue for the surrounding lots. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. Bustos asked when the results of the drainage study would be available and what remedies would be recommended. Mr. DeMoura answered that the results of the study should be available within the next month. He suggested that the results and recommendations should be available for review within the next couple of months. Mr. Bustos suggested that construction should not continue until the drainage study has been reviewed and a plan established to address the drainage issues.  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Bustos moved recommend to Town Council that any new construction be halted for up to 60 days in order to review the drainage study and establish a plan for those areas included within the drainage study with a definitive area outlined by the June Town Council meeting. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Smith asked how other areas of concern would be determined. Mr. Bustos answered that the areas where there is no drainage system in place should be a priority. He stated that this was within the drainage study and the reason for focusing on these first. Mr. Smith asked if the property referenced by Ms. Kim is included in the drainage study. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Mr. Carrier asked about the Stormwater fund and the projects identified within the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. DeMoura answered that the stormwater projects included in the CIP on an annual basis are typically maintenance projects. He stated that currently the CIP does not include any projects for the area that was included in the drainage study. He stated that the drainage study would identify areas where no drainage system is in place or where the drainage system is in critical failure. He stated that the funds needed to address the recommendations in the drainage study could be significant and funding sources would have to be identified. Mr. Brimmer asked if the Public Services Department would like to comment. Mr. Peele stated that there are sub-basins and basins included in the drainage study. He stated that the Town is looking at implementing a pilot program for two of the areas. Mr. Bustos agreed and stated that one issue is that many of the areas do not have an outfall. He stated that this is one reason for requesting that any new construction be halted. Mr. Will Haynie, 316 Mallard Court, stated that the lack of outfall areas was reviewed by the Public Services Committee of Council and suggested that this would be a good resource. He agreed that this is a town-wide issue. Ms. Rosemary Burnett, 114 Freeman Street, stated that the damage to her home and property is so extensive she is no longer able to live in the home. She suggested that the drainage issues are a result of runoff from the street. She expressed concern with funds not being allocated to correct the drainage issues.  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Brimmer stated that he empathizes with Ms. Burnett regarding her drainage issues and that this is one reason for having the drainage study and discussion of this issue. Mr. Cunnane expressed concern with the stormwater fund and how these funds are utilized. Ms. Kim stated that she contacted state representatives regarding the drainage issues because she lives on a state street and was told at that time that it must be a joint effort between the Town and the state. She suggested that there should be a collaborative effort to resolve the drainage issues. Ms. Brimmer stated that the Town is willing to work with the different entities to try to resolve those issues. Mr. Jim Owens agreed that it is an ongoing issue. He stated that Town Council is committed to resolving the drainage issues, but it will take some time. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 7. Continued review and discussion of Tree and Buffer Ordinances Ms. Farrell reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 1). Mr. Bustos suggested that the ordinances and points reviewed should be carefully considered. He asked if an arborist is required to review the SCE&G tree trimming. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative and stated that staff will review as well. Mr. Carrier agreed that SCE&G tree trimming is one of the concerns. He expressed concern that SCE&G tree trimming is not be done according to the agreement in place and “best practices” are not being followed. He suggested that an arborist should be on site to oversee the trimming of the trees. Mr. DeMoura stated that currently the ordinance requires protected and historic trees to be mitigated if removed. In those instances where damage was done through the utility pruning process, staff does not have the authority to allow the removal of the trees without mitigation. He suggested that staff should be allowed  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 6 of 7 more latitude for these type of situations so that the homeowner does not incur additional cost for trees damaged by the utility pruning. Mr. Carrier agreed that the ordinance should be reviewed. Mr. Brimmer stated that there are new areas within the Town where the lots are clear cut during development. He suggested that a more natural aesthetic should be required and that less trees should be removed. Mr. Brimmer asked about consistency between residential and commercial development with respect to approval of tree removal. Ms. Farrell answered that commercial development is subject to Design Review Board. She noted that commercial buildings can have a much larger footprint and can impact trees more significantly than a residential development since there is less flexibility with a building footprint. She stated that in some situations, it makes sense to have the developer responsible for the tree removal and mitigation at the beginning of the project so that it is not a burden later to the future homeowner if the tree is in poor condition. Mr. Bustos agreed that less trees should be taken at the beginning of the project. He stated that he has seen where a new subdivision is clear cut and then installs the mitigation trees. He suggested that where possible, less trees should be taken down. Ms. Farrell agreed, but noted that sometime trees need to be removed because of the amount of fill and grading that must be done. Mr. Haynie agreed that more discussion is needed and potential amendments needed. Mr. Cunnane suggested that a buffer might be beneficial for those areas where there is a significant change is grade from one neighborhood or area to another. Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, suggested that stronger regulations should be in place to prevent significant tree removal. She suggested that the character of the neighborhoods is being compromised. She suggested that the Town should encourage or even require better design in order to preserve more trees. Mr. Owens expressed concern with the vegetative buffer along Mathis Ferry Road and US17. He suggested that there should be consistency on the buffer required for these areas. He stated that having these buffers in place helps in regard to the control of noise.  Planning Committee June 5, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Brimmer agreed and stated that Hwy 41 is another area where the buffer is important and should be maintained. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm06052017  Attachment 1: June 5, 2017 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 5 June 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL 4. 1271 HAMLIN ROAD Request to annex an approximately 0.83 acre tract of land according to Charleston County Tax Records (0.99 acres according to submitted Plat and Legal Description) located at 1271 Hamlin Road, identified by TMS no. 578-00-00-195, and depicted as Lot G on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC office in book BW, page 120. 4. –AERIAL MAP 4. – FLU MAP 4. – ZONING MAP 5. 300 WINGO WAY Request approval of an updated Impact Assessment & Request: Conceptual Plan for 300 Wingo Way Location: 300 Wingo Way Parcel ID (TMS No.): 514-13-00-420 Type of Request: Updated Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan Public Hearing: Not required Total Acreage: Approximately 1.10 acres Plat Recording Info: Book L13 Page 0307 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21351 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/21412 Recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan. These Action to be Taken: recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council. ZONING MAP 2013 Conceptual Plan with Restaurant 2017 Conceptual Plan with Hotel DRAINAGE INSTALLATION NEW DEVELOPMENT For the purpose of this review, new development is new residential subdivisions containing multiple lots, typically a neighborhood. Process: • Sketch Plan submitted for Planning Commission review and approval • Preliminary Plat and Construction drawings submitted for Planning Engineering staff review and approval • MS4 submitted to the Town for review and approval • Clearing and Grading approved once MS4 is finalized and a site inspection is conducted to ensure silt fence and pre- development site conditions are met • Sewer • Lot Fill • Other Infrastructure • Drainage installation (rear yard) • Final Plat • Building Permit Issuance  INFILL LOTS For the purpose of this review, infill lots are those individual lots being developed or redeveloped with new construction that were either previously vacant or the existing home is being demolished or expanded. This also includes single lots that are subdivided in to two lots. Process: • Building Permit application submitted • Building Plan Reviewer reviews proposed grading on lot • If determined during review that proposed grading and known drainage conditions warrant review by Town Engineer, plans are submitted for his review • Town Engineer reviews and consultants with builder • Town Engineer may require improvements such as: • Swales • Gutter and drain spouts • Other • The permit is flagged so that the certificate of occupancy will be held until all required improvements have been made FIELD VERIFICATION New Developments  Development Codes Inspector  Building Inspectors  Public Services Stormwater staff Infill  Inspectors, including Development Codes Inspector as needed, with final approval by Town Engineer ENFORCEMENT TOOLS Withhold Permit Issuance Withhold Inspections (particularly final inspection) Withhold Certificate of Occupancy Stop Work Order (typically only in case of violation) Tickets (in case of violation only) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Consideration of text amendments to the Land Development Regulations Chapter New Developments:  Require rear yard drainage improvements to be installed during initial land development phases  Require topographic and grading information from adjacent properties  In consideration that this may require attaining information from private property (adjacent properties) legal assistance needed in the application of such a requirement Infill  Add language to the Code that definitively provides staff the ability to require certain drainage improvements, including interim drainage improvements if necessary  Recognizing that each development scenario is unique and that staff may need certain discretion to determine the best solution and plan, legal assistance will be needed in determining appropriate benchmarks for staff to clearly establish uniform application of the ordinance  Clearly provide staff with the authority to withhold a certificate of occupancy (or permitting or inspections) if improvements are not installed or installed properly BUFFERS AND TREES  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Current Bufferyard Definition/ Purpose: BUFFERYARD is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. (a) Both the amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each bufferyard required by this chapter are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses, or between a land use and a public road. (b) The planting units required of bufferyards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to buffer. (2) Bufferyards shall be required to separate different land uses from each other, in order to: (a) Eliminate or minimize potential nuisances, such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights, signs, and unsightly buildings or parking areas; or (b) Provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, or danger from fires or explosions. Current Residential Requirements New Single Family to Existing Single Family: No Buffer Required New Single Family to Existing Town House or Multifamily: No Buffer Required New Town House or Multifamily to Existing Single Family: Buffer Required (minimum buffer width 15 feet with 8 foot tall stockade fence)  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Goal: Require a buffer where new single family is built adjacent to existing single family Considerations: Defining when a buffer is required? Staff Comment: Staff does not believe it is the intent to apply a buffer in between two individual single family lots within the same development. The goal is to buffer an existing single family neighborhood from a new adjacent single family neighborhood. In consideration of the goal, if a new neighborhood is built next to vacant land, then no buffer is required. The buffer is only required next to existing homes. This would need to be clearly defined. Refer back to current definition and purpose of a bufferyard. Define neighborhood? To what extent would this apply in a master planned community? To what extent would this apply to areas that are not actually “neighborhoods”? Would the buffer only be required where the new neighborhood abuts existing lots? Or required to “encircle” the new neighborhood?  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Considerations cont.: Would the buffer be allowed to count as open space and meeting open space requirements? Staff comment: This buffer area may present opportunities for a pedestrian trail system therefore usable open space if clearing for a path is allowed. Adjacent neighbors may object to an adjacent trail system. Should this be accomplished by requiring buffers within yards, easements, or separate HOA parcels? Staff comment: If required in a backyard the buffer area will be sold to a homeowner with the buffer included within the lot area, setbacks will be measured from the property line (not the buffer line) which reduces usable rear yard area. Because of this, if contained on private property, the buffer will likely be cleared- and very difficult for the Town to enforce. Requiring on an HOA parcel is likely best, most enforceable. However, consideration should be given towards the buffer strip that will be created should property owners on each side decide to construct a fence. This may result in a strip of land in between two fences with certain maintenance or access concerns.  RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS Considerations cont.: How much vegetation should be required? Fences? Natural buffer or planted buffer? If no vegetation exists in the pre-development state, would a planted buffer be required? If vegetation does exist in the pre- development state, would it be required to be augmented? How wide (range of widths) should the buffers be? Staff Comment: The buffer should not be required to be any wider than required between a single family and townhome use. Are any encroachments (drainage) or uses permitted within the buffer? Staff comment: If the buffer is required to be vegetated or even undisturbed, then the drainage easement should be required outside of the buffer area. In requiring such, however, there is the potential for two parallel drainage systems meaning more infrastructure and more maintenance. If the goal of the buffer is to create greater separation but not necessarily require vegetation, there may be opportunities to create a more efficient drainage infrastructure system. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TREE ORDINANCES: OTHER JURISDICTIONS Hilton Head Island Kiawah Island Charleston City Charleston County Summerville  HILTON HEAD ISLAND Varies upon species and DBH size of "Specimen tree" Minimum Size Protected Variance for removal; Exemption: SF Lots • Tree retention as well as mitigation is calculated through a combination of caliper Species Not Protected Invasive Species inches and DBH (diameter breast height) inches • Caliper Inches are adjusted (ACI- adjusted Supplemental (if less than 900 inches caliper inches) depending on the category or before building): 15% of difference Kept or Planted classification of tree through a formula that from 900 ACI/acre of pervious applies DBH times a multiplier: surface area. • Category I: DBH * 1.00 • Category II: DBH * 0.75 Replacement: 30% of difference from 900 ACI/acre of pervious surface • Category III: DBH * 0.50 Mitigation area (trees removed during • Category IV: DBH * 0.25 development). • Trees planted at rate of 1 tree/10” ACI No more than 20% into dripline for difference, must be native, and of like impervious/soil compaction. Must be Encroachment category. more than 15 ft. from trunk; Can be more if pervious • Forestry is exempt to all tree protection.  KIAWAH ISLAND Oaks 3"+ and 6"+ caliper or greater at DBH for all species "may" be • Enforced by the Kiawah Island Minimum Size Protected protected, oaks over 24" must be Architecture Review Board. preserved. • All trees planted or replaced Species Not Protected Popcorn (Tallow) trees must be of a native species. 1 tree (3"+) per 1,000 sq. ft. gross lot area (Palmetto only count as 1/3rd a Kept or Planted tree) Kept: Generally 70%, but case by case New: For oaks 24"+, all inches must be Mitigation replaced with trees 6"+ in size. Oaks 6"+ may require replacement. Encroachment Case by case basis  CHARLESTON CITY Grand Trees - 24"+ DBH Protected tree - 8"+ DBH (exempt: Residential) All exempt: Forestry, Agriculture, Utilities, Gov. Agencies Minimum Size Protected Colonnades/Allees - 2 or more parallel rows with min. of 4 trees total and 2 trees (20"+) except pine or in ROW Species Not Protected Pine trees or sweet gum • Mitigation based on species listed in category. Prior to Dev. - No more than 25% of protected trees (8"+) can be removed. Must maintain at least 15 protected • Category I: 100% Kept or Planted trees/acre. During Dev. or after - Min. 15/acre protected trees (8"+) (variance) unless less than that already existed. Then just that number. • Category II: 75% (variance) • Category III: 50% (special Protected Tree (8" to 23") - for every tree, two 2 1/2" exception) caliper trees planted. Grand Trees - variance or special exception depending on • Category IV: 25% (special category. If removed for health/damage - 1 tree of equivalent exception) Mitigation species. % mitigation depends on species. 75% of replacement trees must provide similar habitat, shade, erosion control or water purification. Inspected after 1 year. During construction - Protected trees 23" or less - 10' min. If greater than 23" - 1 ft. for 1 inch. Impervious, etc. - Trees 8" to 16" - min of 8 ft. required. Trees 17" to 23" - min of 10 ft. required. Grand Trees - min Encroachment of 12 ft. + 1 ft. for every additional 3" in excess of 24". Can be less per Zoning Admin. All roots severed clean and 2" of mulch laid over exposed roots. CHARLESTON COUNTY Grand Tree - 24"+ DBH (exempt: forestry, except for Live Oaks) Minimum Size Protected Protected Trees – 8”+ DBH (exempt: SF detached and agriculture) Partial except: SCDOT and CCPW Species Not Protected Pine or Sweet Gum For trees 8"+ DBH, 20 trees/acre; or any number of trees with combined DBH of at least 160"/acre. Wetlands/retention pond Kept or Planted do not count towards acreage. If less than 160"/acre exists, 6"+ DBH trees are counted. If less than 40"/acre, trees must be planted to 40"/acre. Trees removed (except for health/safety/etc.) must be approved by Mitigation BZA. Replacement Trees must be 2 1/2"+ caliper. Tree inspected within 3 years. Grand Tree: 1" for 1" Protection zone is drip line or 1 1/2' per inch of DBH. Can be modified in either direction. Encroachment No more than 25% paved under a tree. If more, must be approved by Planning Director.  SUMMERVILLE Grand Tree - 16"+ DBH Minimum Size Protected Protected Tree - 6"+ DBH (not for subdivisions) None (invasive needs permit, but allowed • Tree Advisory Protection (T.A.P.) Species Not Protected automatically) Committee • Made up of four citizens Protected Trees: Excluding the buffer, 1) If less (including at least one Kept or Planted than 20 trees, need combined 160"+ DBH/acre; arborist) and three staff or 2) Twenty trees per acre. Grand Trees do not count. members. • Any member can issue Protected Tree - 50% tree removal permit for Grand Tree - 100% Mitigation protected trees. Quorum Replacement trees must be 3"+ caliper. Trees inspected after one year for Grand Trees. Protection zone is the drip line or 1 ft. for every 1 inch DBH. Encroachment of construction - staff level with Encroachment plan. 1 foot of mulch and plywood/ rubber mats to protect tree underneath. Impervious construction generally not allowed. TREE PROTECTION: COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN EXAMPLE Existing Conditions All trees have been identified by species, size, and quality rating Commercial: 8 inch and above protected TREE PROTECTION: COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN EXAMPLE Trees to be removed indicated with “X” mark. Commercial Design Review Board approves the removal of trees, including historic. The Ordinance provides that: The removal of protected, significant and historic trees is not intended to provide maximum utilization of the site area, but rather reasonable use of the site based upon the factors stated above. In reviewing requests for removal of protected, significant and historic trees, the designated reviewing authority shall consider tree species, size and condition. TREE PROTECTION: COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN EXAMPLE Remaining Trees shown with building footprint TREE PROTECTION: COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN EXAMPLE Landscaping and Mitigation Plan illustrating preserved trees and planted trees Commercial development requires buffers. Minimum buffer of 10 feet width requires 3 canopy trees per every 100 feet. Chart indicates trees Trees retained on site that are located within proposed to be removed and the buffer area may be used to count to remain by size and class towards meeting buffer requirements Commercial development is required to retain or plant 160 inches per acre Historic trees removed must be mitigated above the required 160 inches per acre  TREE PROTECTION: RESIDENTIAL PLAN EXAMPLE Planning Commission approves tree removal for infrastructure and on development lots. Lots shall not be platted so as to cause the removal of a historic tree (exception: poor quality/ poor health tree).  TREE PROTECTION Goal: More natural and mature canopy and appearance Considerations: Protection of Quality trees.  Staff comment: The current ordinance requires an assessment of trees with the goal of preserving those trees that are larger in size, a higher class of species (live oak versus water oak, for example), and in good condition while allowing removal of poorer quality trees or that are in poor condition. The current ordinance provides a good foundation for the protection of quality trees. To meet the goal of having a more natural and matured canopy, ordinance amendments to the following would need to be considered:  The size (inches) of a protected tree  Protected species  Protection requirements based on the quality rating of the tree  In Commercial development, the number of required inches per acre to be retained  In Residential development, if there should be include an inches per acre requirement to be retained or planted  Note: Residential requirements may apply similarly to new development as they do to existing residential lots. Modifications to standards may equally affect current homeowners desiring to remove trees. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 5 June 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL