Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JULY 16, 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, Lee Cave, Michele Canon Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. 1. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Bustos continued with the agenda. 2. Continued discussion on a proposal to amend the Vegetation and Tree Protection divisions of Chapter 156 and amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of Chapter 155 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, pertaining to various sections regarding bufferyard requirements, special bufferyards including the Critical Line Buffer, tree protection, removal and replacement requirements, and open space requirements. Ms. Canon reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances with the Committee through a PowerPoint presentation. She stated that this would go to the Planning Commission for public hearing at the July 18th meeting, with the LDR changes having a public hearing at the August Town Council meeting. Mr. Bustos asked if this would help to prevent clear cutting of land and would preserve existing trees. Ms. Canon answered that this is the intent of the proposed amendments. Mr. Bustos asked if the changes would require a larger buffer. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative. The Committee received this as information.  Special Planning Committee July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 6 3. Change to Chapter 152, Flood Damage Prevention, allowing for flexibility for elevated buildings related to seismic design Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Cave stated that this would provide some flexibility for seismic requirements while maintaining our existing flood requirements. Mr. Bustos asked about a solid wall. Mr. Cave answered that this would allow flexibility to allow for wall sections that would develop sheer capacity and provide lateral resistance to keep the home from turning over. He stated that the requirements for an open wall section would still have to be met. Mr. Bustos asked if this would mean that the columns would be less structurally sound. Mr. Cave answered in the negative and stated that this would allow flexibility to build more stability with a wall system as opposed to having to build the stability with only a column. Ms. Whitley asked how this would work in allowing flow. Mr. Cave answered that the solid wall sections would be located to allow for lateral stability without having an enclosed area. He stated that the current ordinance does not allow any enclosures for living space. He stated that this change would allow the engineering community more flexibility in providing seismic resistance in a structure. He stated that during plan review, the engineer would have to demonstrate the need for this additional stability. Mr. Brimmer asked if this would increase the potential for greater flood damage to these homes. Mr. Cave answered that the lateral wall would not be allowed in the velocity zones (V-zone), but would be allowed in the A zone designated areas. He stated that A-zones are areas designated where the water is intended to rise and fall but not at the velocity as in a V-zone. Mr. Bustos asked if this would have an effect on the cost of a home. Mr. Cave answered that it could provide a reduction in construction costs. Mr. Bustos asked what is the typical material used. Mr. Cave answered that it is typically concrete block walls. Mr. Bustos asked if this would still meet the minimum structural requirement. Mr. Cave answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked if the wall sections would be as strong as a typical wall section. Mr. Cave answered that the minimum wall section requirements would have to be met.  Special Planning Committee July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Brimmer moved to recommend to the Town Council approval of the text amendment as presented. Ms. Whitley answered in the affirmative. All in favor. 4. Update regarding growth management plan and possible building permit allocation system Mr. Ulma reviewed the request with the Committee. Mr. Bustos asked about townhomes and stated that with the previous allocation system they were considered multi-family in order to complete the entire units and suggested that this should be considered for this program. He suggested that the allocation system should be implemented. Mr. Brimmer asked if there is an allowance to have it in place for a portion of the Town as opposed to a Town-wide system. Mr. Ulma answered that there might be a way to apply the allocation within zones where infrastructure is in place, but this would need legal review. Mr. Brimmer asked if there are any legal issues that should be considered moving forward. Mr. Pagliarini answered there should be a rational basis and reasoning for establishing the allocation and not an arbitrary set of standards. He stated that once a plan is determined, staff would provide a legal review to determine that it meets those rational standards. Mr. Brimmer suggested that the rationale and logic should be determined. He suggested that there should be a trigger for ending the program as well as beginning the program. Mr. Ulma stated that these types of triggers can be included in the allocation system. Mr. Brimmer asked about financial impacts. Mr. DeMoura answered that this has been initially reviewed, but once a more concrete plan is determined, then a more exact financial impact could be determined. Ms. Whitley asked if there would be an expiration of permits. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and stated that this would be a consideration in drafting the plan so that the project provided the building permit was moving forward. Ms. Whitley asked if this would be a first come, first serve system. Mr. Ulma answered in the affirmative and suggested that this would be easier to administer as opposed to a quarterly allocation. Ms. Whitley asked how it was administered in the past. Mr. Ulma answered that it was done on a quarterly allocation basis. Mr. DeMoura answered that previously the quarterly allocation was very tedious to administer.  Special Planning Committee July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Bustos stated that with the previous allocation system, the individual homeowner was given precedence over a track builder. Ms. Whitley asked if only Carolina Park and Liberty Hill were the only developments with a development agreement. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley asked if Liberty Hill has requested delaying construction. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative and stated that staff is working on this. Mr. Bustos suggested that there should be allocation immediately implemented. He suggested that there is justification to implement an allocation program such as traffic, lack of infrastructure, issues with Highway 41 and timing of Highway 41 improvements, and drainage issues. He suggested that implementing a 1.5%-2% growth rate with 700 permits being annually allocated should be considered and would be manageable. He suggested that there should be a moratorium on issuance of building permits until the allocation program is implemented. Ms. Whitley asked if the moratorium should be in place for all development. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley asked how long moratorium would be in place. Ms. Farrell answered that with using the previous program as a foundation, it could be accomplished sooner or approximately 60 days. Mr. Ulma stated that it would require a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brimmer stated that he is not in favor of a moratorium, but if for a couple of months, he could be in favor of it. He stated that affordable housing should be exempted. He asked if ADUs would be included. Mr. DeMoura answered that ADUs were not included in the figures previously presented, but could be included in the allocation system if desired. Ms. Whitley suggested that this should be presented at Town Council to ensure there is support for implementing an allocation system and implementing a moratorium. Mr. Bustos suggested that staff bring back a recommendation to the August Committee meeting for the Committee to make a recommendation to Town Council. Ms. Whitley stated that she would like to see a comparison with other similar municipalities and how they handle growth or if they utilize a similar growth rate.  Special Planning Committee July 16, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Bustos suggested that there would not be a fair comparison because the issues a particular municipality has could be different from the Town. Ms. Whitley suggested that school population should be considered as well. Mr. Brimmer agreed and stated there should be some justification and information provided on how the number of permits that would be issued under the allocation system would be determined. Ms. Whitley agreed and stated that it could be that a lower number of permits should be issued. Mr. Brimmer asked about redevelopment and that this should be considered for exemption from the allocation program. Ms. Farrell stated that redevelopment projects were exempt under the previous allocation program. Ms. Whitley also asked that the financial impact should be determined and brought back to the Committee for information as well. Mr. Brimmer agreed and stated that there could be a financial impact that would affect the construction of necessary infrastructure. Mr. Bustos stated that at some point impact fees and growth should not be solely relied on to provide revenue for the Town. He suggested that the Town should consider other revenue streams to be more self-sufficient. 5. Review of annexation and initial zoning district designation Mr. Ulma reviewed this issue with the Committee. Mr. Brimmer state that this was initially brought up because of having annexations with zoning recommendations that were not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. He stated that there should be consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and requests. He suggested that the annexation and zoning should be done sequentially as opposed to concurrently to ensure more consistency. He suggested that those desiring annexation should understand the implications of what is being requested as well as what the Town’s goals are for that particular property upfront to avoid later complications. Mr. Bustos asked for clarification. Mr. Brimmer answered that if requesting annexation, the zoning for the requested property should be consistent with the  Special Planning Committee July 16, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Comprehensive Plan and if a different zoning is desired, then this should be justified. Ms. Whitley suggested that the zoning should be determined at the time the annexation is requested rather than sequentially to avoid the issue of annexation being pulled because the zoning is denied. Mr. DeMoura stated that the annexation would be determined and then the zoning requested and considered. Mr. Ulma stated that the timing would be reviewed by staff. He stated that it could be brought in with the lowest level of intensity of zoning as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brimmer asked if an amendment has been considered. Mr. Ulma answered that staff needs to know if it is appropriate to move forward with the amendment. Mr. Brimmer asked if the Planning Commission could review annexation requests along with the zoning requests. Mr. Ulma answered that state law does not provide a mechanism for the Planning Commission to have purview over annexations; it is a Town Council function. Mr. Brimmer suggested that staff should be directed to move forward with a text amendment to address these issues. Ms. Whitley suggested that the zoning should be designated at the time of annexation. Mr. Bustos agreed and stated that having the default zoning be the least intensive of the Comprehensive Plan recommendation should be considered. The Committee agreed that staff should move forward with the text amendment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:58 am. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComm07162018  7/16/2018 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT July 16, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL Special Meeting 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE VEGETATION AND TREE PROTECTION DIVISIONS OF CHAPTER 156 AND AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTER 155 OF THE MOUNT PLEASANT CODE OF ORDINANCES, PERTAINING TO BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENTS, SPECIAL BUFFERYARDS INCLUDING THE CRITICAL LINE BUFFER, TREE PROTECTION, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1  7/16/2018 2. VEGETATION AND TREE PROTECTION Staff is moving forward with Draft Text Amendments as follows: Zoning Code Text Amendments (Chapter 156) -To implement Planning Commission Recommendations, including 50-foot Critical Line Buffer, requirement to plant 50 percent native species, and a minimum 160-inches retained on new subdivisions Land Development Regulations (LDR’s) Amendments (Chapter 155) -Create a Greenspace Preservation and Protection Plan to create the following: 1. A new section (155.054) added called the Greenspace Preservation and Protection Plan. This new section will define the intent and purpose, as well as lay out standards for new developments. 2. New section 155.054 will establish requirements and standards for new developments 3 acres and larger, to include the following: 3. Tree and Topographical Plan: to show property boundaries, important natural and drainage features, protected trees, and wetland and critical areas; 4. Street Frontage Areas of Preservation: to require a 25-foot natural and undisturbed buffer along collector and entry roads; and 5. Internal Areas of Preservation: to require a minimum of 30 percent be used for preservation. STATUS: Staff is finalizing draft ordinances to meet the following schedule: -Present draft ordinances to Planning Commission for a Public Hearing (Zoning Code amendments) at their July 18th meeting -Present to Planning Committee at their August 6th meeting -Present to Council at their August 14th meeting for LDR Amendments Public Hearing and first reading, with final reading in September 3. CHANGE TO CHAPTER 152, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION, ALLOWING FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR ELEVATED BUILDINGS RELATED TO SEISMIC DESIGN 2  7/16/2018 4. UPDATE REGARDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND POSSIBLE BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM INFORMATION ABOUT GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT TRENDS, RATES PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED 3  7/16/2018 POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION: SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ▪Timing/Trigger for implementing/enacting ▪Rate of growth/number of permits ▪Applicability ▪Projects covered by Development Agreements ▪Types/categories of dwelling units ▪Potential exceptions ▪System phase-in mechanism ▪Expected duration of program 4  7/16/2018 REFERENCE INFORMATION 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 5  7/16/2018 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 6  7/16/2018 ONE EXAMPLE: 700 UNIT ALLOCATION With Prior Approvals Without Prior Approvals Single Multi- Development Annual Annual Annual Year Family Family Agreements Atlantic Units Total Units Growth Rate Total Units Growth Rate 2018 40000 40000 2019 600 100 219 224 1143 41143 2.86% 40700 1.75% 2020 600 100 219 919 42062 2.23% 41400 1.72% 2021 600 100 219 919 42981 2.18% 42100 1.69% 2022 600 100 219 919 43900 2.14% 42800 1.66% 2023 600 100 219 919 44819 2.09% 43500 1.64% 3000 500 1095 224 4819 2.30% 1.69% Average Average Some suggested components: Use full-year allocation, not quarterly; MF units = 1st come, 1st served & can be accumulated DISCUSSION/COUNCIL DIRECTION Next Steps? 7  7/16/2018 5. REVIEW OF ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION ▪ Requested to investigate determination of appropriate zoning district upon annexation of property ▪ Presently designate the district in conjunction with annexation based upon request by applicant or assignment: ▪ Per Comprehensive Plan (i.e., “Conservation” areas  RC, CC, etc.; C-RO, Conservation Recreation Open Space) ▪ Per Zoning Code by default all other properties  R-1 ▪ Concern that default district may not correspond to the Comprehensive Plan future land use 5. REVIEW OF ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION ▪ Considerations: ▪ The Future Land Use map is a guide; the Comprehensive Plan has different elements such as transportation, natural resources, and housing components that should be considered as well when zoning property ▪ Future land use plan map has broad categories where several zoning districts ✓ NC, Neighborhood Commercial may “fit” ✓ AB, Areawide Business ▪ Example: There is one “commercial” category ✓ AB-2, Areawide Business-2 on the land use map yet there are multiple commercial zoning districts 8  7/16/2018 5. REVIEW OF ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION ▪ Considerations (cont.): ▪ Some owners are not prepared to request ultimate district ▪ Property Tax implications ▪ Creation of nonconforming uses (e.g., existing residence zoned commercial) ▪ Options: ▪ Process to handle annexation and zoning sequentially versus concurrently ▪ Require a zoning request with all annexation petitions (no automatic zoning) ▪ Council guidance being sought PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT July 16, 2018 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL Special Meeting 9