Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 30, 2018 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room Present: Joe Bustos, Chair, Bob Brimmer, Guang Ming Whitley, Tom O'Rourke. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Michele Canon, Liz Boyles, Austin Rutherford Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 12:30 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from the April 2, 2018 meeting Ms. Whitley moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comments There being no public comment, Mr. Bustos continued with the agenda. 3. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the April 18, 2018 meeting a. Rezone two parcels located at 1124 and 1126 Venning Road from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Also request to remove both parcels from the Hungryneck Boulevard-Venning Road Overlay District (HNB-VR-OD). Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. He stated that if approved, a special exception request would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) for the outdoor storage. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning with denial of removal from the HNB-VR- OD. Ms. Whitley asked if the property was purchased with AB zoning, which does not allow outdoor storage and because they would like to have the outdoor storage, they must request the more intensive AB-2 zoning. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. He stated that there is outdoor storage allowed on lots in the adjacent area that are within the county jurisdiction.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Bustos asked if the property was annexed with AB zoning. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that the owner was contacted regarding the violation of having outdoor storage. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council denial of the request. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. All in favor. b. Proposal to amend the following sections of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the attendance provisions for all Board and Commission members: Planning Commission section 156.400; Board of Zoning Appeals section 156.410; Design Review Board section 156.420; Historical Commission section 156.440; Construction Board of Adjustments section 156.003; Old Village Historic District Commission section 156.430; and Cultural Arts and Pride Commission section 32.32 Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Pagliarini reviewed the specifics and stated that there were some minor recommended changes from the Planning Commission that were included with the revised document that was distributed to the Committee. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended an effective date of January 1, 2019. Mr. Bustos asked if the January 2019 effective date would still mean a rolling 12 month. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley suggested that the effective date should be sooner than January 1st and suggested and that starting next quarter should be considered. She asked if it would still be a rolling calendar year. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley suggested that a three month notice for implementation should be sufficient. Mr. Bustos asked if Ms. Whitley’s recommendation would be to start October 1st. Ms. Whitley answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked what changes were recommended. Mr. Pagliarini answered that “appears imminent” was not needed as the attendance would not be imminent but finite. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended that both staff and the member be notified of removal. He stated that there was discussion on what is considered “attending a meeting”. He suggested that this could be clarified if desired.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Mr. O’Rourke suggested that having the effective date might allow a member that previously has not had good attendance whether justified and excused would allow time for those members to become compliant. Ms. Whitley stated that she would be comfortable with the January 1, 2019 start date with implementing the rolling 12 months. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the text amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 4. Annexations a. Request to annex an approximately 0.53 acre tract of land located at 1108 Graddick Road, identified by TMS No. 559-00-00-176 and depicted on a plat recorded by Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book S08, Page 0101. Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Brimmer asked if the recommendation is to annex R-1. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked if it can be recommended for annexation under a different zoning. Mr. Ulma answered in the negative and stated that an ordinance change could allow annexation with a different zoning designation. Mr. Pagliarini stated that a request for rezoning would need to be submitted. He stated that Town Council could rezone on its own initiative, but suggested that this is not the best course of action. Ms. Whitley asked if the owner intends to rezone to commercial in the future. Ms. Canon answered that the owner did indicate a desire to rezone to commercial in the future, but did not have a finalized plan at this time. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the annexation request. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Ms. Whitley, Mr. Bustos, and Mr. O’Rourke in favor; Mr. Brimmer opposed. Mr. Bustos asked if Mr. Brimmer wanted to state the reason for his denial. Mr. Brimmer answered that he does not want to annex property that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 4 of 9 b. Request to annex an approximately 0.50 acre tract of land located at 2162 Annie Laura Lane, identified by TMS No. 558-00-00-381 and depicted on a plat recorded by Charleston County ROD Office in Plat Book DA, Page 633. Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the annexation. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Ms. Whitley, Mr. Bustos, Mr. O’Rourke in favor; Mr. Brimmer opposed. c. Request to annex six parcels described as approximately 2.41 acres of land, known as Hamlin Corner, on Hamlin Road, identified by TMS No.’s 578-00- 00-058, 578-00-00-312 through -313, and 578-00-00-737 through -739, and depicted on plats recorded by the ROD Office of Charleston County in Book S17, Page 0091, and Book S17, Page 0136. Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Ms. Whitley asked if the homes under construction are compliant with the CC zoning. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the annexation request. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Continued discussion regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and Short- Term Rental properties Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Ms. Whitley asked if a short-term rental could be the entire home or a portion. Mr. Ulma answered that it could be either. Ms. Whitley suggested that the definition should be clarified. Mr. Ulma answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. O’Rourke asked if a business license is required for an ADU. Mr. Ulma answered in the negative. Mr. O’Rourke asked the reason for not applying impact fees for ADUs. Mr. Ulma answered that he is not sure about the initial study, but because of the square footage, the impact would be minimal.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Whitley asked if Mr. O’Rourke would want impact fees for only those ADUs rented or assessing impact fees for all ADUs. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that impact fees should be assessed equally across the board. Mr. Bustos asked if impact fees are assessed if the ADU and main structure are constructed at the same time. Mr. Ulma answered in the negative and stated that only the main structure is assessed impact fees. Mr. Bustos suggested the fee should be assessed when both constructed at the same time. Mr. Ulma suggested that only assessing certain ADUs could be a legal concern. Mr. Brimmer asked if HOAs can prohibit ADUs. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer asked if all ADUs must comply with the Town’s requirements. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked if there is a way to determine certain areas that would allow ADUs. Mr. Ulma answered that it could be allowed as a special exception, if desired. Ms. Whitley suggested that ADUs should not be entirely prohibited, but should be assessed an impact fee and regulated. Mr. Ulma reviewed short-term rentals with the Committee. Ms. Whitley asked for clarification on the definitions between a short-term rental and a bed and breakfast. Mr. Ulma reviewed these for the Committee. Mr. Brimmer asked if the ADU could be sublet if the main structure was rented from the property owner. Mr. Ulma answered in the negative and stated that there are restrictions on subletting, but it is difficult to enforce. Mr. Brimmer asked how many LLCs own less than four properties and rent those properties and why this threshold was implemented. Mr. DeMoura answered that it was a policy decision made at the time the ordinance was put into effect. He stated that at that time, it was trying to distinguish between what would be an individual having rental property and someone having a business. Mr. Brimmer asked if the threshold is for homes or rooms. Mr. DeMoura answered that it would be less than four rental rooms would require a business license.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Bustos stated that the number of bed and breakfasts allowed in a neighborhood should be a consideration as well as how it could affect the character of the neighborhood. He expressed concern that having multiple bed and breakfasts allowed within a neighborhood would affect the character of the neighborhood. He agreed that all short-term rentals and bed and breakfasts should be regulated and permitted in a manner that would cover all administrative costs for permitting, regulation, and enforcement as well as pay for all emergency and Town services. Ms. Whitley expressed concern with limiting a number for a neighborhood and asked how this was accomplished in other municipalities. Mr. Ulma answered that it is typically done on a first-come/first-serve basis. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that this is a complex issue and suggested that the guiding principles and overall goals should be determined before going forward. He stated that the Town is a residential community and this should be a consideration. He stated that providing services such as trash pickup, fire, police, etc. should be part of the discussion. He agreed that there should be regulation and permitting of all short-term rentals. Ms. Whitley asked how many HOAs prohibit short-term rentals and suggested that this would be an important point of discussion. Mr. Bustos noted that if a business license was required for all short-term rentals, it would help with violations. Mr. Brimmer suggested that it should be determined what should be allowed and what should be prohibited. He agreed that there should be regulation and permits required. He suggested that the Town should look at how other surrounding municipalities regulate short-term rentals and incorporate some of those aspects for the Town. Ms. Whitley suggested that prohibiting whole home rentals might be too restrictive. She stated that many residents depend on the short-term rentals for income. She suggested that regulating the number of days short-term rental is allowed might be one way of regulating them. Mr. Bustos suggested that multiple short-term rentals in a neighborhood should not be allowed. He suggested that one way to regulate might be to prohibit short- term rentals for ADUs.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Whitley asked if the existing whole home short-term rentals could be grandfathered. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that an effective date could be established. Ms. Whitley asked if once the home changed ownership, could there either be additional restrictions or the short-term rental use no longer allowed. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the negative and stated that the allowed use would be tied to the property and not the property owner. Mr. Bustos suggested that all short-term rentals should require a business license. Ms. Whitley suggested that the definition of a bed and breakfast should be clarified. She stated that a bed and breakfast is different from a short-term rental. She suggested that a bed and breakfast should be for a room with breakfast and not just a couch. The Committee discussed regulation and how short-term rentals could be regulated separate from a bed and breakfast. Mr. Ulma stated that this could be accomplished and that different uses or category of uses could be determined with different regulations for each. Mr. Bustos suggested that multiple bed and breakfasts should not be allowed in a neighborhood. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that this issue should be discussed with the entire Town Council as well as a public hearing. Mr. Bustos suggested that it should be “fleshed out” more and have staff work on a draft that would come back to the Committee and then sent to Town Council for further discussion. The Committee agreed that staff should bring a draft back to the Committee for review. 6. Continued discussion on 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. Ms. Canon reviewed the request with the Committee.  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Mr. O’Rourke asked if the open space lot would be required for existing subdivisions. Ms. Canon answered in the negative and stated that existing subdivisions were used only as examples. Ms. Whitley asked about critical line buffers and asked if there is a provision in the ordinance for consideration. Ms. Canon answered that only if there was a change to the property lines, would the lot need to come into compliance with the new critical line buffer setback. Mr. Brimmer thanked staff for their work and progress on this issue. He asked about protection of trees. Ms. Canon answered that reducing the size of protected trees for residential property from 16 inches in diameter to 8 inches in diameter, but no decision has been made. Mr. Brimmer expressed concern with cluster development and if it would provide the desired result. Mr. Ulma stated that cluster development was mentioned as one method that could be used to provide more open space. Mr. Brimmer stated that he is not opposed to this possibility, but suggested that smaller lots should not be required in the historic overlay districts. Mr. Bustos suggested that staff move forward with these issues and bring back a draft to the Committee. The Committee agreed that staff should bring back a draft for the Committee to review. 7. Continued discussion regarding the Urban Corridor Overlay District (UCOD) and potential removal of Ben Sawyer Boulevard from the district 8. Continued discussion for consideration of Potential Growth Management Plan Mr. Brimmer moved to defer items 7 and 8 to next meeting or schedule a special meeting. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. All in favor. 9. Discussion regarding consideration of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Charleston County for enforcement of Sign ordinances Mr. DeMoura stated that staff would like permission to move forward with an intergovernmental agreement with Charleston County for enforcement of the County’s sign ordinance. He stated that are a number of illegal signs posted in the  Planning Committee April 30, 2018 Page 9 of 9 County and having the intergovernmental agreement would allow Town staff to enforce those regulations. Ms. Whitley moved for approval. Mr. Brimmer seconded the motion. All in favor. 10. Report on Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Boyles updated the Committee on the Comprehensive Plan update process. She stated that the next meeting would be May 1st at noon. She stated that the next open house would be June 5th from 5-7 pm. She stated that the next meetings would focus on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). 11. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComm04302018 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL  6.A. 1124 AND 1126 VENNING ROAD Case #: R-10-18 Rezone two parcels from AB, Areawide Business District, to AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District. Also request Request: to remove both parcels from the Hungryneck Boulevard-Venning Road Overlay District (HNB-VR-OD). Location: 1124 and 1126 Venning Road Parcel ID (TMS No.): 558-00-00-192 and 558-00-00-052 Type of Request: Rezone Public Hearing: Required; To be held by Planning Commission Total Acreage: Approximately 0.99 acres Plat Recording Info: Book W, Page 145 Application Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25769 Staff Report Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25837 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This recommendation is forwarded Action to be taken: to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council.  6.B. TEXT AMENDMENT Proposal to amend the following sections of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the attendance provisions for all Board and Commission members: Planning Commission section 156.400; Board of Zoning Appeals section 156.410; Design Review Request: Board section 156.420; Historical Commission section 156.440; Construction Board of Adjustments section 156.003; Old Village Historic District Commission section 156.430; and Cultural Arts and Pride Commission section 32.32 Type of Request: Zoning code text amendment Public Hearing: Required; To be held by Planning Commission Draft Text Link: https://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/25848 Planning Commission recommends approval or denial of the request. This recommendation is Action to be Taken: forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee and Town Council.  ANNEXATION: 1108 GRADDICK ROAD ▪ An approximately 0.53 acre tract of land ▪ Located at 1108 Graddick Road ▪ TMS No. 559-00-00-176 ▪ Plat Book SO8, Page 0101 ▪ Comprehensive Plan recommends Commercial land uses ▪ Will be assigned zoning designation R-1, Low Density Residential District ▪ There is an existing single-family dwelling on the property that is vacant  ANNEXATION: 2162 ANNIE LAURA LANE ▪ An approximately 0.50 acre tract of land ▪ Located at 2162 Annie Laura Lane ▪ TMS No. 558-00-00-381 ▪ Plat Book DA, Page 633 ▪ Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Conservation ▪ Will be assigned zoning designation CC, Community Conservation District ▪ There is an existing single-family dwelling on the property  ANNEXATION: HAMLIN CORNER ▪ An approximately 2.41 acre tract of land comprised of 6 parcels ▪ Located at corner of Hamlin Road and Rifle Range Road ▪ TMS No’s. 578-00-00-058, 578-00-00-312 through -313, and 578-00- 00-737 through -739 ▪ Plat Book S17, Page 0091 and Book S17, Page 0136 ▪ Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Conservation land uses ▪ Will be assigned zoning designation CC, Community Conservation District ▪ There are currently 2 SFR dwellings under construction – once completed will consist of 6 SFR dwellings Continued Discussion Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) And Short-term Rental Properties ADUs & Short- Planning Committee term Rentals 30 April 2018 DEFINITIONS Dwelling, Accessory: A separate housing arrangement within, attached to, or detached from a single-family dwelling unit (not including townhouses), which includes its own dedicated entrance from the outdoors and a kitchen and bath separate from those contained within the principal structure, and therefore functions as a complete living unit. Rental, Short-term: “(1) The rental or lease of a residential dwelling unit for a duration of less than 28 consecutive days; or (2) The use of a residential dwelling unit in return for valuable consideration for a duration of less than 28 consecutive days.” Bed & Breakfast (B&B): “A portion of an owner‐occupied dwelling unit or detached accessory structure offering transient lodging to paying guests on an overnight basis, usually staying seven days or less. The use of a dwelling as a bed and breakfast shall not be considered as an accessory use or a home-based business.” A. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) • Ordinance allowing ADUs adopted by Town Council and became effective March 2010 • Basis for ordinance purpose/intent: • To provide more affordable housing options for young professionals, working families, seniors • To provide opportunities for seniors to age in place • To help families stay in their homes in times of economic recession • To encourage accessory dwellings as an alternative housing choice ADU REGULATIONS A limit of one ADU per lot, subject to lot coverage requirements and the following: 1) Can be attached or detached 2) 850sf conditioned space (porches, decks don’t count) /subject to 750 sf footprint limit if located above a detached garage 3) If located on the ground level and attached to or located within a detached garage building or similar building, neither the building footprint nor the total conditioned floor area of the entire building shall exceed 850 square feet 4) Maximum height is 25 feet 5) Meet front yard setbacks, minimum 6ft setback from rear and side property lines and at least 15ft from principal dwelling on neighboring lot 6) Requires one off-street parking space in addition to those required for the principal structure 7) Either the principal structure or the ADU must be owner-occupied and serve as the owner's primary residence. If neither unit is owner-occupied, the ADU may not be rented separately from the principal structure. No subleases of the ADU are permitted 8) Cannot be converted to a horizontal property regime (condominium) 9) Occupancy of an ADU is limited to no more than three persons. WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS ARE ADUs ALLOWED IN? • RC-1, Rural Conservation-1 • Planned Development Districts: • RC-2, Rural Conservation-2 • Cassina Plantation • RR, Rural Residential • Carolina Park • CC, Community Conservation • Central Mount Pleasant • I’On • CL, Cultural Landscape • Pepper Plantation & Tupelo • R-1, Low Density Residential • Pinckney Place • R-2, Low Density Residential • Seaside Farms • R-3, Medium Density Residential • Wando Farms • R-4, Medium Density Residential • Watermark • WG-W, Waterfront Gateway- • Moores Landing (only if above an Wando River District attached garage) LOCATION & NUMBER OF EXISTING ADUs EMERGING ISSUES/CONCERNS • ADU’s may or may not be used as originally intended when the ordinance was adopted: • ADU’s are being rented on a short term basis • Currently the Town does not charge impact fees on ADU’s • Difficult to enforce: Current ordinance requires either the principal structure or ADU be owner-occupied and serve as the owner's primary residence. If neither unit is owner- occupied, the accessory dwelling unit may not be rented separately from the principal structure. (This ordinance requirement is particularly difficult to enforce, especially as property ownership changes over time.) OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD 1. Continue to permit ADU’s as currently allowed 2. Prohibit ADU’s entirely 3. Allow ADU’s but prohibit short-term rental use (next topic) 4. Allow ADU’s, but adopt stricter development standards (parking requirements, buffers, setbacks, size, etc.) 5. Other aspects to contemplate: A. Charge impact fees for ADU’s? B. Limit the number of ADU’s allowed (perhaps by neighborhood, block, etc.)? C. Require deed restrictions up front before permit issued to address owner occupancy and ownership arrangements (e.g., no horizontal property regime)? B. SHORT TERM RENTALS HISTORY OF SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS IN MOUNT PLEASANT • In 2008 the Town adopted an ordinance prohibiting short term rentals in the Old Village Historic District • Outside of the Old Village Historic District, there are no Town prohibitions against short-term rentals HISTORY OF SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS IN MOUNT PLEASANT In 2010, staff was directed to draft a text amendment that prohibited short term rentals town wide. The ordinance was denied at First Reading by Town Council. 2010 Proposed Text, Not Adopted § 156.109 Short Term Rentals. The rental of residential dwelling units for a duration of less than twenty-eight (28) days is prohibited in all residentially zoned districts, except in multifamily dwelling units located in multifamily zoned districts or residential condominiums in a horizontal property regime in appropriately zoned districts. This prohibition specifically includes residential zoning districts located in Planned Development Districts and further includes legally existing nonconforming structures containing multiple dwelling units. APPLYING THE ADU REGULATIONS: Owner Lives On Site Rents One (1) or Lives in ADU more rooms or and rents Main ADU on short- home for short term basis (no term (no more more than 28 than 28 days) days) Prohibited in Elsewhere: Prohibited in Old Village Subject to Bed & Old Village Allowed in all Historic District Breakfast Historic District other areas Requirements APPLYING THE ADU REGULATIONS: Owner Lives Off Site Rents Entire House on short- term basis (no ADU more than 28 days) Can Only Rent Prohibited in Prohibited in Entire Property Old Village Elsewhere: Not Old Village (ADU & Historic District Regulated Historic District Principal Dwelling) To One Family ZONING: BED AND BREAKFAST A bed and breakfast requires special exception approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for properties zoned R1, R2, and MF. A bed and breakfast is a conditional use in RC, RR, CC, CL, and WFGW.  The property owner is the operator and lives on site;  No more than six guest rooms are provided;  Required parking spaces may be constructed of pervious materials;  Required parking shall be accommodated in the rear yard;  Required buffers shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator through the Conditional Use approval process, or by the Board of Zoning Appeals through the Special Exception Use approval process, as applicable; and  Signage shall be limited to one non-internally illuminated hanging sign, similar to that illustrated below. The sign may be either free-standing, mounted on the building, or mounted below the mailbox, and may not exceed four square feet in area and eight feet in height.  B&B APPLICATIONS BED & BREAKFAST APPLICATIONS DATE OF DATE OF SPECIAL DATE OF SITE PLAN BOZA FILE BOZA CONDITIONS OF TMS ADDRESS STREET SUBDIVISION ZONING CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL (BY NO. APPROVAL USE APPROVAL APPROVAL STAFF) 2015 514-10-00-0166 225 Fourth Avenue River Watch R-1 n/a 06.29.15 S-04-15 no signage 08.24.15 no signage; applicant must Old Mount 532-06-00-070 603 Atlantic Street R-2 n/a 07.27.15 S-05-15 provide non-tandem off- 08.26.15 Pleasant street parking no signage; no special 514-11-00-059 368 Fifth Avenue Remley's Point R-1 n/a 08.31.15 S-06-15 events held by guests (wedding receptions, etc.) Old Mount 532-06-00-080 673 Atlantic Street R-2 n/a 08.31.15 S-07-15 no signage 11.23.15 Pleasant Old Mount 532-06-00-074 631 Atlantic Street R-2 n/a 09.28.15 S-08-15 no signage Pleasant Old Mount 532-06-00-122 632 Atlantic Street R-2 n/a 09.28.15 S-09-15 no signage Pleasant 514-03-00-057 338 Coinbow Drive Hobcaw Point R-1 n/a NOT APPROVED S-11-15 NOT APPROVED n/a 514-10-00-033 242 Sixth Avenue Remley's Point R-1 n/a NOT APPROVED S-13-15 NOT APPROVED n/a 2016 Old Mount R-2; SR2- 532-06-00-082 685 Atlantic Street n/a 6.6.16 S-03-16 Approved Pleasant OD 2017 Old Mount R-2; SR2- 532-10-00-035 1497 Mataoka Street n/a 6.26.17 S-03-16 Approved Pleasant OD TAXATION • A business license is currently required by Town for more than four rental units (there is no distinction between a long or short term rental duration) • If homeowner lives on premises consisting of less than six sleeping rooms, they are exempt from Accommodations Tax (SC Code12-36-920) • Town also receives Accommodation taxes: • 1% Local ($900k) • 2% County – portion comes to the Town ($500k) • 2% State ($1.4M) • SC has five types of short term rentals with property tax rate impacted by owner occupancy, number of days rented, number of sleeping rooms and booking agency HOW DO OTHER COMMUNITIES REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS?  Permit requirement which may include one or more of these stipulations:  A business license  Sales/lodging tax remittance  Compliance with life safety and trash regulations  Limitations on the location and timeframes for rentals  Special signage and/or neighbor notification  Special parking requirements OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITY ORDINANCES City of Charleston:  All short-term operators must:  Own and live on the property full time, determined by the 4 percent owner-occupied property tax assessment.  Stay overnight in the home when short-term guests are present.  Apply for a short-term rental license from the city.  Include the short-term rental license number on any advertisements for the property.  Have at least one off-street parking space.  Not host more than four adults at a time.  Pay business license fees.  Collect accommodations taxes*.  Does not allow whole-home short-term rentals  Restricts what types of buildings can be rented out for short term basis in different zones of the city *Short-term rental taxes in Charleston are a total 14 percent of the cost of accommodations. Short-term rental hosts must collect these taxes from guests and pay them to a combination of state and local tax authorities. OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITY ORDINANCES City of Beaufort, SC  Permitted as a Conditional Use in all neighborhoods/zoning districts except one  In certain zones the number of short term rentals where the property owner does not live on the premises, is capped at 6% of the residentially-zoned lots in the neighborhood  Before beginning the application process an applicant attends a “conference” where the process for approving AND managing a short-term rental is reviewed  An inspection is required  A business license is required OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITY ORDINANCES Town of Sullivan’s Island ”Vacation Rentals” are prohibited, except where they exist as a nonconforming use (only can be considered as such if established during the 12 mos. prior to Nov. 21, 2000) Under these conditions the owner must comply with the following:  Obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for each calendar year the property is used as such  Proof of ownership/owner’s authorization  Vacation Rental License  Proof of 6% tax rate assessment  Proof of state accommodations tax, sales tax, Local option sales tax, County Accommodations tax, water and sewer fees, etc. being paid  Annual inspection by Fire Chief and Building Official CONSIDERATIONS/CONCERNS • Income from rental for property owner • Potential tax/permit revenues • The nature and character of established neighborhoods are affected • Increased tourism accommodations • Increased popularity of AirBnB, VRBO, etc. • Administration & enforcement costs/resources • A transient population can cause safety, noise, trash, traffic, etc. issues • Numerous conflicts/contradictions among definitions, rental duration, number of rooms, etc. SOME OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD 1. Regulate Short Term Rentals • Require an annual rental permit (ordinance amendment) • Review Business License Ordinance relative to number of rental units • May require building and safety standards (Inspections needed) • May require additional parking • May regulate number of occupants 2. Prohibit Short Term Rentals entirely or just in ADU’s 3. Prohibit Whole Home Short Term Rentals, owner must be on site at time of rental Continued discussion on 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 and Potential additional changes Tree Protection Planning Committee and Buffers 30 April 2018 Previously Discussed Recommendations From Planning Commission (1 Of 2): ✓ Apply an average 50-foot Critical Line Buffer (with a minimum of 30 feet) moving forward, with a grandfathering clause for recorded plats to stay at 15/35 feet; ✓ Require 2 more understory trees for Bufferyard B (the standard streetside buffer); ✓ Require at least 50 percent of the total quantity of canopy and understory trees to be native species; Previously Discussed Recommendations From Planning Commission (2 Of 2): ✓ Where a required special bufferyard does not exist, establish standards for replanting; ✓ Require new residential subdivisions to retain 160 inches per developable acre of protected trees and where it doesn’t exist developer must plant up to that amount; ✓ Require new residential subdivisions to have similar tree replacement requirements as Commercial/Other ✓ Move Long Leaf Pine to Category III Protected Species SOME GOALS ➢ Preserve more open space/tree cover/green area within developments ➢ “Soften” views of development from the street ➢ Ensure that new developments are planned around greenspace rather than the other way around ➢ Take advantage of the ability to integrate drainage & open space ➢ Provide connectivity within and among surrounding developments both with greenspace and trails ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Establish Additional Street/Road Buffers 2. Introduce Natural Open Space Preservation Requirements 3. Adjust The Development Review Process To Focus On Open Space 1. STREET/ROAD FRONT BUFFERS: CURRENT REGULATIONS ➢ There are no Road Front buffers currently required for internal neighborhood roads ➢ Some neighborhoods fronting major roads may have road front buffer along the major road through special buffers ➢ Hwy County Overlay buffer ➢ Mathis Ferry Road buffer ➢ Natural Roadside buffer ➢ Critical Line buffer ROAD FRONT BUFFERS ➢ Apply to highways, thoroughfares, and collector streets (example subdivision entrance road) ➢ Consider a width of 20-30 feet ➢ Preserve natural vegetation first; recognize that some areas will have to be planted/replanted ➢ This is already happening… Plat for Greymarsh Road in Park West: 20-foot HOA Buffer Greymarsh Road in Park West: 20-foot HOA Buffer Carolina Park Boulevard in Carolina Park: 25-foot HOA Buffer & Open Space Area Carolina Park Boulevard in Carolina Park: 25-foot HOA Buffer & Open Space Area Carolina Park Boulevard in Carolina Park: 25-foot HOA Buffer & Open Space Area Needlerush Parkway in Longpoint Plantation: 25-foot “Natural Scenic Buffer” Needlerush Parkway in Longpoint Plantation: 25-foot “Natural Scenic Buffer” Mathis Ferry Road: 25-foot “Natural Buffer” Mathis Ferry Road: 25-foot “Natural Buffer”  Added 20’ Road Front Buffer Bessemer Park - Revised 2. OPEN SPACE PROTECTION •Consider establishing a requirement that new developments protect a fixed amount (likely a percentage) of a site as natural open space •Shift the focus to meaningful areas of open space within developments rather than individual trees & species •Ensure that major open space areas are not part of individual lots •Apply the concept to both residential and nonresidential development •Establish criteria & prioritize preferred areas of preservation (along roadways, at entrances, encompassing significant stands of trees) •Build off an existing concept in the Zoning Code… OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: CURRENT 5 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑡𝑠 × × 2.47 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 1000 amount of park land and recreational space currently required for subdivisions, which is expressed as the ratio of 0.01235 times the number of lots proposed for subdivision 100-lot subdivision → 100 x 0.01235 = 1.235 Acres CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION: EXISTING REGULATIONS § 156.105 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. (A) Purpose. The purpose of the Cluster Development subdivision design technique is to preserve large, contiguous tracts of open space and/or agricultural areas in perpetuity by concentrating residential development in certain areas of the development site. The flexibility offered by this technique provides for a subdivision design that fits the natural characteristics of the site and permits more useable, connected open space. Because the development form is compact, this technique also allows a reduction in the cost of infrastructure. Allowed as a conditional use in RC-1, RC-2 and CL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION: EXISTING REGULATIONS (D) Design standards. (1) Open space. (a) For properties located within the Urban Growth Boundary, a minimum of 25% of the gross site area shall be maintained as open space in perpetuity; for properties located beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, a minimum of 50% of the gross site area shall be maintained as open space in perpetuity. (b) Open space areas must be acceptable to the Planning Commission and Town Council with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement, and environmental condition. (c) Open space areas shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the methods listed below… OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: ONE IDEA ➢Consider a lot-based technique with several criteria: ➢Possibly 1 lot is saved for open (green) space per “X” number of buildable lots ➢Greenspace lot must meet minimum lot size per zoning district ➢Make it a square footage requirement ➢Only applicable to developments of a certain size (5 acres and greater?) ➢Open space may not have drainage easements and utility easements as part of the required square footage requirement ➢Common ownership of open space areas ➢Specify requirements for locations, connectivity of green spaces, etc. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: ANOTHER IDEA ➢Consider using a percentage or range of percentages depending upon project type or size: ➢Only applicable to developments of a certain size (5 acres and greater?) ➢Open space areas may not be used for drainage easements and utility easements to meet the requirement ➢Common ownership of open space areas ➢Specify requirements for locations, connectivity of green spaces, etc. RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE Masonborough Subdivision- Park West Masonborough Subdivision- Park West Dark Green: HOA properties Light Green: Undeveloped lots Covington at Park West Dark Green: HOA properties Light Green: Undeveloped lots COMMERCIAL Add green space: by larger parking islands Shops at Park West Add green space: combined with storm drainage Sweetgrass Corner Add green space: combined with storm drainage Iron Gate Plaza  3. PROCESS CHANGES Consider changes to the plan submittal & review process: a) New development submittals would be required to include a “greenspace” or “open space” plan that shows open proposed areas for preservation, and how the buildable area will be designed around the greenspace b) New development submittals would be required to show surrounding developments to illustrate how connectivity of greenspace will occur – need to have continuity with regards to greenspace and trails in a more comprehensive manner  OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. Tree surveys will still be required 2. While concentrating on an “area” approach, individual historic, significant trees will still be subject to protection 3. Consider decreasing size of protected trees for residential developments to be commensurate with commercial requirements (8 inches and greater) 4. Could implement such “cluster development” standards for all new residential developments and/or allow use of Cluster Developments in all zoning districts (presently, a conditional use in RC-1, RC-2 and CL)  OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5. In exchange for open space protection, smaller lot sizes must be accepted 6. Some of the changes suggested by staff would either replace the recommendations that came from Planning Commission, or would render them unnecessary 7. Staff has focused on new developments; additional work is needed regarding tree removal & mitigation requirements for existing residential lots COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Questions/Comments Guidance Next Steps? Continued discussion regarding the Urban Corridor Overlay District (UCOD) and potential removal of Ben Sawyer Boulevard from the district UCOD-Ben Planning Committee Sawyer 30 April 2018  Aerial view of Ben Sawyer Blvd  5 6 4 2 1 3 The denotes areas of potential redevelopment.  See Next Slide for Project Key 5 6 4 2 1 3 The denotes areas of potential redevelopment. As seen on the “underlying zoning” map, all of these areas are zoned AB, with the exception of the parcel still in the County Residential Developments constructed or approved under the applicable UC-OD provisions (Ben Sawyer section) 1. Warrick Oaks – 12 SFR (14.46 units/acre and approximately 40 feet height) = conforms to current density and height requirements [underlying zoning is NC, Neighborhood Commercial] 2. Sullivan’s Point – 21 SFR (16.03 units/acre and DRB approved plans show just under 50 feet height at highest point (ridge) for attached buildings) = .03 over the current density requirements and exceeds current allowed height of 45 feet. [underlying zoning is AB, Areawide Business] 3. Sawyers Landing – 15 Townhouses (14.02 units/acre and estimated height is 50-55 feet) = conforms to current density requirements but exceeds allowed height [underlying zoning is AB, Areawide Business] 4. Atlantic - approved for 224 MF units (27.86 units/acre and approved for 45 feet (4 stories) – 8.04 acres high ground/freshwater wetland and 6.97 acres critical area/marsh = does not conform to current density requirements but will meet allowed height [underlying zoning is AB, Areawide Business] 5. Oyster Park (aka Mt. Pleasant Square) - Mixed use (269 units) (18.7 units/acre and DRB approved plans show 50 feet at highest point) = conforms to current density requirements for mixed use but exceeds allowed height [underlying zoning is AB, Areawide Business] 6. Schirmer Commons (aka Village Park) – 16 SF (some duplex) (11.68 units/acre and 55 feet height) = conforms to current density requirements and exceeds height [underlying zoning is NC, Neighborhood Commercial] CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMOVAL • Most properties have an underlying zoning district of Areawide Business • New development: • General commercial uses would be permitted as well as a residential density of 12 units per acre with residential constructed above commercial • All development would be subject to Commercial Design Review Board approvals and regulations, including a 20 to 30 foot build to line for buildings and typical street front buffers • The Activity zone with wider sidewalks and street tree plantings design would no longer be required • Existing Development: • Developments with residential dwellings would be a nonconforming use as single family is not a permitted use in AB • Developments built under the requirements of the UCOD would become nonconforming likely with respect to certain development standards such as setbacks, parking, and buffers  CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMOVAL Underlying zoning is predominantly AB – this does allow Multi- family as a Conditional Use with the following conditions: (e) Multi-Family Dwelling. Multi-Family Dwellings may be allowed when combined in a structure with any other nonresidential use permitted in the Use District, provided:  1. No dwelling unit is located on the street level, or any level that has nonresidential uses;  2. All dwelling units have direct access to the street level; and  3. Density shall not exceed 12 units per acre.  CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMOVAL Existing nonconformities with regards to height and density:  Current allowed height along Ben Sawyer is 45 feet, with the exception of Sea Island Shopping Center, which is 55 feet; any change would require amendment of the Building Height Map  Current density allowed is 16 units per acre, or 20 units per acre for Mixed-use; if overlay is removed, density is based on Future Land Use Map as well as above conditional 12 u/a: -Low Density Neighborhood = 3 units/acre -Medium Density Neighborhood = 6 units/acre -High Density Neighborhood = 9 units/acre Existing nonconformities with regards to land use:  If underlying zoning is not rezoned to allow the existing development, then there will be nonconforming uses (residential uses on commercially-zoned property)  Nonconforming uses may continue so long as there is no change in use  Any nonconforming building or structure that is renovated, repaired, altered or otherwise improved by more than 50% of its reasonable replacement value at the time of renovation, repair, or alteration shall be brought into conformance with all applicable current ordinances.  QUESTIONS/OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD Better define geographic extent: Does the area of concern begin at Chuck Dawley Blvd. or Rifle Range Road? What about Oyster Park? (Does not “front” on Ben Sawyer)  QUESTIONS/OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD Some Zoning Approach Alternatives: 1. Keep Overlay as it currently exists? 2. Modify Overlay? a. Remove single-family residential as a permitted use b. Revisit build-to lines vs. setbacks / consider altering activity zone to create a greater setback 3. Repeal Overlay altogether and keep underlying zoning - then address nonconformities through the rezoning process or the BOZA process? 4. Repeal Overlay and replace with a new zoning district that captures the existing SFR uses (with regards to height, density, development standards, etc.)? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Questions/Comments Guidance Next Steps? Continued discussion for consideration of Potential Growth Management Plan Growth Planning Committee Management 30 April 2018 HISTORICAL GROWTH DATA Year End of Year Total Dwellings Annual Increase In Dwellings Growth Rate 2000 21,674 2,618 13.74% 2001 23,198 1,524 7.03% 2002 24,456 1,258 5.42% Average Growth Rate 2000 through 2017 = 3.85% 2003 25,384 928 3.79% 2004 26,173 789 3.11% Average Growth Rate 2010 through 2017 = 2.75% 2005 27,186 1,013 3.87% Average Growth Rate last 5 years = 3.47% 2006 28,365 1,179 4.34% 2007 29,108 743 2.62% 2008 29,618 510 1.75% 2009 30,100 482 1.63% 2010* 30,882 250 0.82% 2011 31,169 287 0.93% 2012 32,072 903 2.90% 2013 33,304 1,232 3.84% 2014 34,446 1,142 3.43% 2015 35,449 1,003 2.91% 2016 36,826 1,377 3.88% 2017 38,026 1,200 3.26% 2018 (Feb.) 38,271 245 0.64% January 1, 2000 = 19,056 dwellings January 1, 2010 = 30,632 dwellings December 31, 2017 = 38,026 dwellings MOST RECENT TRENDS Quarterly SF Building Permits: 4th Quarter, 2014 to 1st Quarter, 2018 ADDITIONAL TREND INFORMATION: SF LOT APPROVALS  REMAINING “UNCOMMITTED” LAND WITHIN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY • There are 1,621 acres of land that do not have an approved plan of development • The existing future land use plan is applied to each area to determine the capacity for development 1,532 ACRES • Wetlands and other constrained land is removed FOR RESIDENTIAL USES • Densities are applied based on future land use recommendations and zoning regulations Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 101  “POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDA’S)” WITH FUTURE LAND USE Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 102 ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPACITY OF THE TOWN AT BUILDOUT • Existing ~38,000 homes TOTAL • Estimated Pipeline Capacity CAPACITY ~6,800 new homes • 50,400 HOMES • ~105,000-117,000 • Estimated Capacity in PEOPLE Potential Development Areas • 93% Occupancy rate • 2.24-2.50 people per household ~5,600 new homes Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 103  ESTIMATED PERMITS FROM PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Carolina Park  700 SF units left to be permitted  Average SF permits issued per year = 139 ~80 Liberty Hill Farms (see table) → 140 units + 80 units = 220 units GROWTH PROJECTIONS Total Dwelling Units: January 1 2018= 38,026 dwelling units March 1 2018= 38,271dwelling units Permitted Dwelling Units as of March 19, 2018  419 Single Family + 963 Multifamily= 1382 Total Average number of single family permits issued the first three months of 2018= 43/ month Assumptions:  Any units permitted before June 1st will receive CO before December 31st (except as noted below)  All currently permitted dwelling units except for the Boulevard MF and Carolina Park MF will receive CO by December 31, 2018 (1382-380= 1002)  That an additional 43 units per month will be issued through June 1 and will receive CO by December 31, 2018 (43x3=129) 2018 Projected Growth Rate based on assumptions: 3.6% 2018 Projected Growth Rate if all permitted units including the Boulevard and Carolina Park MF receive CO by December 31, 2018: 4.6% *Approximately 40,000 dwelling units by January 1, 2019  GROWTH RATES/SCENARIOS • Assume 40,000 dwellings units by the end of 2018 • 2018 Projected Growth Rate: 3.6 to 4.6% (with number of units currently permitted) Scenario: Applying a % Growth Rate To Project Future Units, 2019 to 2024 Year 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 2019 40,400 40,600 40,800 41,000 41,200 41,400 41,600 41,800 2020 40,804 41,209 41,616 42,025 42,436 42,849 43,264 43,681 2021 41,212 41,827 42,448 43,076 43,709 44,349 44,995 45,647 2022 41,624 42,455 43,297 44,153 45,020 45,901 46,794 47,701 2023 42,040 43,091 44,163 45,256 46,371 47,507 48,666 49,847 2024 42,461 43,738 45,046 46,388 47,762 49,170 50,613 52,090  GROWTH RATES/SCENARIOS • Assume 40,000 dwellings units by the end of 2018 • 2018 Projected Growth Rate: 3.6 to 4.6% (with number of units currently permitted) Scenario: Applying a Fixed Number of Permits To Project Future Units, 2019 to 2024 Year 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2019 40,400 40,600 40,800 41,000 41,200 41,400 41,600 41,800 2020 40,800 41,200 41,600 42,000 42,400 42,800 43,200 43,600 2021 41,200 41,800 42,400 43,000 43,600 44,200 44,800 45,400 2022 41,600 42,400 43,200 44,000 44,800 45,600 46,400 47,200 2023 42,000 43,000 44,000 45,000 46,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 2024 42,400 43,600 44,800 46,000 47,200 48,400 49,600 50,800  COMPLETION DATES FOR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT START DESIGN COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE Long Point Road Realignment & Extension July 2017 Sept. 2019 Sept. 2022 Billy Swails Blvd. Phase 4B July 2017 Aug. 2020 Aug. 2022 Patriots Point Gateway Intersection Improvements July 2017 Feb. 2019 Dec. 2020 All America Blvd. April 2018 Dec. 2019 Dec. 2021 Park West Blvd. Widening Aug. 2017 Dec. 2018 June 2021 Renovation/Expansion of Fire Station 4 July 2018 June 2022 Public Safety Training Facility July 2018 June 2022 Public Services Operations Center July 2018 Carolina Park Phase 3 July 2017 June 2020 Rifle Range Road Park Phase 1 July 2021 July 2023 SC Highway 41 (Estimate) 2022 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROGRESS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION & GROWTH Transportation Infrastructure ▪ Future transportation facilities now being identified, modeled and analyzed based upon the future land use/growth framework map draft Land Use & Development ▪ Managing growth is a key point of overall policy discussion ▪ Preliminary strategy suggests moving to a new system in the future where development proposals (e.g., rezonings) are evaluated earlier in the process (prior to building permit stage) ▪ Could build this approach on the existing Impact Assessment process COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Questions/Comments Guidance Next Steps? Discussion regarding consideration of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Charleston County for enforcement of Sign ordinances ACREAGE IN THE COUNTY – 9281.83 ACRES PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY IN COUNTY = 24.2%  Report on Comprehensive Plan Update • Subcommittees have met over last few weeks to refine recommendations on a number of “Big Issues” • Urban Corridor • Settlement Communities • Cultural Core • Bicycle/Pedestrian Connector • Housing Options • Financial Resiliency • Open Space Network • Next Plan Forum meeting May 1, 2018 will discuss these issues, as well as progress of the Long Range Transportation Plan • Upcoming Open House to give feedback on this information, Land Uses, and Transportation on June 5, 2018 from 5-7:00 pm PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL