Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 5, 2018 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room Present: Joe Bustos, Chair, Bob Brimmer, Guang Ming Whitley. Absent: Tom O'Rourke. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Lee Cave, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Eddie Bernard Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 9:06 am. 1. Approval of Minutes from the February 5, 2018 meeting Ms. Whitley moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Bustos continued with the agenda. 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the February 21, 2018 meeting a. Carolina Park. A request to amend the Carolina Park DA, Development Agreement, by deleting in its entirety Exhibit C (Governing Regulations) of the Development Agreement, including all exhibits to the same, and to supplement with a new Exhibit C with all of the exhibits thereto. Also request to amend the PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, Ordinance No. 11063, and subsequent amendments thereto, identified by Ordinance No’s. 12010, 13017, 13074 and 15045, by deleting them in their entirety, including all exhibits likewise, and supplementing with new Planned Development District Development Standards, including the exhibits thereto. Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Brimmer moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the request. Ms. Whitley seconded the motion. All in favor.  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 2 of 8 b. Chapter 156, Zoning Code. A proposal to amend the Vegetation and Tree Protection divisions of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, pertaining to various sections regarding bufferyard requirements, special bufferyards including the Critical Line Buffer, and tree protection, removal and replacement requirements. Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Joseph Wren, Planning Commission chair, stated that the Planning Commission wanted to ensure protection for the individual existing homeowners, while maintaining quality of property, and strengthening the bufferyard requirements. He stated that the Planning Commission extensively worked on this issue. He thanked staff for their work on this as well. Ms. Kathy Smith, 239 Cooper River Drive, stated that resiliency was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission. She suggested that resiliency should be an issue included in the discussion going forward and resiliency should be included for future ordinance. She stated that the critical line buffer was a major issue with lots of discussion with the Planning Commission on how to best address this with resiliency in mind. She stated that another controversial issue was preservation of trees and whether pine and sweetgum species should be protected. She stated that this issue was a predominant discussion with the Planning Commission recommending that the long leaf pine trees should be protected. Ms. LeeAnn Adkins, 34 Hopetown Road, expressed concern with the proposed changes, particularly the critical line buffer. She suggested that the current ordinance has a mistake with the original adoption date and suggested that this is a significant issue as it has meant a loss of protection for buffer areas of her neighborhood. She stated that there is now an opportunity to correct this mistake. She also suggested that there are discrepancies with the language of the ordinance. She asked that the Committee carefully consider this issue and the language of the ordinance. Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, expressed concern with flooding and that preservation of trees is one way to help prevent flooding. She stated that the flooding is a regional issue that is being discussed by surrounding  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 3 of 8 municipalities. She suggested that preservation of trees as a means of preventing flooding should be further discussed in the future. She asked the original reason for this issue being discussed and if those reasons have been addressed by the proposed changes. Ms. Canon reviewed the changes with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Bustos asked the reason for singling out long leaf pine species. Ms. Canon answered that based on research, the long leaf and white pine species have better root systems and are a hardier species. Mr. Bustos asked if long leaf pines are mainly located in the midlands. Mr. Bernard answered that there are long leaf pine species along the coast as well as the midlands. Mr. Bustos asked the percentage of long leaf pine species compared to other species within Mount Pleasant. Mr. Bernard answered that there is a minor percentage of long leaf species in Mount Pleasant with the predominant species being loblolly pines. Mr. Brimmer stated that he asked that this issue along with others be discussed or reviewed in September 2017 and thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their hard work on this issue. Mr. Brimmer asked if there was discussion on reducing the size of protected trees. Ms. Canon answered that there was discussion, but a consensus could not be reached. Mr. Brimmer about the growth cycle of trees and where a 16 inch diameter tree would be in the growth cycle. Mr. Bernard answered that it would be species dependent, but for most species it would be approximately 1/3 of its life cycle. Mr. Brimmer asked if reducing the protected size would be beneficial. Mr. Bernard answered that some species would never reach 16 inches or a 16 inch tree could be at the end of the life cycle, so those trees could be lost. He suggested that approximately half of the trees on a site would currently not be protected. Mr. Brimmer asked if the protected size for commercial uses is eight inches in diameter or greater. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked the reason for the differentiation. Mr. Bernard answered that this was changed in 2000 and reduced protected trees for residential lots from 24 inches to 16 inches. Mr. Brimmer asked about stop work orders for disturbing the buffers and if these are utilized and kept in place until the buffer is restored. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked about critical line buffers and how existing lots would be handled. Ms. Canon answered that the original date would remain in effect unless the plat was  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 4 of 8 changed. Mr. Brimmer asked if there is an error in the current ordinance. Mr. Ulma answered that information was provided to Town Council on this issue in response to Ms. Adkins’ correspondence. He reviewed the changes to the ordinance with the Committee and stated that the effective date was purposefully determined in 2011 when the ordinance was effectively repealed and replaced. Mr. Bustos asked for clarification on the dates and how this would be handled with the recommended amendments. Mr. Ulma answered that the September 12, 2000 date would be in place for existing lots and the current critical line buffer setback would remain. If there was a change to the plat, then the new critical line buffer setback would apply. Mr. Bustos suggested that all pine species should be protected. He agreed with Mr. Brimmer that there should not be a differentiation between residential or commercial uses in regard to preservation of trees. He stated that removal of trees causes flooding and drainage issues on property. He suggested that protecting trees that are 8-10 inches for all property should be considered. Mr. Brimmer suggested that some pine species should be protected, but not necessarily all of the pines and suggested that considering a different size that is protected might be appropriate, especially since the intent was to prevent clear cutting of property and better preservation of existing trees. He stated that his intent when originally presented for discussion in September, was not to stifle development but to preserve more trees within the Town and to create a more interesting built environment within the existing environment as opposed to taking down all of the trees for development. Mr. Ulma stated that staff could review these recommendations and bring back additional recommendations for the Committee next month. Mr. Bustos asked if a different size for different species should be considered. Mr. Brimmer agreed that this could be a consideration. The Committee agreed that staff should bring back additional recommendations on the following issues:  Inclusion of all pine species as a protected species  Reducing the size of protected trees from 16 inches to 8-10 inches  Same tree protection requirements for commercial and residential uses  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 5 of 8 4. Deferred from February 2018 Planning and Development Committee meeting: I’On PD. An Ordinance to amend the I’On PD, Planned Development District Ordinance (Ord. No. 97010) by amending the text pertaining to the section “Neighborhood Standards,” which includes Yard, Porches, Outbuildings and Building Types. This request affects various properties located throughout the approximately 243-acre area comprising the I’On Development. (Ord. No. 18006) Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1). Ms. Whitley asked if what has currently been built kept and then amend the ordinance going forward. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative and stated that legal reviewed the request and stated that changes can be made that are prospective in nature as desired. Ms. Whitley stated that one of the concerns was the homeowner being able to rebuild the same structure following a storm event. She expressed concern with potentially increasing the lot coverage for all of the lots. She suggested that the lots should be allowed to keep the lot coverage as it currently exists. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the reason for request for the amendments was to provide clarification on what standards should be applied as it has been difficult in the past because of the original standards and the subsequent letter of determination. He stated that this is an opportunity to “clean up” this difficult issue. Mr. Bustos asked if the original ordinance would remain in place, with those lots built based on the letter of determination, would not be penalized. Mr. Pagliarini answered that this could be done if desired. He stated that if done prospective, it would create a uniform set of rules going forward. He disagreed that the letter changed the ordinance; it merely changed the interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Bustos stated that the intent is for those lots built under the letter of determination would be protected, with the original standards outlined in the ordinance enforced going forward. Mr. Pagliarini concurred. Ms. Whitley asked if the current ordinance would be enforced going forward. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council to amend the ordinance to protect those that built based on the letter of determination, with the original  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 6 of 8 standards in the ordinance be prospective for the remaining lots. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Executive session to receive legal advice on any issue related to the I’On PD, if needed. 6. Post executive session Committee may take action on any item listed on an executive session agenda or discussed in an executive session during a properly noticed meeting The Committee agreed that an executive session was not needed. 7. Annexations a. 4318 Royal New Kent Court. Request to annex an approximately 0.92 acre tract of land located at 4318 Royal New Kent Court, identified by TMS No. 632-00-00-098 and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book EG, Page 0761 - 0765. b. 355 Live Palmetto Bluff. Request to annex an approximately 0.52 acre tract of land located at 355 Live Palmetto Bluff, identified by TMS No. 556- 00-00-511 and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book L13, Page 0287. c. 395 Live Palmetto Bluff. Request to annex an approximately 0.75 acre tract of land located at 395 Live Palmetto Bluff, identified by TMS No. 556- 00-00-509 and depicted on a plat recorded by Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book L13, Page 0287. d. 520 Coaxum Road. Request to annex an approximately 0.34 acre tract of land located at 520 Coaxum Road, identified by TMS No. 556-00-00-115 and depicted on a plat recorded by Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book BD, Page 115. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of items 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 8. Review of proposed amendments to Chapter 152, Flood Damage Prevention: Special Stormwater Management Area Mr. Mitchell reviewed the request with the Committee (attachment 1).  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Bustos asked if this was the same area as the study area. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and the map was included in the stormwater guide. Mr. Bustos asked if this would apply to new construction. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that as a result of the study more drainage details would have to be provided and possibly meet a pre-imposed rate of runoff, using infiltration, underground systems, etc. to control the peak runoff rates for their property. Mr. Brimmer asked what level of enforcement would this entail. Mr. Mitchell answered that the drainage guidelines would apply to the special stormwater management area that was outlined from the special stormwater study area. Mr. Pagliarini stated that in order to have enforceability the guidelines should be part of the overall management and would also provide avenues of relief for those who disagree with the application of the policy. Mr. Brimmer moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the proposed amendments for §152 as proposed. Ms. Whitley seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Ulma stated that this would need to be reviewed by the state prior to coming before Town Council for first reading. 9. Consideration of ordinance language relative to Board and Commission meeting attendance Mr. Bustos stated that this was reviewed at Police, Judicial, and Legal Committee. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the amendments as discussed in the Police, Judicial, and Legal Committee. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. Mr. Brimmer suggested that the language does not address 75% attendance. He expressed concern with allowing excused absences, which could mean that a member could fall well below the 75% attendance. He suggested that excused absences should count toward the 75% attendance. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that the draft amendments were revised to only allow one excused absence. He stated that there was discussion on this issue and this was an  Planning Committee March 5, 2018 Page 8 of 8 attempt to address the issue. Mr. Brimmer apologized and stated that he did not have the updated revisions. Ms. Whitley suggested that one excused absence was sufficient. She stated that the proposed draft would allow for the immediate removal. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the excused absence would not be allowed an excused absence to be applied retro-active. He stated that this could be changed if desired for the next meeting to clarify whether the absence was excused. Mr. Bustos suggested that the one excused absence should be sufficient. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this would require a public hearing and would go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mr. Bustos called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. DeMoura stated that the amendments would move forward for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 10. Report on the Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Boyles updated the Committee on the Comprehensive Plan update process. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan Forum would meet on Tuesday, March 6th at 12 noon. Mr. Brimmer stated that Charleston County is updating their Comprehensive Plan and have a meeting scheduled on Wednesday, March 21st from 5:30 pm-7:30 pm at Wando High School. Mr. Bustos thanked the citizens for being active and involved in the Comprehensive Plan process. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 am. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm03052018  Attachment 1: March 5, 2018 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT March 5, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS  3.A. CAROLINA PARK DA & PD AMENDMENT Case #: R-04-18 To make technical amendments to the Carolina Park DA, Development Agreement, by deleting in its entirety Exhibit C (Governing Regulations) of the Development Agreement, including all exhibits to the same, and to supplement with a new Exhibit C with all of the exhibits. Also request to amend the PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, Request: Ordinance No. 11063, and subsequent amendments, identified by Ordinance No’s. 12010, 13017, 13074 and 15045, by deleting them in their entirety, including all exhibits, and supplementing with new Planned Development District Development Standards, including the exhibits. Location: Carolina Park (north side of US Highway 17 between the Park West and Pepper Plantation developments) Parcel ID (TMS No.): The entirety of the Carolina Park development Type of Request: DA & PD Amendments Required; PD hearing to be held by Planning Commission & DA hearing to be held by Town Council at their March Public Hearing: 13th and April 10th meetings. Total Acreage: Comprised of approximately 1,608.50 acres Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25067 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25186 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions or denial of the request. This recommendation is Action to be taken: forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council.  PURPOSE OF CURRENT REQUEST The intent of this request is to recodify previously-approved amendments that were inadvertently omitted from the fourth (and last) amendment to the Development Agreement (DA) & Planned District (PD) in 2015. Below is a timeline and summary of prior amendments:  PURPOSE OF CURRENT REQUEST During the adoption of the 2015 Amendment, instead of including all previously adopted amendments, the applicant inadvertently referenced the original document. As a result, those amendments made between 2012 and 2013 were omitted from the currently adopted ordinance. 2011 2012 April December 2015 Original Amendment 2013 2013 Amendment Amendment Amendment Ord. No. 11063 – 9/13/2011 Ord. No. 13074 – 12/10/2013 Ord. No. 15045 – 7/14/2015 EMS/Fire not currently permitted in CPC District Land Uses in Current Adopted PD Ordinance Land Uses in Proposed PD Ordinance No Changes  3.A. CAROLINA PARK DA & PD AMENDMENT Case #: R-04-18 To make technical amendments to the Carolina Park DA, Development Agreement, by deleting in its entirety Exhibit C (Governing Regulations) of the Development Agreement, including all exhibits to the same, and to supplement with a new Exhibit C with all of the exhibits. Also request to amend the PD, Planned Development District Ordinance, Request: Ordinance No. 11063, and subsequent amendments, identified by Ordinance No’s. 12010, 13017, 13074 and 15045, by deleting them in their entirety, including all exhibits, and supplementing with new Planned Development District Development Standards, including the exhibits. Location: Carolina Park (north side of US Highway 17 between the Park West and Pepper Plantation developments) Parcel ID (TMS No.): The entirety of the Carolina Park development Type of Request: DA & PD Amendments Required; PD hearing to be held by Planning Commission & DA hearing to be held by Town Council at their March Public Hearing: 13th and April 10th meetings. Total Acreage: Comprised of approximately 1,608.50 acres Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25067 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25186 Action to be taken: Planning Commission recommended approval, 9-0  3.B. TREE & BUFFERYARD TEXT AMENDMENTS To amend the Vegetation and Tree Protection divisions of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Request: Ordinances, pertaining to various sections regarding bufferyard requirements, special bufferyards including the Critical Line Buffer, and tree protection, removal and replacement requirements. Type of Request: Zoning Code Text Amendment Public Hearing: Required; To be held by Planning Commission Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25204 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council. BUFFERYARDS -Proposed is to require 50 percent native species -The Plant Species List has been updated to denote those species considered native. -Proposed is to increase the Critical Line Buffer to an average of 50 feet, with a minimum width of 30 feet – as of the adoption date of this ordinance. -Proposed to remain are the previously established CLB’s (15 feet and 35 feet) from their adoption date (September 12, 2000) to the adoption date of this ordinance. -Where a required special bufferyard does not exist – this provision establishes standards for replanting. TREES -Hold a New Residential Subdivision (per definition of Subdivision in our Land Development Regulations) to the same tree replacement requirements as Commercial and Other Land Uses; -Move Long Leaf Pine to Category III protected (16 inches and greater); all other Pine Species to remain in Category IV. -Similar to Commercial sites, require New Residential Subdivisions to retain a minimum of 160 inches per “developable acre” protected trees (16 inches and greater) where it exists; where it does not exist developer must plant up to 160 inches/acre. This acreage is proposed not to include wetlands, retention ponds nor R/W 5 trees/acre -10 acre site (excludes r/w) 10 trees/acre -10 acre site (excludes r/w) – 160 inches 15 trees/acre - 10 acre site (excludes r/w) REFERENCE/EXPLANATORY ILLUSTRATIONS: TREES Currently protected Currently protected If 16” and greater Pine Species and Sweet Gum 8” and greater (includes currently protected & Pine Species/Sweet Gum) Currently protected Currently protected If 16” and greater Pine Species and Sweet Gum 8” and greater (includes currently protected & Pine Species/Sweet Gum) REFERENCE/EXPLANATORY ILLUSTRATIONS: CRITICAL LINE BUFFER (CLB)  FUTURE DIRECTIONS: DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY Subcommittee 2 – Quality of Life/Community Character Subcommittee 4 – Taking the Long View Goal: A diverse community where the verdant and historic coastal character of Mount Pleasant Goal: can be found in every aspect of daily life, and the friendly, small-town feel is embraced and A sustainable and resilient community that adapts to evolving conditions while strengthened through interaction with each other and the natural environment. enhancing and maintaining high standards and quality of life that residents expect. Objective 1: Landscape Objective 3: Environmental Sustainability Ensure that residents and visitors know they are in Mount Pleasant by the coastal style and Protect the integrity of the natural environment for its value as habitat, floodplain and scale of development, protection of existing trees and provision of abundant buffers and water quality management, buffers, recreation, etc. landscaping. Objective 2: Open Space Corridors Create a system of interconnected protected open spaces to provide opportunities to interact with nature, as well as to accommodate multi-use trails, wildlife corridors, and low-impact drainage that enhances the natural water characteristics of the area. OTHER POTENTIAL/DIFFERENT APPROACHES: ROAD FRONT BUFFERS OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 4. I’ON DEVELOPMENT—DEFERRED Amend the text in the I’On PD, Planned Development District Ordinance (Ord. No. 97010) pertaining to Request: “Neighborhood Standards,” which includes Yard, Porches, Outbuildings and Building Types. Location: I’On Development Parcel ID (TMS No.): Approximately 243 acre area comprising the I’On Development Type of Request: PD Amendment Public Hearing: Required; To be held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 243 acres Plat Recording Info: I’On Technical Plan Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/24504 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/24617 Planning Commission recommends approval, approval with conditions or denial of the request. This Action to be Taken: recommendation is forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council.  BACKGROUND • I’On =10 phases with a maximum of 762 units. As of December 31, 2017, 752 of these units were either built or under construction. • This request does not change the number of units or alter the density of the development; it pertains only to text & explanatory graphics, and is intended to standardize the requirements applicable to the remaining undeveloped lots. • More importantly, it will clearly present the requirements for all future modifications, additions, alterations, or other improvements to existing residences.  BACKGROUND • When originally adopted, three (3) different “Building Types” were established, with very similar requirements. • Administering these was problematic, and it was determined that only one would be applied. • That interpretation [reinforced with a letter] in 1999 was done to provide clarification to all parties when designing and reviewing plans for individual homes on lots. • However, there was never an ordinance change adopted by Town Council to enact this change. • This amendment seeks to remedy that situation. EXISTING STANDARDS NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS Yard 1. Buildings shall be set on the lot relative to the build to zones and setbacks specified for each building type. 2. Stoops, chimneys, balconies and bay windows may encroach within the setback or build-to zone. 3. Street walls shall be built on frontage lines as shown. Porches 1. Shopfront buildings shall have an arcade that extends along 100% of the street façade. 2. Side-yard and All-yard buildings shall have a covered porch a minimum of 8 feet in depth. 3. The porch shall extend a minimum of 50% of the length of the home in the case of Side-yard buildings and a minimum of 40% of the street façade in the case of All-yard buildings. 4. The street façade of All-yard buildings shall extend along the front yard a minimum of 40% of the lot width. Outbuildings 1. Outbuildings shall have a maximum footprint of 625 square feet and building height of 18 feet. 2. The walls of the outbuildings at interior property lines shall be left windowless and shall be two-hour fire rated. 3. Outbuildings may have less than 3’ setbacks from adjoining property line.  IMPACTS • Homeowners are more frequently requesting updates and/or additions to their homes. During the site plan review process, staff is finding that while their home was constructed according to one building type, they are officially classified as another. • This often not only prohibits them from making said changes without receiving a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals, but it’s also making what currently exists non-compliant. • With the intent to rectify this situation and at the direction of the Zoning Administrator, the I’On Company proposes the text be amended to match what has been constructed. • This will not change anything in the neighborhood, but will merely align what has been built with the adopted text and, ultimately bring much of the development into compliance.  TYPICAL SITE PLAN Staff Determination Process: 1. Lot Width 2. Setbacks/Build- to-line 3. Porch Requirements 4. Building Coverage  STAFF DETERMINATION IS ALL- YARD Staff Determination Process: 1. Lot Width: 125’+ • Lot Is All-yard (36’+ Yard Width) 2. Setbacks/Build-to-line: • 0-25’ 3. Minimum Porch Requirements: • Porch Will Be 8’ Deep • The Porch Shall Extend…a Minimum Of 40% Of The Street Façade In The Case Of All-yard Buildings 4. Building Coverage: • 40% Of Lot  DESIGNED TO REAR- YARD Conflict with Determination : 1. Lot Width: 125’+ • Lot Is Rear-Yard 2. Setbacks/Build-to-line: • 0-12’ 3. Minimum Porch Requirements: • None 4. Building Coverage: • 60% Of Lot PROPOSED STANDARDS / AMENDMENTS 7.A. ANNEXATION: 4318 ROYAL NEW KENT COURT ▪An approximately 0.92 acre tract of land ▪Located at 4318 Royal New Kent Court ▪TMS No. 632-00-00-098 ▪Plat Book EG, Page 0761 – 0765 ▪Comprehensive Plan recommends Rural Conservation-3 ▪Will be assigned zoning designation RC-2, Rural Conservation-2 District ▪There is an existing single-family residence on the property 7.B. ANNEXATION: 355 LIVE PALMETTO BLUFF ▪An approximately 0.52 acre tract of land ▪Located at 355 Live Palmetto Bluff ▪TMS No. 556-00-00-511 ▪Plat Book L13, Page 0287 ▪Comprehensive Plan recommends Low Density Neighborhood ▪Will be assigned zoning designation R-1, Single Family Residential ▪An existing single-family residence exists on the property 7.C. ANNEXATION: 395 LIVE PALMETTO BLUFF ▪An approximately 0.75 acre tract of land ▪Located at 395 Live Palmetto Bluff ▪TMS No. 556-00-00-509 ▪Plat Book L13, Page 0287 ▪Comprehensive Plan recommends Low Density Neighborhood ▪Will be assigned zoning designation R-1, Single Family Residential ▪An existing single-family residence is planned for construction on this vacant lot 7.D. ANNEXATION: 520 COAXUM ROAD ▪An approximately 0.34 acre tract of land ▪Located at 520 Coaxum Road ▪TMS No. 556-00-00-115 ▪Plat Book BD, Page 115 ▪Comprehensive Plan recommends CC, Community Conservation ▪Will be assigned zoning designation CC, Community Conservation ▪The property has an existing single-family residence on it 8. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 152, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION: SPECIAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA Cause – Resulting from the information provided in the recent stormwater study conducted inside the Old Village area, existing stormwater infrastructure was deemed inadequate and sub-standard. Residents and Town officials became concerned with permitting home additions, footprint expansions, and grade altering activity. Intent – Town staff proposes to formalize unique stormwater standards based upon a specific watershed area. This area is consistent with the Old Village Watershed Study Phase One produced in 2017. Proposal is to ensure residents have information which allows them the opportunity to improve their property without adversely impacting the existing system or adjacent neighbors, and remain within the 40% impervious surface coverage. Purpose – Address residential permitting challenges by managing additional runoff to our infrastructure and safeguarding our citizens in an equitable and responsible manner. 9. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO BOARD AND COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE 10. STAFF UPDATE ON THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS • Open House held January 30, 2018 – 5:00-7:00 pm • Had approximately 275 attend; Received approximately 1,000 survey responses. (Survey closed on 2/28/18) • Received feedback on Goals and Objectives, as well as some policy issues related to defined Character Areas within the town. • Town Council has been provided copies of these Goals & Objectives for your review. • Plan Forum will meet March 6, 2018 from 12-3:00 pm • Results from the Open House • Discussion with County Planners regarding their Comp Plan, coordinating planning efforts, and the settlement communities • Land Use Analysis & Big Questions • Transportation Priorities PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT March 5, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL