Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMITTEE JUNE 29, 2017 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Council Chambers Present: Bob Brimmer, Chair, Elton Carrier, Joe Bustos, Mark Smith. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Brad Morrison, David Pagliarini Mr. Brimmer called the meeting to order at 12:40 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from the June 5, 2017 meeting Mr. Smith moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments Mr. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, expressed concern with the Home Depot proposal. He stated that a pre-emptive signal should be required. He expressed concern that the fire trucks would not have sufficient time without the pre-emptive signaling and suggested that the developer should pay for this improvement. 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the June 21, 2017 meeting a. Request to rezone from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 4.0 acre tract of land located at 84 Belle Point Drive, identified by TMS No. 556-00-00-294, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book DF, Page 711. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mr. Carrier asked about the AB-2 zoning and if the special exception would require Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) approval. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative and stated that the commercial development would require DRB approval as well. Mr. Carrier asked for clarification on the Planning Commission discussion on this issue. Ms. Farrell answered that the property owner has been unable to obtain sewer service to the site; but that should sewer be provided,  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 2 of 15 then he indicated that he would be comfortable with the existing zoning. She stated that while the owner has indicated that the use would only be for boat and camper storage, the zoning would provide other uses such as a gas station. She stated that most of the uses allowed under AB-2 are also allowed in AB. She stated that some other uses such as outdoor storage would be allowed under AB-2 with special exception approval from BOZA. She stated that the Charleston Council School District (CCSD) did approach the owner regarding utilizing the property for school bus storage, which could be done if the zoning were approved and a special exception approved. Mr. Smith asked if there were any concerns with bus storage versus camper and boat storage. Ms. Farrell answered that she is not sure, but the owner indicated that he would not provide the school bus storage if there was opposition for such on the property. Mr. Bustos moved to recommend to Town Council denial of the request. Motion fails due to the lack of a second. Mr. Carrier moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith stated that the property owner has been before the Planning Commission on several occasions trying to find uses for development of the property. He stated that the lack of access for water and sewer has been challenging for the owner. He asked if staff has any recommendations that might work for the owner, Town Council, and the public. Mr. DeMoura answered that a unified development plan for the properties in that area would have been the best option in regard to uses, traffic, etc. Mr. Carrier suggested that with the approval of a Chick Fil-A on the adjacent corner, the amount of traffic in that area would be increased. He suggested that uses that would not significantly increase traffic would be the best option. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern that approval of the request would allow uses that would be of a more intense use and suggested that this was not the best option.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Smith asked if a special exception could be allowed under the current zoning. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative. Mr. DeMoura suggested that there appears to be some obstacle with being able to provide water and sewer for the property and suggested that it might be tied to monetary reasons. Mr. Bustos suggested that an appropriate use within the existing zoning should be considered. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 1 to 3 vote with Mr. Carrier in favor; Mr. Smith, Mr. Brimmer, and Mr. Bustos opposed. b. Request to annex an approximately 18.64 acre tract of land comprised of five parcels and described as follows: (i) an approximately 0.57 acre parcel located at 1631 Rifle Range Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-006, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book S, Page 021; (ii) an approximately 3.34 acre parcel located off Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-008; (iii) an approximately 2.50 acre parcel located off Venning Road, depicted as Lot 4, and identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-014; (iv) an approximately 3.23 acre parcel located at 1459 Old Landing Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00- 016, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L12, Page 0242; and (v) an approximately 9.00 acre parcel located off Old Landing Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-017, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L17, Page 0149. c. Request to zone PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, an approximately 18.64 acre tract of land comprised of five parcels and described as follows: (i) an approximately 0.57 acre parcel located at 1631 Rifle Range Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-006, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book S, Page 021; (ii) an approximately 3.34 acre parcel located off Rifle Range Road and identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-008; (iii) an approximately 2.50 acre parcel located off Venning Road, depicted as Lot 4, and identified by TMS No. 560-00-00- 014; (iv) an approximately 3.23 acre parcel located at 1459 Old Landing Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-016, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L12, Page 0242; and (v) an approximately 9.00 acre parcel located off Old Landing Road,  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 4 of 15 identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-017, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L17, Page 0149. d. Request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to PI-2 Public Institutional-2 District, an approximately 1.54 acre tract of land comprised of two parcels and described as follows: (i) an approximately 0.54 acre parcel located at 1643 Rifle Range Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00- 044, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L17, Page 0094; and (ii) an approximately 1.00 acre parcel located off Old Landing Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-063, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book L12, Page 0242. Also request to rezone from PD, Planned Development District, to PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, an approximately 0.32 acre portion of an approximately 2.29 acre tract of land located off Rifle Range Road, identified by TMS No. 560-00-00-012 and depicted as Lot 11 on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book P, Page 022. Ms. Farrell reviewed the requests with the Committee (attachment 1). She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the requests for items B, C, and D. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. Mr. Smith stated that the Water Supply Committee and Town Council recently approved a bond for improvements and recommended that the requests be approved. Mr. Bustos agreed and stated that this is a good pro-active approach from Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW). Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. e. Request approval of Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan for Home Depot, proposed to be located on a 9.90 acre parcel at 2213 North Highway 17 and identified by TMS No. 558-00-00-145. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1).  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 5 of 15 Mr. Smith asked how many Sweetgrass basket stands exist on the property. Ms. Farrell answered that there are two existing stands that were recommended to remain on site and the applicant concurred. Mr. Brimmer asked what type of easement is along the property line. Ms. Farrell answered that it is a drainage easement. Mr. Carrier asked about interconnectivity and how it would be accomplished. Ms. Farrell answered that the applicant would be able to better address this issue. Ms. Farrell reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations with the Committee. Mr. Brimmer stated that he has spoken with the property owner regarding historic preservation and that they were amenable; however, because it is under the purview of the Design Review Board (DRB), the recommendation to include the façade requirement should not be included as well as the wall along the loading dock and Six Mile Road. Mr. Carrier concurred with Mr. Brimmer. He asked about parking and how the amount of parking compares to the new Lowe’s parking. Ms. Farrell answered that the Lowe’s building at Oakland is approximately 10,000 sf larger and has approximately 486 parking spaces. Mr. Brimmer noted that the Lowe’s site is slightly larger with approximately 3.5 acres more than the proposed Home Depot site. Mr. Carrier asked about the buffer between this site and the adjacent residential. Ms. Farrell answered that the buffer is 25 feet and a wall would be required as well. Mr. Brimmer noted that the existing Lowe’s at Towne Centre has approximately 471 parking spaces for approximately 14.8 acre site. He suggested that it was similar in size to the proposed Home Depot site. Mr. Bustos asked how many trips would be generated. Mr. Morrison answered that there would be approximately 200 AM peak hour trips and approximately 200 PM peak hour trips. He stated that two analysis were conducted; one including Billy Swails Blvd and one without. He stated that he recently received  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 6 of 15 information from CARTA and stated that a bus shelter would be constructed adjacent to this site near the East Cooper Community Outreach (ECCO) building. He stated that CARTA indicated that there would be room for a stop on this site as well. Mr. Bustos asked about levels of service. Mr. Morrison reviewed this with the Committee as well as the turn lane improvements that were recommended. Mr. Bustos asked about the levels of service at the intersection of Longpoint Road. Mr. Morrison answered that it would be a LOS C or better. Mr. Smith asked about the bus shelter piping and where it would be located. Mr. Morrison answered that it would be on the ECCO side of Six Mile Road. He stated that this would be a boarding area. Mr. Carrier asked if the access from US17 would be right-in/right-out only. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative. Mr. Carrier asked about the improvement recommended for Six Mile Road. Mr. Morrison reviewed this for the Committee and stated that a signal is not currently warranted for the Six Mile Road access but with the interconnectivity recommended for this access, once the adjacent site is developed, it could warrant a signal. Mr. Carrier asked about signalization at Billy Swails Blvd. Mr. Morrison answered that once completed, there would be a signal. Mr. Brimmer asked if there were any failing levels of service. Mr. Morrison answered in the negative and stated that there would be some significant delays exiting the property onto US17. Mr. Edward Allen, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Committee. He stated that they are amenable with working with staff and DRB on the interconnectivity, tree preservation, and screening wall along the loading dock area. He stated that they are amenable to the Commission recommendations. He asked that the deceleration lane construction for Six Mile Road be delayed until warranted, which would probably be when the adjacent property was developed. Mr. Carrier asked the completion date. Mr. Allen answered that it would be around Summer 2019.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with the size of the site in regard to the proposed building size and asked what an average size is for a typical Home Depot. Mr. Allen answered that the proposed building size is the average. Mr. Brimmer asked if any smaller buildings have been completed. Mr. Allen answered in the negative. Mr. Brimmer asked about parking and expressed concern that it might not be sufficient. He also expressed concern that there would not be the bike traffic to warrant the proposed bike racks. Mr. Allen answered that it would not only be for the employees, but for the community. Mr. Brimmer asked if the reduction was not allowed, could the additional parking be accommodated. Mr. Allen suggested that the recommended standard is generous. Mr. Brimmer asked if the reduction is automatic. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the language would not mean there is an absolute allowance for the 10% reduction and would be up to the purview of Town Council. Mr. Brimmer asked about stormwater runoff and how this would be accommodated. Mr. Jared Bramlett, Davis and Floyd, reviewed the drainage plan with the Committee. Mr. Brimmer asked if the applicant is aware of the drainage issues in the area. Mr. Bramlett answered in the affirmative. Mr. Will Haynie, 316 Mallard Court, stated that the drainage report recently completed is in the process of being reviewed. He stated that they are requesting a special meeting in July with the Public Services Committee to review this drainage study as well as other areas of concern and suggested that this should be taken into consideration when making a decision on this request. He suggested that it might be appropriate to defer a decision on this request until after the drainage study was reviewed. He asked if the traffic analysis includes traffic in the area and recently approved projects. He expressed concern with the addition of several “big box” projects and asked if this would be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in regard to the timeliness of approved projects. He asked the difference between this request and a previous request that was denied at Indigo Square. Ms. Farrell answered that at the time, there was a prohibition on “big box” development. Mr. Haynie asked if there was a difference of threshold for consideration of the “big box” development proposed at Indigo Square. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative. Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, expressed concern with preservation of trees for this site. She expressed concern with the vitality of relocating the historic tree and if the relocation could damage the tree. She expressed concern  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 8 of 15 with increased traffic in the area, particularly from those projects that have been approved but not completed to date. She commended the developer for including bike parking, but expressed concern that the amount of bike parking is in excess of what would be used in reality. She also noted that there are no bike lanes or sidewalks along Six Mile Road and suggested that this would deter bike traffic to the proposed site. She suggested that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan that were indicated in the proposal does not apply. Mr. Cunnane expressed concern with traffic and access for emergency fire vehicles. He suggested that pre-emptive signaling should be installed for all signals to allow faster response time for emergency vehicles. He suggested that this should be considered just as we consider tree preservation. Mr. Brimmer asked if there is pre-emptive signaling. Mr. Morrison answered that there are pre-emptive signals at Six Mile Road. He stated that it is included in the Strategic Plan to install pre-emptive signals Town-wide. Mr. Allen noted that the impact assessment includes all the approved projects in the assessment area. He stated that they have preservation efforts in place in regard to relocation of the historic tree. Mr. Carrier asked if the required parking outside of the reduction could be accommodated. Mr. Allen answered that this would need to be reviewed. Mr. Carrier asked if they have considered utilizing pervious parking. Mr. Allen answered in the affirmative but suggested that it eventually deteriorates and causes drainage issues. Mr. Carrier asked about where the underground storage would be located. Mr. Allen answered that it would be located under the parking. Mr. Smith stated that he recalls that there was excessive parking at Lowe’s and asked for clarification. He asked about the parking reduction and suggested that if it is a viable option, it should be allowed to be utilized. He suggested that a clear understanding of the requirements should be presented so that the applicants are clear on what is required. Mr. Brimmer stated that he recalls the discussion with Lowe’s that they are within a planned development (PD) and had shared parking. He stated that this project would not have shared parking and expressed concern that the  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 15 reduction would not provide sufficient parking. He stated that he wants to promote bike use, but suggested that allowing the full reduction could mean there is not sufficient parking. Mr. Smith suggested that the traffic analysis and the professional engineers should be utilized and if the information provided indicates that they meet the requirements, then that should not be questioned. He suggested that if the project meets all the requirements, then the project should be allowed to move forward. He suggested that Town Council should carefully consider each project. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request including all Planning Commission recommendations with DRB to determine the wall for the loading dock and elements of the building design; interconnectivity, location of the CARTA stop, and drainage recommendations should be included; preservation of two Sweetgrass basket stands; preservation of trees as recommended by staff. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Carrier asked about the parking reduction and if it is mandated. Mr. Pagliarini answered that as previously stated, the language allows some discretion in regard to the overall goals of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan. Mr. Carrier stated that there are several projects within the Town where there is not sufficient parking and suggested that as this is a stand-alone project, the reduction should not be allowed. Mr. Bustos expressed concern with traffic issues in the area. He suggested that there might not be a significant amount of bike traffic. He also expressed concern with increased traffic in the area due to the recently approved projects in the area. He suggested that this project is not a good fit for the area for a variety of reasons—traffic, parking, ingress/egress, etc. Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Bustos, but noted that the new residents would be utilizing similar amenities such as grocery stores and hardware stores. He suggested that having these amenities in close proximity to residential areas would decrease traffic on the main arterials. He suggested that the recommendations of the professional analysis and engineers should be upheld.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 10 of 15 Mr. Bustos suggested that this Committee and Town Council should review these projects in a comprehensive manner and the Town as a whole. He stated that Town Council is tasked with ensuring that new projects do not negatively impact the surrounding areas or the Town as a whole. Mr. Brimmer asked if the motion includes the impact assessment and conceptual plan. Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 1 to 3 vote with Mr. Smith in favor; Mr. Carrier, Mr. Bustos, and Mr. Brimmer opposed. f. Request to annex an approximately 7.65 acre tract of land comprised of four parcels and described as follows: (i) an approximately 0.53 acre parcel located at 1444 Kirvin Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-055, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book DB, Page 544; (ii) an approximately 2.92 acre parcel located off John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-058, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082; (iii) an approximately 3.20 acre parcel located at 2245 John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-059, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082; and (iv) an approximately 1.00 acre parcel located at 2265 John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-067, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082. g. Request to zone PD-CD, Planned Development – Conservation Design District, an approximately 7.65 acre tract of land comprised of four parcels and described as follows: (i) an approximately 0.53 acre parcel located at 1444 Kirvin Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-055, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book DB, Page 544; (ii) an approximately 2.92 acre parcel located off John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-058, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082; (iii) an approximately 3.20 acre parcel located at 2245 John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-059, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082; and (iv) an approximately 1.00 acre parcel located at 2265 John Ballam Road, identified by TMS No. 561-00-00-067, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book BV, Page 082.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 11 of 15 Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning request. Mr. Bustos asked the location of the project. Ms. Farrell showed the location on the map for the Committee. Mr. Smith asked about the goals of a PD-CD and how this project does or does not meet the intent. Ms. Farrell answered that the confederate line is located to the right of the project and has over the 25% amount of open space required. Mr. Smith asked if there are ADUs. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative and stated that the applicant has indicated that ADUs would not be allowed. Mr. Smith asked if the project could be developed in the county. Ms. Farrell answered that they would need to have approval for a PD because of the lot size requirement. Mr. Smith asked what open space would be required in the county. Ms. Farrell answered that she was not sure, but it would be less than 25%. Mr. Carrier asked if staff met with the applicant prior to submittal of the request. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative, both verbally and through written comments. Mr. Bustos asked if ADUs are being proposed. Ms. Farrell answered that the applicant has indicated no ADUs would not be allowed. Mr. Bustos asked the reason for the project not being more in keeping with the PD-CD. Ms. Farrell suggested that the applicant could better address this. Mr. Brimmer suggested that the plan does not meet the intent of the PD-CD and is designed more as a traditional neighborhood. Mr. Wofford Stribling, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the project with the Committee. He showed a traditional layout for the site for the Committee and suggested that the proposed layout meets the intent of the PD-CD with the clustering of the open space, inclusion of an extensive trail system, smaller lots, and inclusion of farming and barns.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 12 of 15 Mr. Smith asked for clarification of the open space near the pond. Mr. Stribling answered that they are proposing a dock and picnic area on the pond. Mr. Brimmer asked the reason for not restricting ADUs for the traditional layout. Mr. Stribling answered that the traditional layout was to show what would be allowed compared to what is proposed. Mr. Bustos asked if the traditional layout would be allowed. Ms. Farrell answered that she is not sure as some calculations would be necessary to ensure compliance with open space requirements, lot sizes, etc. Mr. Henry Ballam expressed concern with the amount of traffic already on Six Mile Road and that this would increase the traffic. Ms. Claudia Mazyck, 1285 Six Mile Road, distributed a copy of a GIS map showing the lot sizes of the surrounding properties. She suggested that this project would not be in keeping with the character of the community. Ms. Sullivan distributed photos for the Committee to review. She stated that as indicated in the photos, the homes are smaller and on larger lots than what would be developed with the requested project. She suggested that the project is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and not in keeping with the community. She suggested that the proposed project would increase property taxes for the surrounding properties. She suggested that the project would not be positive for the community and suggested that the request should be denied. Ms. Gloria Walker, 2155 Rifle Range Road, suggested that the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood and should not be approved. Mr. George Freeman, 1450 Bowman Road, stated that interconnectivity should be included in the project to provide relief from additional traffic on Rifle Range Road. He suggested that the recommended Community Conservation (CC) zoning should be upheld as this would keep the recommended density of three units per acre intact as well as require 12,500 sf lots. He stated that ADUs are not allowed by right, and should not be allowed as it would increase the density. Mr. Lewis Jefferson, 1128 McKnight Road, agrees with the previous comments. He expressed concern with not being able to hear the proceedings and  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 13 of 15 suggested that better audio should considered. Mr. Brimmer stated that this should hopefully be alleviated with the new Town Hall building. Mr. Carey Mathison, developer, stated that they would be amenable to changing the name of the project. He stated that from a marketing standpoint, this project does fit within the community. He stated that they have included interconnectivity in the event this is able to be accommodated in the future. Mr. Smith asked if the size of the homes is known. Ms. Farrell answered in the negative. Mr. Smith asked if the traditional layout is accurate in terms of the number of lots. Ms. Farrell answered that she is not sure. Mr. Carrier moved to recommend to Town Council denial of the annexation and zoning request. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Smith moved for to recommend to Town Council approval of the annexation request. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council for approval of the zoning request. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Bustos suggested that the developer should work with staff in regard to the design of the project. Mr. Brimmer moved to recommend to Town Council denial of the zoning request. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Carrier, and Mr. Bustos in favor; Mr. Smith opposed. The Committee convened for a short break at 2:50 pm and reconvened at 2:56 pm. 4. Review of proposed Zoning Code text amendment pertaining to tree removal and mitigation for trees impacted by excessive pruning associated with maintenance of aerial power lines. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1) and stated that if desired it would go to Planning Commission for public hearing.  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 14 of 15 Mr. Carrier stated that this is a major issue of concern and asked if approved, would any mitigation be required. Ms. Farrell answered that as proposed, no mitigation would be required. Mr. Carrier answered that he would be comfortable with a reduction of mitigation. Ms. Farrell answered that this could be recommended for consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bustos asked who is responsible for the mitigation. Ms. Farrell answered that typically it would be the homeowner. In the recent instance, SCE&G has agreed to remove the tree and is negotiating with the homeowner in regard to who would be responsible for the mitigation. Mr. Carrier suggested that some of the mitigation could be accomplished by SCE&G removing the tree and paying into the Tree Bank. Ms. Farrell answered the text could be amended if desired. Mr. Carrier asked who approves the request. Ms. Farrell answered that staff approves the request and mitigation. Currently, it typically falls on the homeowner to remove the tree and complete mitigation. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council that the text amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Review of Planning Commission recommendations pertaining to the composition of the Comprehensive Plan Planning Forum. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She suggested that the forum should be appointed in time for a first meeting in September with an open house proposed for October. Mr. Smith asked if the intention is that the Planning Commission provide specific individuals for consideration. Ms. Farrell answered that this could be done if desired, but the Commission provided information on geographic, governmental, and age groups and agencies that should be considered. Mr. DeMoura agreed that it should be a resident-driven forum. He stated that there have been occasions where there was not a large participation of residents during the review process because of utilizing stakeholders. He stated that in the past, this has resulted in having input that more heavily favored businesses, utilities or other interests. He suggested that having residents more involved with the  Planning Committee June 29, 2017 Page 15 of 15 governmental organizations and non-profit organizations involved as ex-officio members would be beneficial. Mr. Carrier asked how to proceed. Ms. Farrell answered that it would be the decision of Town Council. Mr. Brimmer suggested that there be an application process with a selection committee determined to recommend appointments. He suggested that the selection committee could be made up of a combination of staff, Town Council, and residents. He suggested that having a citizen based forum would mean a more community effort. Mr. Smith suggested that there should be some involvement of Town Council through the process to have a more informed, cooperative result. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with Town Council completely disregarding the concerns and recommendations of a resident-based forum. He suggested that the forum should be able to proceed and provide recommendations without influence from Town Council. Mr. Bustos agreed and suggested that the selection process should be done on a random, neutral basis while ensuring that all groups are represented. Mr. Carrier asked how this would be advertised and marketed. Ms. Farrell answered that all avenues available to the Town could be utilized. Mr. DeMoura suggested that some general parameters could be determined by Town Council and then this would be advertised for those interested in participating. Mr. Bustos agreed that all areas of the Town should be represented. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:23 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm06292017  Attachment 1: June 29, 2017 Planning Committee Minutes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 29 June 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL  5.a. 84 BELLE POINT DRIVE Request to rezone from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Request: Business-2 District. Location: 84 Belle Point Drive Parcel ID (TMS No.): 556-00-00-294 Type of Request: Rezoning Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission; Total Acreage: Approximately 4.00 acres Plat Recording Info: Book S17, Page 0059 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22092 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22185 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP 5.b,c&d. MPW EXPANSION –ANNEX/ZONE/REZONE Request to annex and zone PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, five parcels; also request to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, Request: to PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District, two parcels of land and a portion of a third parcel of land from PD, Planned Development District, to PI-2, Public Institutional-2 District. Location: Rifle Range Road / Venning Road – Mt. Pleasant Waterworks 560-00-00-006; -008; -014; -016; -017; -044 and -063 in their Parcel ID (TMS No.): entirety, and a portion of 560-00-00-012 Type of Request: Annexation and zoning; Rezoning Public Hearing: Both Required; Held by Planning Commission Annexation & Zoning - Approximately 18.64 acres (comprised of five Total Acreage: parcels); Rezoning – Approximately 1.86 acres (comprised of two parcels in their entirety and a .32 acre portion of a third parcel). Plat Recording Info: Book S, Page 021 Book L12, Page 0242 Book L17, Page 0149 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22100 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22187 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP 5.e. HOME DEPOT Request approval of Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan for Request: Home Depot at the site of former Laing Middle School. Location: 2213 N. Highway 17 Parcel ID (TMS No.): 558-00-00-145 Type of Request: Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan Public Hearing: Not Required Total Acreage: Approximately 9.96 acres Plat Recording Info: Book H51, Page 047 (not available) Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22095 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22189 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Impact Assessment and Conceptual Plan. Action to be Taken: These recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Council and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP Conceptual Plan Updated Conceptual Plan based on Staff Comments Tree Removal Plan Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments  5.f&g. FARM AT OYSTER POINT Request to annex and zone PD-CD, Planned Development-Conservation Design Request: District, four parcels of land, for a proposed development to be known as The Farm at Oyster Point. Location: Six Mile Road / John Ballam Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 561-00-00-055; -058; -059; -067 Type of Request: Annex and zoning Annexation – Not required Public Hearing: Zoning - Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 7.65 acres Plat Recording Info: Book DB, Page 544 Book BV, Page 082 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22096 Staff Report Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22190 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial Action to be Taken: of the zoning request. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP  4. TREE PROTECTION EXCEPTIONS – TEXT AMENDMENT Proposed Text (c) Aerial power line mitigation resulting from routine maintenance for trees not located in a required bufferyard. Where aerial power line maintenance operations cause violation of this subchapter the Tree Protection Ordinance by means such as of excessive pruning of trees not located in a required bufferyard, based upon pruning standards referenced in § 156.228, the trees may be considered irreparably damaged and require removal may be allowed; provided, however, that no mitigation will be required by homeowners, business owners or tenants for trees located on private property removed pursuant to this provision. and replacement. Damage to buffer vegetation as a part of any maintenance activity shall require replacement in kind  5. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FORUM. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 29 June 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL