Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE July 31, 2017 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor Present: Bob Brimmer, Chair, Elton Carrier, Mark Smith, Joe Bustos Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Lee Cave, Michele Canon, Kevin Mitchell, Liz Boyles, Eddie Bernard, Austin Rutherford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Brimmer called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from the June 29, 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, asked if any of the Committee members have received campaign contributions from developers or telecommunication companies. He suggested that this should be disclosed particularly given the upcoming request that will discussed at this meeting. 3. Staff Update on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Forum application and selection process Ms. Farrell reviewed the forum selection process with the Committee. She stated that they have received over 200 applications and will continue to take applications until August fourth. She stated that a special Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for August 15th for the selection of the forum. She stated that the first open house is scheduled for October. Mr. Mark Smith asked about the response. Ms. Farrell answered that there has been a good response with over 200 applications received to date. She stated that it has been widely advertised throughout the different media outlets.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 10 4. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the July 19, 2017 meeting a. Request to amend the River Island Plantation Planned Development District ordinance providing for the construction, operation and maintenance of a stealth wireless communications facility including a tower not to exceed 140 feet. Subject property is an approximately 29.46 acre tract of land located at 1750 Palmetto Isle Drive, identified by TMS No. 540-00-00-066, and depicted as Tract B on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book EG, Page 797. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She stated that the Commission recommended approval of the request. Mr. Brimmer stated that due to time constraints a detailed review from the applicant would not be possible, but noted that the Committee received the presentation from the applicant ahead of time. Mr. Jonathan Yates, attorney for the applicant reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Robert Hill, representative for T-Mobile, stated that this request would enhance and provide additional coverage for the area of Rivertowne. Mr. Michael Robinson, Charleston Appraisal, state that they conducted an appraisal of the surrounding area and found that there were no changes with the property values after a cell tower was constructed. Mr. Will Freeland, Moody O’Neill CPA, stated that they conducted a survey of the Rivertowne residents regarding the request. He stated that of the 708 surveys sent out, they received approximately 354 valid responses or a 50.5% response rate. He stated that approximately 281 were in favor or 79.4% and 73 were opposed or 20.6%. Mr. Ken Favata, 1852 Great Hope Drive, suggested that the impacts of cell towers should be minimized. He referenced section 156.113 that states that cell towers should be deployed “while preserving the intrinsic aesthetic character of the community”. He suggested that other locations that would be  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 10 more appropriate should be considered first. He suggested that cell towers should not be an allowed use. Mr. Hank Caradelli, 1864 Great Hope Drive, read a portion of the survey that was sent to the Rivertowne residents and suggested that it discounts the survey. He suggested that it was not determined whether the homes studied were in proximity of the proposed tower. Ms. Sharon Salamone, 1844 Great Hope Drive, suggested that not all of the residents on Great Hope Drive received the survey. She suggested that those most affected by the request were not surveyed. She suggested that the cell tower would affect property values. Ms. Patricia Felenczak, 1825 Great Hope Drive, suggested that Palmetto Isle is a small portion of the Rivertowne Community. She stated that she is opposed to the request. Ms. Susan Matthews, Parker Island POA member, suggested that lack of cell coverage would negatively affect property values. She suggested that it is a safety issue as well as the ability to dial 911 is diminished. She suggested that having the cell tower would be a benefit. Mr. Bill Daily, Parker Island POA member, stated that he is in favor of the request. He suggested that approximately 82% of residents have a cell phone, and approximately 50% of homes have cell phone service as their main phone service. Mr. Fran Licausi, Parkers Landing, expressed concern with being able to reach emergency services. He suggested that better cell service is needed. Mr. Paul Comer, 2721 Sarazen, stated that better cell phone service is needed. Mr. Jacob Curtis, 1805 Great Hope, stated that he is not in favor of the request. Ms. Nancy Tyler, 1865 Great Hope Drive, stated that she is not in favor of the location of the cell tower. She suggested that a different location should be considered that is not in proximity to residents.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Ms. Susan Grady, 2727 Parkers Landing, stated that she is in favor of the request as well as the majority of the residents within the Parkers Landing POA. She suggested that it is necessary to have strong, steady, reliable cell service for emergency reasons and safety. Mr. Cunnane, suggested that there is not sufficient fire protection services. He suggested that the services needed for additional residential neighborhoods should be considered before the neighborhoods are approved. Mr. Ben Salamone, 1844 Great Hope, agreed that the location of the cell tower should be reconsidered. He questioned why other locations were not considered. He suggested that a different location would not affect the residential homes or the property values. Mr. Paul Cessa, 2791 Olympia Fields Lane, stated that everyone wants sufficient service, home property values that are not affected, and receive the services that are needed. He suggested that there is not definitive information that a cell tower would affect property values. He stated that inadequate cell phone service would definitively affect the property values and has a domino effect with surrounding properties. He stated that the applicant has adequately addressed that the location proposed is the best location to provide the needed area coverage. He suggested that this request should be approved. Mr. Patrick Faver, 1869 Great Hope Drive, suggested that the issue is not whether additional cell phone coverage is needed, but where the tower would be located. He suggested that there has not been evidence that this location is the best and that other locations were considered. Mr. Carrier asked if other locations were considered. Mr. Robert Hill, T-Mobile, answered in the affirmative and stated that they have several co-locations in the area. He stated that the Harris Teeter, the water tower, SCE&G transmission towers, etc. were all considered, but the locations were not viable, or they were not able to negotiate the co-location. Mr. Carrier asked about the assessment of the other neighborhoods and where the towers were located. Mr. Hill answered that one of the towers is behind a restaurant on Hwy 41 at Charleston National; the tower at Dunes West is behind the Fire Station. Mr. Carrier asked the height of the towers. Mr. Hill answered that the Charleston national tower is approximately 140 feet and the other is approximately 150 feet.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Smith asked the setback requirements for cell towers. Ms. Farrell answered that the request is to amend the PD for this to be a permitted use. She stated that the closest residential property line is approximately 104 feet. She stated that as a special exception, the cell tower would have to be the same distance from the residence as the height of the tower. Mr. Carrier asked the difference in this request from other requests such as the cell tower near Candlewood. Ms. Farrell answered that the regulations in place today differ from the regulations in place when the Candlewood cell tower was approved. She stated that the current regulations were enacted as a result of the concerns with the cell tower near Candlewood. Mr. Bustos asked about cell coverage. Mr. Cessa answered that if he cannot get good cell service, he uses his landline. He stated that his neighbor frequently travels to a location where he can get sufficient cell service. Mr. Brimmer asked about consideration of different locations for the cell tower. Mr. Yates answered that there is seldom a location where there is not some opposition. He stated that they typically look for locations that will provide the best and largest coverage area that are in commercial areas or other appropriate locations. He stated that the proposed area would be located near the golf course maintenance area. He stated that the tower would be visible as this is necessary to get sufficient coverage. Mr. Brimmer asked if there is a report on what other locations were considered. Mr. Keith Powell, Optima Towers, answered that they did consider other locations. He stated that the requested location was considered the best location to provide the coverage needed. Mr. Brimmer asked for clarification if there is written justification on the other locations considered. Mr. Powell answered in the affirmative and stated that this could be provided. Mr. Hill stated that this information was not provided as it is not required to be submitted with the request and there were locations that were not viable because of not being able to lease the property. Mr. Brimmer asked the amount of land needed for the cell tower. Mr. Hill answered that typically a 100x100 foot area is needed. Mr. Brimmer asked if any other locations on the golf course were considered. Mr. Hill answered that the cell tower needs to be in proximity to the residential neighborhoods to provide the service needed.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Smith stated that he is a resident of Rivertowne in Parkers Landing and is fully aware of the lack of service in the area. He stated that he is not opposed to accepting campaign contributions if offered, but has not previously accepted any campaign contributions from any telecommunication companies. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Brimmer stated that he has not taken campaign contributions from any telecommunication companies. He stated that he currently is in favor of the request and looks forward to seeing the justification that will be provided on the other locations that were considered. He stated that he reserves the right to change his vote based on that or any other information provided prior to or at Town Council. He stated that this is an important infrastructure and necessary service. Mr. Bustos stated that he has not received any campaign contribution from telecommunication companies. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. The Committee convened for a short break at 4:10 pm and reconvened at 4:12 pm. b. Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.224(C)(3)(c) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances 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). She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Mr. Carrier stated that this came about from property owners having concern with removal of trees after pruning. Mr. Bustos asked if the franchise agreement has been reviewed to determine if some resolution can be considered. Ms. Farrell answered that this was brought up. Mr. Carrier stated that this is an ongoing effort between the Town and the utility companies.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, asked what consequences would be assessed if the tree were removed. Ms. Farrell answered that this provides the ability for the homeowner to have the tree removed without requiring mitigation. Mr. Carrier moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the text amendment as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. 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. This item was sent back to the Planning Committee for review of proposed modifications to the Conceptual Plan. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee and stated that the request was referred back to the Committee from Town Council. She reviewed the changes with the Committee through a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 1). Mr. Edward Allen, representative for Home Depot reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Carrier asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Allen answered that there are approximately 435 spaces total with were added and comply with the current requirements. Mr. Carrier asked if all the previous bicycle parking was provided. Mr. Allen answered that some of the bicycle parking was reconfigured. Mr. Smith stated that as mentioned in the Economic Development Committee, the home improvement area is underserved for the area and commended the applicant for being a good steward. Mr. Bustos asked what route would be used for deliveries. Mr. Allen showed the proposed routes for the Committee. Mr. Bustos asked if there would be a garden center. Mr. Allen answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked about drainage. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the drainage in the area with the Committee and stated that all town and state requirements would have to be met, which includes accounting for the additional impervious surface and how it would be maintained. He stated that they have opted to utilize underground  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 8 of 10 detention. He stated that the applicant would have to demonstrate adequate stormwater runoff storage. Mr. Brimmer asked how the retention is demonstrated. Mr. Mitchell answered that this is accomplished through topography, modeling and simulations, and engineering reports. Mr. Brimmer asked who maintains the ditches. Mr. Mitchell answered that some are maintained by the county and some maintained by the Town. Mr. Brimmer asked if the county has conveyed any concerns with this project. Mr. Mitchell answered that the Town is coordinating with the county on this project. Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the impact assessment and conceptual plan including all staff comments and recommendations. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 motion with Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Carrier, and Mr. Smith in favor; Mr. Bustos opposed. 6. Discussion regarding the Tree Protection Ordinance to include a review of species of protected trees and the Process Pertaining to Tree Removal, Clearing and Field Inspections Ms. Farrell stated that an in-depth review of the tree removal process was presented to the Commission and briefly reviewed this with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Brimmer noted that the presentation reinforced the fact that staff is following the ordinance requirements. He suggested that the ordinances might need to be reviewed and possible amendments considered. Ms. Farrell reviewed the Indigo Square project tree removal with the Committee. She stated that approximately 500 inches of trees would have to be replanted on the site. Mr. Brimmer suggested that the amount of mitigation should be more than 500 inches. Ms. Farrell answered that they receive credit for the trees that would be remaining on the property. Mr. Carrier asked about the buffer along US17. Ms. Farrell reviewed the buffer requirements with the Committee. Ms. Sullivan suggested that changes to the ordinances should be considered to better protect the trees.  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Cunnane suggested that the Town is more concerned with property rights than quality of life. Mr. Brimmer stated that there was a good discussion with the Planning Commission on tree removal. He asked the purpose of the point system. Mr. Bernard answered that the point system is based on the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) system and is used to categorize the desirability, longevity, and species of trees. Mr. Brimmer asked how the desirability is determined. Mr. Bernard answered that it can be somewhat subjective, but is categorized based on the national standard. Mr. Brimmer moved to recommend to Town Council that the issue of tree removal be discussed with the Planning Commission and brought back to the Planning Committee within 90 days, including the consideration of the following—  explore how to maintain more trees on property to create more of a natural environment as opposed to a manicured environment;  review species of protected trees and determine if changes are necessary and if other species should be protected;  review roadside buffers and how they can be strengthened or increased;  determine different means of mitigation and if more mitigation should be required for unprotected or class IV trees;  Consider stronger penalties for illegal removal and violations;  simplify ordinance where appropriate. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. Mr. Smith asked if 90 days is a sufficient timeframe given the amount of work staff is currently working on. Mr. Brimmer answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Carrier, and Mr. Smith in favor; Mr. Bustos opposed. 7. Review and update of draft text amendments to Land Development Regulations pertaining to drainage, lot fill, and grading. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She suggested that if desired, this could be discussed with the Planning Commission in conjunction with the tree ordinance revisions. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the proposed changes with the Committee (attachment 1).  Planning Committee July 31, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Brimmer asked if additional inspectors would be needed to implement these changes. Mr. Mitchell answered that this would formalize what is already being accomplished. He stated that this would mean a few additional steps for the homeowner but suggested that it is necessary to ensure better quality construction and controls. Mr. Bustos suggested that these changes would address some of the drainage concerns and be a more pro-active process. Mr. Bustos moved to recommend to Town Council that this issue be discussed with the Planning Commission in conjunction with the tree ordinance revisions. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. 8. Staff Update on annexation of Royal Palms development located on Dingle Road. Ms. Farrell provided an update to the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Rutherford answered that they are approximately at 66% for signatures and 64% for assessed value as of this date. Ms. Farrell stated that recommendations as to the appropriate zoning for the properties will need to be explored as well. Mr. Rutherford stated that they have mailed petitions to the outstanding homeowners. He suggested that approximately five more petitions would be needed to reach the 75% required threshold. 9. Consideration of a land swap proposal by Gateway Development Service, Inc. and Rio Partners, LLC involving Town property leased to the South Carolina National Guard and located on Mathis Ferry Road Ms. Farrell stated that this request was withdrawn by the applicant. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm07312017  Attachment 1: July 31, 2017 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 31 July 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL 3. STAFF UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FORUM APPLICATION/SELECTION PROCESS  4.a. RIVERTOWNE – CELL TOWER Request to amend the River Island Plantation, Planned Development District, Request: ordinance providing for the construction, operation and maintenance of a stealth wireless communications facility including a tower not to exceed 140 feet. Location: 1750 Palmetto Isle Drive Parcel ID (TMS No.): 540-00-00-066 Type of Request: PD Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission; Total Acreage: Approximately 29.46 acres Plat Recording Info: Book EG, Page 797 Application Link: http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22494 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22601 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial Action to be Taken: of the request. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP Tower Locations  4.B. TEXT AMENDMENT Proposal to amend Zoning Code Section 156.224(C)(3)(c) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to tree removal and mitigation Request: for trees impacted by excessive pruning associated with maintenance of aerial power lines. Type of Request: Zoning Code Text Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/22605 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or Action to be Taken: denial of the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. 5. 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 Original Conceptual Plan Updated Conceptual Plan HOME DEPOT The developer has submitted a letter outlining the changes that were made to the conceptual plan. Significant Changes include: Modification to parking (no reduction for bicycle facilities); Stubbed driveway to provide access to adjacent property; Screen wall along Six Mile Road at the loading area; Minor site details; Recommended transportation improvements on Six Mile and Hwy 17; Plans for CARTA shelter  HOME DEPOT: CONDITIONS • General: DRB will have final review and approval of site plan details, though the plan should generally conform to that approved by Council. Items to be finalized through the DRB process include: • A screen wall shall be constructed at the southern side of the loading dock along Six Mile Road to access #1; • Preservation of trees in buffer area between subject property and the Pulte project (Primus Tract) and as well as noted trees along Six Mile Road;  Recognition of Laing Middle School. Home Depot has agreed to provide such recognition to include a sensitive design including elements recognizing historical significance of the site. A Historical Marker commemorating Laing Middle School Artifacts found on site will be donated to the Town of Mount Pleasant’s new Archive and History Room;  HOME DEPOT: CONDITIONS CONT. •Written agreement from all easement holders shall be submitted to the Town granting approval of buffers to be located in easement prior to final DRB approval; •A recorded easement granting access to the adjacent property to the north in order to provide future connectivity prior to final DRB approval; •Extension of the existing southbound left turn lane from Hwy 17 to Six Mile Road prior to CO; •Extension of the existing westbound left turn lane from Six Mile Road to Hwy 17 prior to CO; •A right-turn / deceleration lane at the driveway on Six Mile Road prior to CO; •Construction of a CARTA bus shelter on site along Six Mile Road prior to CO. Updated - Turn Lane Plan Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments Transportation Comments 6. STAFF REVIEW OF PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING AND FIELD INSPECTIONS RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS  ORDINANCE 156.225 (B) On Sketch Plans for residential subdivisions requiring approval by the Planning Commission, trees 16 inches and greater are protected. In general, lots and infrastructure should not be sited so as to require the removal of protected trees 16 inches or greater, whenever possible. However, the Planning Commission may authorize the removal of these protected trees for that purpose at the time of Sketch Plan approval when their retention becomes inordinately burdensome in developing the property in a reasonable fashion. The approval for removal shall be judiciously exercised in consideration of the stated intent of this subchapter and with due consideration of the size and Quality and Health Rating of individual trees as provided herein.  PROTECTED TREES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other* None < 16 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches 16 inches to 8 inches to Staff Staff - - Staff ≥ 8 inches 24 inches 24 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches - - PC ≥ 16 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches - - - - *Other land uses consist of school, churches, etc.  TREE REPLACEMENT Percent Replacement Class Points Species Residential Commercial Live Oak, Bald Cypress, American Beech, Ginkgo, American Holly, Southern Magnolia, Sweetbay Magnolia, Tupelo, Chinese Pistache, I 80-100 50 50 25 100 75 50 White Oak, Willow Oak, Overcup Oak, Chestnut Oak, Eastern Red Cedar Persimmon, Ash species, Hickory species, Tulip Poplar, Sycamore, II 60-79 Swamp White Oak, Scarlet Oak, Southern Red Oak, Shumard Oak, 50 50 25 75 50 25 Post Oak, Laurel Oak Sugarberry, Hackberry, Willow species, Water Oak, Black Cherry, III < 60 50 25 0 50 25 0 American Elm, Red Maple Pine species, Sweet Gum, Callary Pear varieties, River Birch, IV - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mimosa, Chinaberry, Chinese Tallow, Camphor tree, White Poplar Health Rating Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor  CLASS IV TREES  Class IV trees are not protected trees and may be removed without replacement within new residential or commercial developments or from existing residential or commercial lots - Exception: Pines and Sweet gum are protected within the Natural Roadside, Mathis Ferry, and Critical Line Buffers. Invasive species are not protected in these buffers.  Class IV trees are not protected because of one of the following: - They are invasive species. - The tree is short lived, the structure of the tree is multi-stem resulting in significant mitigation. - The trees were added to the list of non- protected species through an ordinance amendment.  Invasive Species - Callery Pear varieties - Mimosa - Chinaberry - Chinese Tallow (very prevalent in town) - Camphor tree (rare in town) - White poplar (rare in town) - Mulberry (not listed but also invasive)  Native Species - River Birch (on list because they are short lived and usually multi-stem with significant mitigation as a result). Generally not native to Mount Pleasant as closest are around some inland rivers in Francis Marion. - Pine and Sweet Gum (added to list in early 2000’s) CAROLINA PARK TREE ASSESSMENT  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE  Deadline is 28 days prior to Planning Commission meeting  New Development Coordination Meeting - Planning & Development - Public Services - Transportation - Fire STAFF COORDINATES WITH FOUR DEPARTMENTS ONCE A PROJECT IS RECEIVED.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW  Impact Assessment Staff Report comments addressed  Conceptual Plan Staff Report comments addressed  Sketch Plan Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Survey & Tree Assessment  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF ENSURES THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE TOWN ORDINANCE.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW  Preliminary Sketch Plan Staff Review comments addressed  Sketch Plan Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Survey & Tree Assessment  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF ENSURES THE BOARD WILL REVIEW A QUALITY SUBMITTAL.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING  Planning Commission meetings are the next to last Wednesday of each month  Planning Commission approves/denies project request - Sketch Plan - Tree Removals STAFF PROVIDES ALL PROJECT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD AND TO THE PUBLIC. CAROLINA PARK TREE ASSESSMENT  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE  Deadline is 28 days prior to internal staff review  Preliminary Plat electronic submittal  Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) hard copy submittal - Drainage Report & Construction Plans  New Development Coordination Meeting - Planning & Development - Public Services - Transportation - Fire STAFF REVIEWS TO ENSURE PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH PC APPROVED PLANS.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW  Sketch Plan Staff Report comments addressed  Preliminary Plat Checklist completion  Zoning Review  Site/Landscape Review - Tree Mitigation & Planting Plan  Stormwater Management Review  Public Services comments are provided  Transportation comments are provided STAFF COORDINATES WITH DEPARTMENTS TO ADDRESS PC & TECHNICAL COMMENTS.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL  Planning & Development notifies the Public Services of the MS4 Project Approval  Approved Drainage Report & Construction Plans are transferred to Public Services - Drainage Report & Construction Plans are saved on a shared Town Server STAFF TRANSFERS THE APPROVED PROJECT TO PUBLIC SERVICES.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED  Public Services (Stormwater) releases the MS4 Approval Letter to Department of Health & Environmental Control (DHEC)  Project is entered into Cityworks for tracking  Within days, DHEC issues the State Land Disturbance Permit to Public Services  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED 9. NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT START FROM DEVELOPER  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Coordinator & the assigned NPDES Inspector are notified by Developer that they are ready to construct the project.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE 2. PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN STAFF REVIEW 3. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT & MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 8. MS4 PROJECT LETTER ISSUED 9. NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT START FROM DEVELOPER 10. PROJECT CONFIRMATION WITH TOWN DEPARTMENTS  NPDES Inspector sends out an email to all involved parties in this process, asking them to review & confirm that ALL approvals are received, or if there are outstanding reviews & approvals to be aware of. If there is a problem, Public Services works closely with Planning & will not proceed until there are no problems with approvals.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS  Project team meeting allows NPDES Inspectors a chance to review the contractor’s knowledge of the plans  Verify that the contractor is using the Town-approved set of plans, if not, work with Planning to revise approvals STAFF REVIEWS WATER QUALITY & NPDES STORMWATER REGULATIONS WITH CONTRACTOR.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED  Developer submits Clearing & Grading Permit Application to Stormwater. Stormwater allows silt fence & other erosion control measures, as well as the tree protection to be installed.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED  NPDES Inspectors check that measures are correctly installed per the Town Approved plans. If not, Public Services works with Planning to appropriately revise plans & approvals. Measures inspected include: - Proper Tree Protection per the approved plans. - Proper Silt Fence installed per the approved plans. - Construction entrance installed per the approved plans.  If ALL measures are per the approved plans, issue the Clearing & Grading Permit for the Contractor to clear the site per the approved plans.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE  Notify involved Town departments that the project has completed all necessary steps & has received their approved clearing & grading permit. - Sent to Planning, Building Inspections, Transportation, etc.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION  NPDES Inspectors complete monthly inspections of the erosion & sedimentation control measures specified in the plans, as required by the project’s NPDES permit & the Town’s MS4 Permit (Stormwater Program).  If inspectors note differences with approved plans, Planning is notified & appropriate revisions are made to plans & approvals. STAFF CONDUCTS REQUIRED COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN’S MS4 PERMIT. THE DEVELOPER CONDUCTS WEEKLY STORMWATER INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THEIR SCDHEC NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS  Collect drainage As-Builts for all sites to verify correct installation of Best Management Practices for drainage & water quality requirements.  Collect Maintenance Agreements for all sites to ensure proper function of water quality required items for the future.  Inspect for final stabilization of the site in order to terminate State Land Disturbance Permit via Notice of Termination.  Verify Stormwater/civil site requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy for Commercial sites only.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL  Field inspection reports from Public Services, Transportation & confirmation on tree mitigation.  Other agencies include Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) and warranty certifications from owner and engineer.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW  Staff level review of submittal showing requested tree removals  Staff review of trees on site in most cases  Make suggestions to applicant for any site revisions to retain or better protect trees  Permit by way of letter any required removals for site plan approval  Mitigation plan is submitted and approved prior to building permit release.  Property owner may be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) in certain instances.  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW 19. BUILDING INSPECTIONS  Tree protection barricades are to be periodically checked through construction  RESIDENTIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 11. NPDES PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT TEAMS 12. CLEARING & GRADING APPLICATION RECEIVED 13. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT ISSUED 14. ADVISE TOWN DEPARTMENTS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE 15. NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT PROCESS 17. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW 19. BUILDING INSPECTIONS 20. MITIGATION PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY  Mitigation inspection is requested by builder/owner.  Mitigation plantings and remainder of site plan are inspected against approved plan and retained trees are confirmed to be on site; mitigation sign off is part of final inspections for Certificate of Occupation issuance. COMMERCIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS  ORDINANCE 156.225 (E) For properties subject to Commercial Design Review Overlay District guidelines, the removal of protected, significant and historic trees shall be at the discretion of the designated reviewing authority, exercised through the site plan approval process. (F) For other land uses, as depicted in the Submittal Requirements Table, not subject to the Design Review Process, removal of protected, significant and historic trees shall be allowed with approval of the Zoning Administrator, or his or her designee, provided that replacement trees shall be selected from the canopy tree list provided in § 156.201(G)(1).  PROTECTED TREES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other* None < 16 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches None < 8 inches 16 inches to 8 inches to Staff Staff - - Staff ≥ 8 inches 24 inches 24 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches DRB ≥ 8 inches - - PC ≥ 16 inches BOZA ≥ 24 inches - - - - *Other land uses consist of school, churches, etc.  TREE REPLACEMENT Percent Replacement Class Points Species Residential Commercial Live Oak, Bald Cypress, American Beech, Ginkgo, American Holly, Southern Magnolia, Sweetbay Magnolia, Tupelo, Chinese Pistache, I 80-100 50 50 25 100 75 50 White Oak, Willow Oak, Overcup Oak, Chestnut Oak, Eastern Red Cedar Persimmon, Ash species, Hickory species, Tulip Poplar, Sycamore, II 60-79 Swamp White Oak, Scarlet Oak, Southern Red Oak, Shumard Oak, 50 50 25 75 50 25 Post Oak, Laurel Oak Sugarberry, Hackberry, Willow species, Water Oak, Black Cherry, III < 60 50 25 0 50 25 0 American Elm, Red Maple Pine species, Sweet Gum, Callary Pear varieties, River Birch, IV - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mimosa, Chinaberry, Chinese Tallow, Camphor tree, White Poplar Health Rating Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor  CLASS IV TREES  Class IV trees are not protected trees and may be removed without replacement within new residential or commercial developments or from existing residential or commercial lots - Exception: Pines and Sweet gum are protected within the Natural Roadside, Mathis Ferry, and Critical Line Buffers. Invasive species are not protected in these buffers.  Class IV trees are not protected because of one of the following: - They are invasive species. - The tree is short lived, the structure of the tree is multi-stem resulting in significant mitigation. - The trees were added to the list of non- protected species through an ordinance amendment.  Invasive Species - Callery Pear varieties - Mimosa - Chinaberry - Chinese Tallow (very prevalent in town) - Camphor tree (rare in town) - White poplar (rare in town) - Mulberry (not listed but also invasive)  Native Species - River Birch (on list because they are short lived and usually multi-stem with significant mitigation as a result). Generally not native to Mount Pleasant as closest are around some inland rivers in Francis Marion. - Pine and Sweet Gum (added to list in early 2000’s)  COMMERCIAL PROCESS PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL, CLEARING & FIELD INSPECTIONS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSION DEADLINE* 2. PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN STAFF REVIEW* 3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW* 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/TOWN COUNCIL* 5. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMISSION DEADLINE 6. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PRELIMINARY REVIEW 7. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FINAL REVIEW 8. MS4 PROJECT REVIEW 9. MS4 PROJECT APPROVAL 10. MS4 PROJECT LETTER RELEASE 11. CLEARING & GRADING PERMIT *Step to be implemented if required PARK WEST OFFICE EXISTING CONDITIONS PARK WEST OFFICE TREE REMOVALS PARK WEST OFFICE REMAINING TREES PARK WEST OFFICE LANDSCAPE & MITIGATION PLAN INDIGO SQUARE OVERALL TREE REMOVAL INDIGO SQUARE TREE REMOVAL PLAN QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 7. REVIEW AND UPDATE OF DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DRAINAGE, LOT FILL AND GRADING  RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Includes small and large subdivisions CURRENT PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW • LOT LAYOUT – zoning compliance , • LOT LAYOUT, to include existing and access, ability to provide services proposed grades for building pads and • TREE PLAN – 16 inches DBH drainage. Manage fill height and in close proximity to adjacent neighbors, and ensure • OPEN SPACE – min area, encourage consistent drainage pattern with either the usable location land development plan or with existing adjacent neighborhoods. • TREE PLAN – protection in the form of tree wells, swales, and pipes • OPEN SPACE – as a means to separate proposed lots from existing neighbors using features such as ponds, trails and/or undisturbed buffers.  RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CURRENT PROPOSED STAFF REVIEW STAFF REVIEW • CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS • CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS • STORMWATER POLLUTION • STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN (SWPPP) • FINAL GRADING, AND • SEQUENCING CONSTRUCTION to ensure INFRASTRUCTURE perimeter safeguards from construction related runoff are in place to protect FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS PRIOR TO surrounding neighbors. BUILDING PERMIT • COORDINATED FIELD INSPECTION – field • DESIGN ENGINEER AS-BUILT verify improvements are in place and CERTIFICATION maintained • TREE PROTECTION – improve type of • FIELD INSPECTION REPORTS barricades FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT • FIELD INSPECTION REPORTS • DESIGN ENGINEER AS-BUILT CERTIFICATION • AS-BUILTS “PAD-READY” ELEVATIONS  EXISTING BUILDABLE LOTS DEVELOPMENT NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION CURRENT PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION • SITE PLAN WITH CERTIFICATE OF • NEW BUILDING SITE GRADING AND TREE COMPLIANCE. PLAN – WITH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. • INTERNAL COORDINATION REQUIRES o EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES, TREE PROTECTION/MITIGATION SIMPLIFIED DRAINAGE PLAN o TREE PROTECTION BARRICADES IMPROVED • INTERNAL COORDINATION TREE PLAN o STAMPED BY ENGINEER IN SPECIAL STORMWATER AND MITIGATION SENSITIVE AREAS • BUILDING PERMIT IS RELEASED • BUILDING PERMIT IS RELEASED INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS • SPECIAL FIELD CHECKS TREE • NEW CLEARING AND GRADING PERMIT – PROTECTION, DRAINAGE 1. FIELD CHECK TREE PROTECTION, STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, SPECIAL DETAILS FOR PROTECTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE INSPECTION TRACKING SYSTEM. 2. PAD-READY PRIOR TO NEXT INSPECTION • FINAL CHECK PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE 3. DURING CONSTRUCTION – MIDPOINT OF OCCUPANCY. 4. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO INSPECTION DEPT RELEASING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 8. STAFF UPDATE ON ANNEXATION OF ROYAL PALMS DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON DINGLE ROAD 9. CONSIDERATION OF A LAND SWAP PROPOSAL BY GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, INC. AND RIO PARTNERS, LLC INVOLVING TOWN PROPERTY LEASED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD AND LOCATED ON MATHIS FERRY ROAD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 31 July 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL