Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 9, 2018 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room Present: Joe Bustos, Chair, Bob Brimmer, Guang Ming Whitley, Tom O'Rourke. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, and Jeff Ulma Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 9:31 am. 1. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Bustos continued with the agenda. 2. Continued discussion regarding the Urban Corridor Overlay District (UCOD) and potential removal of Ben Sawyer Boulevard from the district Mr. Ulma reviewed information through a PowerPoint presentation for the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Bustos stated that Ben Sawyer is a Gateway to the Town and suggested that making changes from Rifle Range Road to the Ben Sawyer Bridge would be preferable. He suggested that commercial would be preferred to single family units for this area as well as providing some additional parking to accommodate beach traffic. He suggested that this area should be removed from the UC-OD. Mr. Bustos stated that dealing with the existing residential and how this could be provided for in the future would be an important aspect. Mr. Brimmer asked what other mechanisms are in place for regulation of this area. Ms. Farrell answered that in addition to the UC-OD, there is the Coleman plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brimmer asked what recommendations would be included in these plans that could be utilized.  Special Planning Committee May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Ulma answered that changes could be encompassed with the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. DeMoura asked if a separate overlay district could be established. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that it could include purpose and intent for that district. Mr. O’Rourke stated that he is in favor of having a separate overlay district for the Ben Sawyer Blvd area that includes the intent of development for that area. Ms. Whitley asked if restrictions could be placed on the properties. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that the uses would be established with the overlay district. Ms. Whitley asked if stronger restrictions on commercial uses would be desired. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked about Center Street extension and if this could provide access from Rifle Range Road. Mr. Ulma answered that this could be researched. Mr. Brimmer asked if removal of the UC-OD would provide the desired result and if this would be handled through the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Bustos answered that this could be brought to the Comprehensive Plan forum. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that staff and the forum could simultaneously work on this. Mr. Ulma noted that if the UC-OD was removed, it would mean no overlay district in place for this area while the Comprehensive Plan update was completed. Mr. DeMoura suggested that this could be done with staff in parallel with the Comprehensive Plan update process. Mr. Ulma agreed and suggested that this would provide better direction to the Comprehensive Plan forum. Mr. Bustos asked if recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan forum could be incorporated at a later date. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked if there is a consensus with removing the UC-OD and having a separate gateway overlay district for this area. The Committee agreed.  Special Planning Committee May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Mayor Haynie suggested that single family use should be removed from the entire UC-OD as well and asked if this could be done sooner in conjunction with the changes to the Ben Sawyer Blvd area. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative. Mr. O’Rourke asked if there are any single family projects proposed for the future. Mr. Ulma answered that he is not aware of any concrete plans. Mr. Brimmer asked if multi-family use should be reviewed to determine if this should remain in the UC-OD. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that this should not be done at this time. Ms. Whitley asked if this would be before Council in June. Mr. DeMoura answered that it would require a public hearing with the Planning Commission before coming to Town Council. Mr. Bustos suggested that the UC-OD should be renamed. Mr. Ulma answered that this could be done. Mr. Bustos asked about changes to the hotel district. Mr. Ulma answered that this was referred back to the Comprehensive Plan forum. Mr. Brimmer asked if AB zoning allows residential above commercial and if this would still be allowed. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative and stated that only single family uses would be removed. Mr. O’Rourke stated that the goal is to have the most appropriate development for the area and suggested that it might be beneficial to meet with the property owners to determine what uses they desire so that there is a more proactive approach. Mr. Ulma answered that this could be done as the changes move forward. 3. Continued discussion for consideration of Potential Growth Management Plan  Special Planning Committee May 9, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Ulma reviewed information through a PowerPoint presentation (attachment 2). Mr. Bustos asked if there is a reason for the slowing of single family development. Mr. DeMoura answered in the negative and stated that the remaining indicators show steady growth. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that one reason is that there are less larger parcels for single family home development. Mr. Bustos asked about the ability to have infrastructure in place at the point of build out. Mr. DeMoura answered that the recently increased impact fees are tied to the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and both are major components for ensuring infrastructure is in place. Mr. O’Rourke expressed concern with development in Cainhoy and Awendaw and how this would impact the Town with regards to traffic and overall services. He suggested that this needs to be included in the discussion. Mr. DeMoura agreed and stated that areas outside of the Town do have an impact and need to be included in the considerations as well. Mr. Brimmer agreed with Mr. O’Rourke and stated that the Town has relied on development to fund these projects and if development is slowing, then this would mean less funding available. Mr. DeMoura stated that many of the projects are funded through actual cash money and are not bonded. Mr. O’Rourke stated that the funding needs to be in place so that the projects can be completed. Mr. Brimmer agreed and stated that any growth management would be directly tied to finance management. Mr. Bustos stated that as buildout of the Town approaches, there would be a slowing of growth and therefore a slowing in revenue to complete the infrastructure projects. He asked if the current growth trend is sufficient without needing any additional growth control efforts.  Special Planning Committee May 9, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Brimmer stated that there is a downward trend and suggested that the no additional control efforts would be needed. Mr. Bustos asked if changes with the impact assessment could be put in place now. Mr. Ulma answered that this is a component of the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that this could be reviewed and some changes made through that process. He stated that staff could provide more information to Town Council on monthly development that continues to show trends. Mr. DeMoura suggested that a growth management program could be considered and defined that would be ready to be quickly put into place if deemed necessary. Mr. Brimmer suggested that there should be some flexibility with the program to define where certain types of development are desired and where they should be located. Ms. Whitley suggested that the impact fees were recently changed and suggested that this could have an impact of future development. She suggested that growth should continue to be monitored as well as having something ready to be put in place. Mayor Haynie asked if the existing use does not change, would an impact fee be assessed. Ms. Farrell answered that if it is the same use with no additional square footage, then no impact fees would be assessed. Mayor Haynie suggested that this is an important aspect of the impact fees and suggested that this could be a tool when considering redevelopment sites. Mr. Bustos asked when the next increment increase for impact fees would occur. Mr. DeMoura answered that it would be in July 2018. He suggested that staff work on an allocation program that could be put in place if needed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:37 am.  Special Planning Committee May 9, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComm05092018  BEN SAWYER PORTION OF Planning Committee URBAN CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT 30 April 2018 CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE URBAN CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (UC-OD) AND POTENTIAL REMOVAL OF BEN SAWYER BOULEVARD FROM THE DISTRICT  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? GROWTH MANAGEMENT – Planning Committee CONTINUED DISCUSSION 30 April 2018 HISTORICAL GROWTH DATA Year End of Year Annual Increase In Growth Rate Total Dwellings Dwellings 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% 2006 28,365 1,179 4.34% Average Growth Rate last 5 years = 3.47% 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 1,532 ACRES to each area to determine the capacity for development FOR RESIDENTIAL USES • Wetlands and other constrained land is removed • Densities are applied based on future land use recommendations and zoning regulations Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 5 “POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDA’S)” WITH FUTURE LAND USE Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 6 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- • Estimated Capacity in 117,000 PEOPLE Potential Development Areas • 93% Occupancy rate • 2.24-2.50 people per household ~5,600 new homes Source: Comprehensive Plan Update 7  ESTIMATED PERMITS FROM PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Carolina Park  700 SF units left to be permitted  Average SF permits issued per year = 139 Liberty Hill Farms (see table) ~80  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?