Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 6, 2017 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room Present: Bob Brimmer, Chair, Mark Smith, Joe Bustos, Elton Carrier. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Kent Prause, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Brimmer called the meeting to order at 11:15 am. Mr. Brimmer thanked his fellow Committee members for their work and efforts over the past two years. 1. Approval of Minutes from the October 2, 2017 meeting Mr. Smith moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Brimmer continued with the agenda. 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the October 18, 2017 meeting a. Request to annex an approximately 11.99 tract of land comprised of 77 parcels, located along Dingle Road, identified by TMS No.’s 578-00-00-162, 578-00-00-538 through -559, 578-00-00-595 through -596, 578-00-00-606 through -608, 578-00-00-610 through -620, 578-00-00-667 through -703, 578-00-00-711, and known as the Royal Palms Townhomes, Christ Church Subdivision, as depicted on plats recorded by the RMC Office in Book L12, Pages 0114 – 0115 and Book L13, Pages 0405 – 0406. Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Smith moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor.  Planning and Development Committee November 6, 2017 Page 2 of 6 b. Request to zone TH, Townhouse District, an approximately 11.99 tract of land comprised of 77 parcels, located along Dingle Road, identified by TMS No.’s 578-00-00-162, 578-00-00-538 through -559, 578-00-00-595 through - 596, 578-00-00-606 through -608, 578-00-00-610 through -620, 578-00-00- 667 through -703, 578-00-00-711, and known as the Royal Palms Townhomes, Christ Church Subdivision, as depicted on plats recorded by the RMC Office in Book L12, Pages 0114 – 0115 and Book L13, Pages 0405 – 0406. Development is not proposed to be included in the SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Brimmer asked the reason for not being included in the SB-OD. Ms. Canon answered that this is an existing development that was constructed in Charleston County that is not consistent with the intent nor the required development patterns of the Overlay. Mr. Bustos asked if this an existing developed neighborhood. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and stated that the development was started approximately 2007. Mr. Carrier noted that this property had previously requested water and sewer service, but did not wish to annex into the Town at that time. Mr. Gary Santos, 1690 Greystone Blvd, stated that he is in favor of annexation of the property, but suggested that the development should be included in the SB-OD and that he is not in favor of the “75 percent method” of annexation. Mr. Carrier moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the zoning request. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor. c. Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by adding new section 156.321 establishing an Impervious Surface Lot Coverage Overlay District (ISLC-OD) for certain residential properties located within the area described in the document entitled “Old Village Watershed Study – Phase One”, released August 2, 2017. Also, proposal to amend Chapter 156 of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, Section  Planning and Development Committee November 6, 2017 Page 3 of 6 156.313 establishing standards for determining impervious surface consistent with the new Section 156.321. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). She reviewed the map of the Impervious Surface Lot Coverage-Overlay District (ISLC- OD) with the Committee. She clarified that the properties affected would only be single family residential properties (R-1 through R-4) and planned developments with detached single family residential dwellings. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Brimmer thanked staff for their hard work on this issue. Mr. Smith asked about the properties noted in purple. Ms. Farrell answered that these are commercially-zoned properties. Mr. Roger O’Sullivan, 1551 Ben Sawyer, asked if this would be retro-active. Mr. Brimmer answered in the negative. Ms. Farrell stated that properties within the ISLC-OD that did not meet the regulations would be considered non-conforming and would have to bring the property into compliance if the property was redeveloped. Mr. Bustos moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. d. Review of Planning Commission recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the Tree and Buffer ordinances. Ms. Farrell and Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Brimmer suggested that this be received as information as it would need to be presented to Town Council following the election. He stated that he received correspondence as well from other interested parties wanting to weigh in on the recommendations. Mr. Carrier asked about the classification change for pine trees. Ms. Canon answered that it would mean that a pine tree would be protected and would be subject to mitigation if removed.  Planning and Development Committee November 6, 2017 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Smith asked if the same would be the case for sweet gums. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Smith asked how this recommendation was determined. Mr. Bernard answered that the categorization is based on the ISA standards and ratings for the Southeast region. He stated that the point system is based on the ISA recommendations. He stated that this was recommended to eliminate the potential of an entire lot being “stripped” of all trees. He stated that the ISA recommends pine trees as a Class I, but this was thought to be too burdensome and based on local expertise, it should be placed in Category III. He stated that Sweet Gum are classified by ISA as a Class III tree. Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that trees provide water retention on properties and suggested that this should be included in the formula and for consideration. Mr. Stuart Whiteside, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, stated that the engineering community would like to have some input on the revisions and would like use some new developments as test cases for the revisions to determine if any additional recommendations would be needed. Mr. Ian Scott, Charleston Metro Chamber, stated that the planning and engineering resource management community would like to work with Town Council and staff to help refine and work through the details of the ordinance revisions. Mr. Brimmer stated that this issue was brought forward to improve the developments in the community and preserve trees throughout the Town and was not intended as a means to control growth. There being no other comments, Mr. Brimmer stated that this would be received as information. Mr. Bustos asked how this issue would proceed. Ms. Farrell stated that direction would be needed from the Committee on how staff should proceed. Mr. DeMoura stated that his understanding is that this would be brought back to the Committee next month for further review and a recommendation. Mr. Brimmer and the Committee agreed.  Planning and Development Committee November 6, 2017 Page 5 of 6 4. Review and update from the Housing Committee on the implementation of the Housing Task Force recommendations. Ms. Farrell reviewed the request with the Committee and stated that Mr. Little would provide an update on the progress of the Workforce Housing Committee. Mr. Little updated the Committee on the progress of the Workforce Housing Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Bustos stated that there is a need for affordable housing, but suggested that there might not be a need to focus on educating the public on the need for affordable housing. He suggested that the focus should be on establishing the 501c3 with the education component working in conjunction. Mr. Little stated that until the 501c3 is implemented, there would be little the Workforce Housing Committee to do in moving forward with additional affordable housing. Mr. DeMoura stated that Town Council’s direction was to move forward with the 501c3 and this should be the main focus of the Workforce Housing Committee. Once the 501c3 is established, then the Workforce Housing Committee could proceed with other goals and activities such as advocacy. Mr. Brimmer suggested that the history aspect should not be the focus of the Workforce Housing Committee. He suggested that there are other entities of the Town than can work on this aspect. Dr. Sarah Jacob, 1152 Village Creek Lane, stated that they have discussed that it should be the Workforce and Senior Housing Committee. She suggested that there is some confusion between affordable housing and public housing and the Committee sees this as a significant perception issue that needs to be addressed. Ms. Sullivan suggested that there is a “huge misconception” of what affordable housing is and this should be addressed through an advocacy or education program. She stated that the City of Charleston recently approved a $20 million bond for affordable housing. Mr. O’Sullivan suggested that this is more about promotion and not on having affordable housing in Mount Pleasant. He suggested that in order to have  Planning and Development Committee November 6, 2017 Page 6 of 6 affordable housing, there needs to be affordable land. He suggested that affordable transportation should be a consideration in conjunction with affordable housing as well. Mr. Brimmer stated that this would be received as information. 5. Staff Update on the Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Boyles updated that Committee on the Comprehensive Plan process (attachment 1). Mr. Brimmer thanked the Planning staff for their work over the past two years and in supporting this Committee. Mr. Smith agreed. Mr. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan process is moving forward and commended staff for the openness and transparency of the process. He stated that the engagement from the community and the stakeholders has been exceptional. Mr. Carrier suggested that residents in the Highway 41 area should attend the Highway 41 Corridor Improvement Seminar scheduled for November 13th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:17 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm11062017  Attachment 1: November 6, 2017 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 06 November 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL  A & B. ROYAL PALMS TOWNHOMES Request to annex and zone TH, Townhouse District, an approximately 11.99 tract of land comprised of 77 parcels, located along Dingle Road, known as the Royal Request: Palms Townhomes. Development is not proposed to be included in the SB-OD, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. Location: Dingle Road 578-00-00-162, 578-00-00-538 through -559, 578-00-00-595 through -596, Parcel ID (TMS No.): 578-00-00-606 through -608, 578-00-00-610 through -620, 578-00-00-667 through 703, 578-00-00-711 Type of Request: Annex and zone Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 11.99 acres Book L12, Page 0114; Book L12, Page 0115; Book L13, Page 0405; Book L13, Plat Recording Info: Page 0406 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/23508 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/23606 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.  C. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Proposal to amend Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by adding new section 156.321 establishing an Impervious Surface Lot Coverage Overlay District Request: (ISLC-OD) for certain residential properties located within the area described in the document entitled “Old Village Watershed Study – Phase One”, released August 2, 2017. Type of Request: Zoning Code Text Amendment Public Hearing: Required; held by Planning Commission Link to Draft Text: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/23624 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or denial of Action to be Taken: the proposal. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee of Town Council. Pending Ordinance – Map Exhibit D. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TREE AND BUFFER ORDINANCES. 1. A subdivision should be treated differently than an existing single family residential lot – with subdivision being defined as any lot created as a result of a subdivision of property. (see current definition below in our Land Development Regulations). REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Maintain current ordinance requiring protection of trees 16 inches and greater for Single-family and new Residential developments. 3. Make Pine Species and Sweet Gum protected by moving from Class IV to Class III; accept proposed tree replacement table with regards to species and class (includes pulling Pecan out of Hickory Species and making separate in Category II, and including Mulberry and Leland Cypress in Category IV). [see table] 4. Maintain requirements for Existing SFR in Tree Replacement Table and move New Residential Subdivisions (per definition) to same required mitigation as Commercial. [see table] REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 5. Retain a minimum of 160 inches per acre protected trees (16 inches and greater) on new Residential Subdivisions where it exists; where it does not exist (where land is cleared/redevelopment), must plant up to 160 inches/acre. This acreage is proposed not to include wetlands, retention ponds nor R/W. 6. Maintain current ordinance requiring Commercial retain or plant 160 inches/acre (8 inches and up protected). 7. Remove language in Ordinance provision below pertaining to commercial sites and make the same apply to new residential subdivisions, so as to remove flexibility allowing developer to remove/mitigate when inches can be retained:  “(3) A minimum of 160 caliper inches per acre shall be retained on the site. Where this number cannot feasibly be retained, or on parcels with less than this amount, caliper inches from planted canopy trees may be used to meet this requirement.” REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 8. Maintain current language in ordinance regarding Replanting Schedule Standards to avoid a monoculture among plantings. 9. Require mitigation trees to be 50% native (shall apply to canopy and understory trees only, not shrubs) for both commercial and new residential subdivisions. 10. Require payments to Tree Bank at a rate of 1 ½ times the Market Value for each tree. 11. Maintain current ordinance requiring mitigation for Illegal Tree Removal be 200-Percent the DBH removed. 12. Revise the Table of Bufferyard Requirements to remove Single Family Detached as a proposed use and combine Duplex/Townhouse and consolidate those required buffers. [see table] REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS  REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 13. Increase required bufferyard plantings using Option 1 [table below] with the requirement of five (5) trees for Bufferyard B (standard street buffer). Option 1 Per 100 Existing Existing Existing Req’d- Proposed Proposed Proposed LF Req’d- Req’d- Evergreen/Conifer Canopy Understory Evergreen/conifer Canopy Understory A 2 3 0 2 3 0 B 3 3 0 3 5 0 C 3 6 0 3 6 0 D 4 6 10 4 6 10 E 6 9 18 6 9 18 F 10 15 30 10 15 30 BUFFERYARD ILLUSTRATIONS BUFFERYARD ILLUSTRATIONS BUFFERYARD ILLUSTRATIONS BUFFERYARD ILLUSTRATIONS  TREE & BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION 14. Maintain current ordinances pertaining to the following Special Bufferyards: Natural Roadside Buffer, Joint Town/County Highway Corridor Overlay, Sweetgrass Basket Overlay and Mathis Ferry Road Buffer 15. Increase the Critical Line Buffer (currently ranges in width from 15 feet to 35 feet) to 50 feet. 16. Explore adopting a shoreline or waterfront buffer standard that works in tandem with critical line to increase resiliency.  ROADSIDE BUFFERS Natural Roadside Buffer – • Along designated scenic highways, US Hwy 17 North of Long Point Road, SC Hwy 41, Rifle Range Road (portions) • Major arterials – 100 foot buffer or determined during planning process • Minor arterials/collector streets – 50 foot buffer or determined during planning process • Trees less than 3” in caliper can be cleared • Select pruning of limbs • Any additional plantings must be of a native species • Turf/grass is prohibited Joint Town/County Hwy Corridor Overlay • 15 foot • All portions of Chuck Dawley Blvd, US Hwy 17 North from IOP Connector to I-526/Chuck Dawley Blvd, Old Georgetown Road Loop area, and along Long Point Road between the SPA Wando Terminal and I-526 • 50 foot • All remaining portions of US Hwy 17 east of the IOP Connector (except for Old Georgetown Road Loop area) and on Long Point Road between I-526 and Whipple Road  ROADSIDE BUFFERS Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District • Old Georgetown Road Loop Office Area • 20 foot buffer is required along the Old Georgetown Road right-of-way • Fencing may be required during design review • Village Commercial Area (from Old Georgetown Road to Hamlin Road) • Minimum 50 foot vegetated right-of-way buffer along US Hwy 17 • Village Commercial Area (from Hamlin Road to Porchers Bluff Road) • Minimum 35 foot buffer along US Hwy 17 for commercial properties • Requires two 6-inch caliper street trees to be planted within the right-of-way along the property pending SCDOT approval Mathis Ferry Road Buffer – • Boundary – 7th Avenue to Whipple Road • Property owners encouraged to plant canopy trees along roadway • New Developments – • Single-family – 25 feet • Multi-family – 50 feet • Nonresidential – 75 feet Where roadside buffers overlap, the more strict buffer is used  CRITICAL LINE BUFFER • Undeveloped, naturally vegetated buffer along tidally influenced areas designated by SCDHEC-OCRM (only applies to lots platted after September 12, 2000) • Vision corridors allowed, but can not exceed 33% of buffer length • Development of pedestrian trails, vehicle access to docks and piers, utility lines, swales, and erosion control devices are allowed • Width – • Cooper River Bridge to Ben Sawyer Bridge – 15 feet • Cooper River Bridge up Wando River, and Ben Sawyer Bridge northward along Intracoastal Waterway – 35 feet average (minimum 20 feet) • Critical areas subject to change upon a parcel’s subdivision through DHEC- OCRM REVIEW AND UPDATE FROM THE HOUSING COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Committee Members • Daniel Brock • Chris Brooks • Benjy Cooke • Rich Estes** • Sally Jacob • Michael Myer • Leo Russo • Thomasena Stokes Marshall • Debby Waid*  PRIORITIES (AS SET BY TOWN COUNCIL) 1. Form a 501(c)3 2. Develop a Public Education Plan including the preservation of the Towns’ History and the Historic African-American Communities. 3. Identify areas for potential development and redevelopment and seek a greater mix of housing options.  MISSION STATEMENT To create, encourage and support the development of housing that is accessible to all who live or work in Mount Pleasant.  FORMING A 501(C)3  Name Organization-Housing for All  Mission Statement  Articles of Incorporation  Bylaws  Applying for EIN  File 1023 EZ for nonprofit corporation status  PUBLIC EDUCATION GOAL To provide a framework for engaging and educating residents regarding the definition and need for affordable workforce housing in Mount Pleasant.  OBJECTIVES  Grow understanding of the need for affordable workforce housing among key audiences.  Seek the involvement of the public, stakeholders and elected officials in developing affordable workforce housing initiatives.  Build support across audiences for affordable workforce housing initiatives developed by Housing for All undertaken by the Town.  OUTREACH METHODS  Monthly email drafted by Housing for All Members, approved by staff and sent from the Town (similar to Quick Fact Friday emails)  ‘Housing for All’ page on Town website (Boards and Commissions)  Ongoing Media Relations  Social media posts from Town channels developed by ‘Housing for All’  Grassroots email list  Speakers Bureau  Faces of Affordable Housing video STAFF UPDATE ON THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS • Open House held October 17th. • Gathered feedback from the public on multiple issues • What I love About Mount Pleasant/Mount Pleasant’s Challenges • Areas to Protect • Areas of Opportunity • Traffic Concerns • Still accepting feedback on these points until November 17 • Next Plan Forum meeting December 5 • Review information from Open House • Review Trends and Forces • Preliminary Vision and Framework Discussion • Next Open House scheduled for January 30, 2018 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 06 November 2017 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL