Public Services Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:30 p.m. Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Members Present: Will Haynie, Chair; Joe Bustos, Jim Owens Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Hillary Repik, Andy Weis Also Present: Kevin Mitchell, David Pagliarini Mr. Haynie called the meeting to order at 12:33 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from the July 25, 2017 special meeting and the July 31, 2017 meeting Mr. Haynie called for a motion to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2017 special meeting and the July 31, 2017 meeting. Mr. Bustos so moved; seconded by Mr. Owens; motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Comments Jose Hernandez, 1422 Goblet Avenue, stated that he bought a ranch home earlier this year and had sped up the application process for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) prior to the next Council meeting as he understood there would be a chance for a moratorium to go into effect. He further added that he would request to petition that anyone who submitted under the previous rules, would still have their application go forward.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 2 of 35 Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that she thought it would be helpful to the audience to have the reasons explained regarding the proposed moratorium. Mr. Haynie stated that this would be addressed as part of the presentation. 3. Employee years of service recognition Andy Weis, Deputy Director, Public Services Department, recognized Ruth Nesbitt, Facilities Maintenance Technician, for 15 years of service. Mr. Weis described Ms. Nesbitt as dependable, loyal and hard-working and thanked her for being an asset to the Town of Mount Pleasant. 4. Consideration of amendments to an ordinance providing for the temporary suspension of the issuance of certain permits for construction of accessory dwelling units and for the subdivision of lots in certain areas of Mount Pleasant due to the risk of flooding, Ordinance No 17041. Mr. Haynie stated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to stop flooding and not to stop building. He further added that the flooding is the symptom and that the engineering report the Town received showed that there are many causes for the flooding and increased impervious surface is contributing to this problem. Mr. Haynie stated that the moratorium was a stop-gap measure, in part, because there are residents who are using sandbags to protect their houses when it rains. He explained that it was not necessarily taking a hurricane to cause this flooding and that it may be caused by a regular rain event. Mr. Haynie added that the Committee wants to get something in place which will address the problem, which he stated is impervious surface and not the type of building that a resident proposes to build.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 3 of 35 Mr. Haynie stated that under the current moratorium, a very large house could be built, but it prohibits the building of a small ADU (accessory dwelling unit), and the Committee would like to see this moratorium amended. Mr. Haynie commended staff, including Council and Committee members, for addressing this issue and looking at ordinances from other municipalities. He explained that today, the plan was to determine what could be amended to the ordinance so that only the matter of impervious surface would be addressed, and not the type of building. Mr. Haynie cited an example that if a resident wanted to build an 850 square foot ADU, the hope was not to have a moratorium on building based on what the structure is called, but that there would be a limit on impervious surface. He further added that too much impervious surface is causing run-off which is resulting in flooding of properties. Mr. Haynie described this issue as not being respectful of other’s property rights and property values. Mr. Haynie then turned the presentation over to Mr. DeMoura. Mr. DeMoura stated that in preparation for what is being discussed, there would be a short presentation to reorient the Committee, with discussion to follow. Mr. Weis stated that Mrs. Farrell would deliver this presentation. Mrs. Farrell stated that she had prepared the following for today’s meeting: addressing the current moratorium, the pending moratorium and issues related to pervious and impervious surfaces. Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 4 of 35  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 5 of 35 Mrs. Farrell stated that the above map shows the entire study area as outlined in black.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 6 of 35 Mrs. Farrell noted that the above ordinance pertained entirely to building permit issuance that would increase impervious surface. She further emphasized that this moratorium would expire in a matter of days. Mrs. Farrell stated that the ordinance that had a First Reading last month, as shown above, was written in such a way that it applied to the entire study area.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 7 of 35 Mrs. Farrell noted that the vast majority of the properties in the study area are zoned either R-1 or R-2, the majority of those being R-2. She further explained that she is speaking only to the residential zoning districts. Mrs. Farrell cited a couple of planned developments off Center Street. She also noted that, for reference, what minimum lot sizes and lot dimensions are would matter in some of these instances.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 8 of 35 Mrs. Farrell stated the highlighted area on the above map indicates those lots that can be subdivided. She explained that the difference between the green and the red shown is whether they can be approved without a waiver or with a waiver. Mrs. Farrell further explained that a waiver means that if dimension requirements, for example, cannot be met, the resident would be required to go before the Planning Commission and request a waiver. Mrs. Farrell noted that the above slide does not show residents that aggregate lots and then subdivide; for example, going from two to three lots.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 9 of 35 Mrs. Farrell stated that the inventory shown above focuses on R-1 and R-2 lots as none of the R-3 lots or planned developments can be subdivided.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 10 of 35 Mrs. Farrell stated that she had included the ADU Ordinance slide because the moratorium that had First Reading last month had addressed that issue and it could be used for reference, if necessary, to show specifications provided for ADU’s within the ordinance. Mrs. Farrell noted that, in addition to the above totals shown for existing and under construction, there are some being held that fall under the current moratorium. Mr. Haynie asked Mrs. Farrell if she knew how many application submissions were currently being held.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 11 of 35 Mrs. Farrell answered that there are seven submittals that are currently being held, not only for ADU’s, but also are for permits in the Edwards and Royall basin areas. She further explained that some submittals are being held due to the moratorium and some due to additional information needed on the application. Mrs. Farrell noted that the above Lot Coverage requirements slide was included as a result of the discussion at the most recent Town Council meeting. Mrs. Farrell stated the importance of the definitions given. She stated that the definitions apply to the building and not to a driveway or sidewalk. She further added that the definition would typically include a structure that was issued a building permit.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 12 of 35 Mrs. Farrell noted that there is an impervious surface requirement within the Old Village Historic District which includes properties that begin on Royall Avenue and Whilden Street and go toward the harbor. Mrs. Farrell stated that the majority of the lots within the Old Village are R-2 and would, therefore, fall under the 8,000 square foot limit. Mrs. Farrell noted that at the previous Town Council meeting, further discussion was requested regarding lot coverage, without focusing on the building types, but more so on what is covering the property and amount of surface on the property. Mrs. Farrell concluded her presentation and stated that she would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Owens asked if there would be an opportunity for the ordinance in the Old Village to include the Indian Village where there is 40 percent maximum building coverage as opposed to impervious surfaces. Mrs. Farrrell answered in the affirmative. She stated that if there was a desire by Council to change the regulations through the zoning ordinance, the impervious surface area requirement could be expanded to include the Indian Village area. Mr. Owens asked for confirmation that residents in the Indian Village are currently not required to submit permits for a driveway.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 13 of 35 Mrs. Farrell replied that this was correct. She further explained that only the building coverage would be considered if it was an area that fell outside the Historic District. Mr. Owens asked for information that would provide a broader understanding of the amount of surface that is considered using the figures of 40 percent impervious surface with a lot that is 8,000 square feet or greater. Mrs. Farrell stated that when a submittal is made to the Historic District Commission, the building footprint and any other type of footprint, such as paving a driveway or installing a brick patio, must be shown on the set of plans and would be included in calculations. She explained that this example would also include the maximum of 40 percent impervious surface and would, therefore, be more limiting on the types of surfaces one could have. Mrs. Farrell stated that the intention was to keep more pervious surface, such as grass or gravel. Mr. Bustos asked for confirmation that driveways are not looked at that are outside the Old Village Historic District. Mrs. Farrell confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Bustos asked how difficult a transition there would be when considering the impervious surface and the building coverage, to start looking at the driveways that are outside this area.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 14 of 35 Mrs. Farrell stated that there would be the capability of implementing such a transition, but also cited possible staff considerations. She explained that to expand to include the Indian Village or the entire study area, staffing implications would include Plan Review and Site Review, as staff would be needed in the field to inspect and to ensure that the work being done complied with the plans submitted. Mrs. Farrell added that such an implementation would require an ordinance change that would need to be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bustos asked if this ordinance change took place, whether staff would be able to determine if material being used for a driveway is impervious or not. Mrs. Farrell stated that the resident should be required to include that information on their plans. She further added that this information would be verified later to ensure that the construction was done as approved on the plans. Mr. Haynie asked if enforcement, from permitting, to building, to site inspections, would be attainable without adding to the cost of government. Mr. DeMoura answered in the negative, confirming that Mr. Haynie’s question referred to the entire study area. He emphasized that the enforcement would be doable, but would add to the cost of government. Mr. DeMoura stated that an additional layer of Review and Site Inspections is currently being added to the staff. He also stated that a promise could be made by staff to consider this issue very tightly.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 15 of 35 Mr. DeMoura added that it is not desirable to add employees unless they are absolutely necessary. He further explained that some latitude may be required that would allow staffing to be implemented from both a practical and logistical side. Mr. Haynie asked if the science was known behind the number of 40 percent, which is used by the Old Village Historic Commission. Mrs. Farrell answered in the negative and added that there had been a concern by the Historic District Commission, when this number was implemented, with aesthetics as well as drainage. She added that there was also a concern about the amount of lot coverage from a historic point of view. Mrs. Farrell stated that 40 percent had some consistency when looking at the R-2 zoning standards and the amount of maximum building coverage. Mrs. Farrell noted that 40 percent is also a figure that was seen in other ordinances that the staff had reviewed. Mrs. Farrell added that what she had observed was a percentage range of 30 to 50. She added that she felt that 40 percent was a precedent that could easily be carried over to the next-door neighbor’s property. Mr. Haynie related that he had recently looked at a house that was remodeled in the Old Village under the 40 percent coverage to which an ADU, a swimming pool, a deck and two guest houses had been added.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 16 of 35 Mr. Haynie then asked if, under the 40 percent rule, it would be anticipated that a large group of homeowners would complain that they were not able to do certain things to their properties. Mrs. Farrell noted that one activity being observed in the Historic District was homeowners coming in and ripping up their driveways, perhaps in an effort to accomplish another expansion to their house. Mr. Haynie asked if the Town, outside of the Old Village which has a citizen appointed commission, could make these regulations work without unduly infringing on citizens or straining our staff. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative, adding that minor tweaks may be necessary, but he did not see any issues with these. Mr. DeMoura stated that the commercial area on Coleman Boulevard may need to be removed from the area covered as a matter of practicality. Mrs. Farrell agreed and further added that these commercial properties are required to take care of their own drainage. Mrs. Farrell stated that education of residents and construction companies will also be needed for the area outside of the Historic District, so they know that review and approval would be required prior to making changes to property, such as expanding a driveway.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 17 of 35 Mrs. Farrell added that a different permitting approval process would need to be developed in addition to educating the public. Mr. Bustos commented that he thought that looking at the amount of impervious surface versus types of buildings would be the appropriate way to proceed. Mr. Bustos noted that he has seen some residents who have used gravel and materials other than concrete which will allow water to filter through. Mr. Owens noted that there is already an ordinance in place that could be modified for use in the Indian Village. He agreed with the need to educate and acclimate residents to this new process. Mr. Owens stated that for the Town, this new process would help minimize the impact of rain events. He added that the homeowner would have the opportunity to utilize the lot percentage of impervious area. Mr. Owens stated that this issue could also be revisited at a later date after design and construction of drainage improvements are complete. He added that this effort would give the Town the opportunity to protect all concerned. Mr. Haynie asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak to this agenda item. Mr. Jose Hernandez stated that he felt this change would give the homeowners the flexibility to do certain things with their properties.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 18 of 35 Mr. Haynie asked Hillary Repik, Stormwater Division Chief, if she had any thoughts to share. Mrs. Repik stated that these issues are all opportunities that are being discussed in other communities. She added that pervious concrete, pavers and rain gardens are all at the forefront of Stormwater efforts in communities across the country. Ms. Pat Sullivan stated that she felt it would be very beneficial for the citizens to learn more about pervious surfaces as she thinks this could greatly help with drainage issues. Mr. Owens agreed and stated that a lunch and learn could possibly be held where this information could be shared. Ms. Sullivan commented that she supports the idea of incorporating the subject of pervious surfaces into conversations with anyone who wants to do any building now and going forward. Mr. Haynie asked staff that if pervious concrete or another pervious material is used to pave a driveway, would it be considered zero impervious surface or does some allowance have to be made because it is not dirt. Mrs. Farrell stated that she would defer this question to Kevin Mitchell, Town Engineer, Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Department.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 19 of 35 Mr. Mitchell stated that anytime a surface is changed by compacting it or altering the material type, the run-off would be changed. He further explained that impervious surface would be the obvious threshold of the maximum run- off that is created. Mr. Mitchell related that the run-off would increase even if a compacted granular material is used or if the earth is compacted. He added that the easiest and most enforceable method is to cut it off at the impervious surface material. Mr. Haynie asked if we get another 10 year event, would we still have sheet flow even if pervious concrete is being utilized. He commented that he wanted to ensure that all engineering aspects were being considered. Mr. Mitchell stated that by limiting the amount of impervious surface with pervious material, you would not exacerbate a situation that is bad already. Mr. Haynie inquired as to the amount of time it would be before a certain amount of rainfall would not be absorbed by or passed through the pervious surface. Mr. Mitchell answered that there is a limitation and capacity to any surface that is utilized, including the grading factor. He explained that there are limitations to everything, citing the example of a pond, where the level of water could spill over and flood the neighbor’s property. Mr. Mitchell further commented that because of these limitations, there are designed storm events to be able to direct engineers in developing a property.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 20 of 35 Mr. Haynie asked if this would be a one to one trade-off. Mrs. Farrell stated that the definition for impervious surface that we already have (Lot Coverage Requirements slide) would be looked at and, in particular, the last sentence which delves more into the science of the impervious surface. She explained that if this same definition is applied as it has been in the Old Village Historic District, that will address what rate would be anticipated. Mr. Bustos stated to review, the area would be expanded to cover the whole area minus the commercial areas and would remove reference to ADU’s, just using lot coverage. Mr. DeMoura stated that he thought this would be an entirely new ordinance than the one that was approved last month. He then asked David Pagliarini, Corporation Counsel, Town of Mount Pleasant, if this would be a new ordinance. Mr. Pagliarini stated that it would depend on which way this Committee and ultimately, where Council wants to go. He further stated that the changes are fairly significant, so it would be a Council decision as to whether the public benefits or does not benefit from those significant changes. Mr. Bustos stated that he thought the subdivision of lots should still be in the ordinance, but further clarified that types of buildings should not be used as a measure.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 21 of 35 Mr. Haynie also clarified that the 40 percent coverage number would be used and the entire study area would also be used, except for the commercial area on Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Haynie asked about the gap that he and Mr. DeMoura had discussed. He explained that if it is a First Reading next Tuesday, September 12, 2017, and this moratorium expires on Saturday, September 9, 2017, there will be a gap between these two dates. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. Pagliarini if the ordinance passes next Tuesday, if a pending ordinance doctrine could be put on it at that time so the only gap would be between September 9th and September 12th. Mr. Pagliarini replied in the affirmative. Mr. DeMoura commented that he understood Mr. Bustos to say that he wanted to move forward with the prohibition on subdividing lots. He explained that it would require a separate ordinance to do that. He further added that the current one could possibly be amended at Final Reading, just including subdivision of lots and then have First Reading followed by pending ordinance of the new one. Mr. Bustos asked if this would have to go to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Farrell answered that the ordinance that addresses impervious surface needs to go to the Planning Commission because the discussion taking place is about changing the zoning code.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 22 of 35 Mrs. Farrell explained that the moratorium could be amended on Tuesday, Final Reading, to apply only to lot subdivisions and exclude the ADU’s, but there could be a separate new ordinance that would affect the zoning code that could be implemented as a pending ordinance. Mrs. Farrell stated that staff could work with Mr. Pagliarini prior to the Town Council meeting to prepare an amendment to the zoning code and also a pending ordinance and send that back to the Planning Commission before Final Reading. Mrs. Farrell added that amendments may be needed as it may not be as simple as just putting in the 40 percent, due to the area needing to be defined very clearly that it applies to and what needs to be excluded. Mrs. Farrell stated that staff could have the majority of that ready in form for adoption of a pending ordinance by next Tuesday, September 12, 2017. Mrs. Farrell reviewed that the moratorium ordinance would be amended before Final Reading. She clarified that this was Ordinance 17041. Mrs. Farrell stated that this had been a 90 day moratorium, but it applied to the entire study area, which included the opposite side of Coleman Boulevard. Mrs. Farrell related that this amended ordinance would be a 90 day moratorium on lot subdivisions and as a separate pending ordinance for the zoning code amendment, to extend the impervious surface requirement to the R-1 and R-2 type lots that fall within the study area inside of Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Bustos asked if staff would be able to adjust to this and be able to start the review process.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 23 of 35 Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie requested that a motion be made by a Committee member to amend the existing moratorium which would then be taken to Council on Tuesday. He further added that staff would draw up the new ordinance to bring to Council for First Reading on Tuesday, but Committee would tell staff what they want the ordinance to say. Mr. Bustos asked Mr. Pagliarini if a motion was needed. Mr. Pagliarini replied in the affirmative and stated that a motion was needed for the record for this Committee. Mr. Bustos made a motion to ask Legal to change Ordinance 17041 as has been discussed to eliminate Accessory Dwelling Units. (Discussion) Mr. Owens asked about the subdivision of lots. Mr. Bustos answered that only the ADU’s were being taken out of the Ordinance and that the prohibition of the subdivision of lots was already included in the Ordinance. Mr. Pagliarini confirmed that this was correct and added that, for a Final, Council would have to move to amend to remove ADU’s from that Ordinance at the Tuesday meeting.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 24 of 35 There was no further discussion. Mr. Owens seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Owens made a motion that staff be tasked with drawing an ordinance for the impervious areas that were discussed here today. (Discussion) Mr. Bustos asked if that was for 40 percent. Mr. Owens replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion. Mr. Haynie asked if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Update on the Charleston County Mitigation Plan Mr. Weis stated that Mrs. Repik would give a general overview of the Charleston County Plan. He added that it is updated every year, but it has to be adopted by Council every five years.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 25 of 35 Mr. Weis further explained that the plan is currently with South Carolina Emergency Management Division (EMD) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and when that is completed, it will be brought to Council for adoption. Mrs. Repik stated that in addition to tools such as the Town’s Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan, there are many other plans used as guides.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 26 of 35 Mrs. Repik related that this is a regional plan that is adopted by 31 different jurisdictions as shown. She stated that in 1999, the jurisdictions came together and decided that it would be more beneficial to look at large scale hazard planning as a group instead of as individual jurisdictions. Mrs. Repik noted that the Town of Mount Pleasant now has up to 177 other non-profit and private partners that assist the Town with this plan.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 27 of 35 Mrs. Repik added that the Community Rating System (CRS) program shown above allows the community to be eligible for flood insurance and through the activities performed, will give our residents who have flood insurance up to a 20 percent discount on that insurance.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 28 of 35 Mrs. Repik noted that the hazards shown in the above slide that are highlighted as darker, are the most common hazards that may be faced by the Town.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 29 of 35 Mrs. Repik commented that the above list of goals is a newly ranked list from the community which will be focused on by the regional group. Mrs. Repik noted that rainfall flooding is shown to be an overall item of interest of the community.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 30 of 35 Mrs. Repik stated that a core part of these focus areas is public education. She explained that a big part of mitigating these hazards is to make sure that our public is also aware of the hazards that we face and how they can prepare themselves as the Town government works to maintain our infrastructure.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 31 of 35 Mrs. Repik reiterated that this plan will be coming up for re-adoption and may receive recommendations from South Carolina EMD and FEMA after the draft is reviewed.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 32 of 35 Mrs. Repik stated that after the “Status Update” is done, new hazard related projects will be added to demonstrate to our community and to the State and Federal government that we are thinking about protecting our community from hazards. Mrs. Repik related that drainage projects are listed and updated so that if funding becomes available, the Federal Government wants to see those projects already identified and listed. Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 33 of 35  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 34 of 35 Mrs. Repik shared that the Draft Plan is online on the County’s website and is available for the public to review. Mrs. Repik stated that the hope is to get the Plan back in November. She added that any changes would be brought forth by the regional committee and, at that time, staff would bring a resolution to Committee for Town Council to consider for readopting the plan. Mrs. Repik commented that she had provided Committee copies of the Town’s Action Plan Status Report and the Regional Drainage Project list. Mr. Haynie thanked Mrs. Repik and asked if there was anything else from the Committee.  Public Services Committee September 5, 2017 Page 35 of 35 Mr. Owens thanked Mr. Weis for stepping in for Mr. Peele and related that the Committee’s thoughts and prayers have been with Mr. Peele. Mr. Owens also stated that they value everyone in the Public Services Department and thanked the staff for their service. Mr. Owens asked that this gratitude be passed along to the rest of the staff. 6. Adjourn There being no further business, Chairman Haynie adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Jane Leisey September 6, 2017 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND FOR THE 5 September 2017 SUBDIVISION OF LOTS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF MOUNT PLEASANT DUE Public Services Committee TO THE RISK OF FLOODING, ORDINANCE NO 17041.  • Temporary Moratorium given final reading on July 11th, 2017 • Effective for 60 days, ending Saturday, September 9th, 2017 • Applies to Pilot Study Area properties only Ordinance (Royall Ave and Edwards Park Basin) 17031: • Applies to any building permits that would result in an increase in impervious surface, Moratorium including (but not limited to): • New construction, home additions, pools, decks/patios, accessory structures • Does not apply to interior upgrades, exterior alterations, re-roofings, or driveways  • First Reading was held by Town Council on August 8th • Applies to entire Old Village Watershed Study Area Ordinance • 90 day moratorium anticipated for Final Reading on September 12th 17041: • Moratorium applies to: Moratorium • issuance of building permits specifically for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Study Area • Subdivision of lots within the Study Area that would result in any additional buildable lots  Residential Zoning Districts in Old Mount Pleasant include: • R-1 (10,000 square feet; 80 x 110) Zoning Standards • R-2 (8,000 square feet; 60 x 90) • Special R-2 Overlay provides for a reduced front yard setback for residential but no reductions in lot size or dimensions districts within • R-3 (6,000 square feet; 50 x 70) • R-4 (4,000 square feet; 40 x 50) Old Village • Planned Development (as specified in the planned development Watershed Study ordinance) Area This analysis focuses on the R-1 and R-2 zoned lots. All R-3, R-4, and Planned Developments are built out and cannot be subdivided: Fox Pond, Pirates Cove, Saltgrass Point, Old Village Landing  Data Analysis Results Total lots that Lots that can be Lots that can Developed Lots Vacant Lots that Lots that can can be subdivided only be that meet size meet size and be subdivided subdivided without waiver subdivided with and dimensional dimensional to create more for depth to waiver approval requirements requirements than 1 new lot width for depth to width R-1 2 2 0 2 0 0 R-2 38 25 13 36 2 5 Totals 40 27 13 38 2 5 Total lots include lots that have been approved for subdivision but do not yet have a final plat. Over the last five years, approximately fourteen lots have been approved for subdivision to create eighteen additional lots. This data analysis does not include lots that may be aggregated and then re-subdivide to create additional lots as there is not a way to anticipate or identify where such may occur. It also does not include lots within Urban Corridor or unincorporated Charleston County. Waiver approval by Planning Commission is required if: Excessive lot depth in relation to lot width shall be avoided, as a general rule, the depth of residential lots in all districts shall not be less than one nor more than 2-1/2 times their width.  • (11) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). In order to encourage accessory dwellings as an alternative housing choice, accessory dwelling units are permitted in the RC-1, RC-2, RR, CC, CL, R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, WG-W, and PD zoning districts, provided all of the following conditions are met: • (a) Prior to construction, a scaled site plan must be submitted which shall show all information listed on the Accessory Dwelling Unit Site Plan Checklist provided by the Department of Planning and Development, as may be amended from time to time; • (b) In conjunction with the site plan, a Recorded Covenant Affidavit must be submitted, which certifies that no covenants exist that prohibit the construction of an accessory dwelling unit; • (c) There shall be a limit of one accessory dwelling unit per lot, subject to lot coverage requirements; • (d) Each accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to 850 square feet of conditioned floor area. Accessory • 1. In the case of an accessory dwelling unit located above a detached garage, footprint maximums described in § 156.111(A)(4) take precedence over the requirements of this section. Dwelling Unit • 2. In the case of an accessory dwelling unit 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. Ordinance • • (e) No detached accessory dwelling unit shall exceed 25 feet in height; (f) The architectural design, color and material of an accessory dwelling unit shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is established; • (g) One private, off-street parking space is required for use by occupants of each accessory dwelling unit, in addition to any and all spaces required for the principal structure. The location of this dedicated off-street parking space must be clearly indicated on the site plan. Tandem parking is not permitted unless the tandem spaces serve only the accessory dwelling unit; • (h) Either the principal structure or the accessory dwelling unit must 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. No subleases of the accessory dwelling unit are permitted; • (i) Occupancy of an accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than three persons; • (j) Under no circumstances shall the property be converted to a horizontal ownership regime.  • Total Existing: 38 units • Total Under Construction: 12 units Accessory Dwelling Units One permit application submitted, not permitted due to the moratorium in the Study Two permit applications pending review and Area issuance, both have Old Village Commission COA approval.  Lot Coverage requirements • Building Coverage Maximums apply in residential districts • Most property in the Old Village is zoned R1 or R2 • R1= 35% maximum building coverage (10,000 sq ft= 3,500 building coverage) • R2= 40% maximum building coverage (8,000 sq ft= 3,200 building coverage) BUILDING COVERAGE. The proportion of the lot area, generally expressed as a percent, that is covered by the building footprint. Buildings which are completely below the finished lot grade, including subgrade basements, shall not be included in building coverage. BUILDING FOOTPRINT. All parts of a building that rest, directly or indirectly, on the ground, including, but not limited to: garages, bay windows with floor space, chimneys, porches, decks, cantilevered floor space or decks, and covered breezeways or walkways. • Old Village Historic District Overlay Lot Coverage Maximum = No more than 40% Impervious Surface • Note: Most lots in the Old Village Historic District are zoned R2 with a minimum lot size of 8,000 sq ft. There are a number of lots in the OV that are nonconforming, however, the impervious surface coverage still applies. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A monolithic surface made of non-porous material that prevents water from infiltrating through. Examples are a concrete or asphalt slab, driveway, sidewalk, patio, pool, rooftop, street, curbing and including elevated decks constructed not to allow water to pass through to the underlying soil. Any material is considered impervious when the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number is equal to or greater than 90. 2017 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan “The purpose of mitigation planning is for State, local, and Indian tribal governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce any losses from those hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide range of resources.” -the Code of Federal Regulations, 44 CFR 201.4 (b) • Unincorporated Charleston County • Charleston County Parks and Recreation • Town of Awendaw Commission • City of Charleston • Charleston County School District • City of Folly Beach • Charleston Water System • Town of Hollywood • College of Charleston • City of Isle of Palms • Cooper River Parks & Playground • Town of James Island Commission • Town of Kiawah Island • James Island Public Service District Commission • Town of Lincolnville • Mount Pleasant Waterworks Commission • Town of McClellanville • North Charleston District • Town of Meggett • North Charleston Sewer District • Town of Mount Pleasant • Roper St. Francis Healthcare • City of North Charleston • St. Andrews Parish Park & Recreation • Town of Ravenel Commission • Town of Rockville • St. Andrews Public Service District • Town of Seabrook Island • St. John’s Fire District Commission • Town of Sullivan’s Island • St. Paul’s Fire District Commission PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS The Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of a community wide effort to determine appropriate mechanisms to address the various types of hazards facing the Charleston Region. Preparation and maintenance of a hazard mitigation plan is a Federal requirement to comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Hazard Mitigation Plan allows the covered jurisdictions the ability to receive: • FEMA Pre- and Post-Disaster Assistance • FEMA hazard mitigation project grants • CRS credit (applicable to many hazard and floodplain management activities of the Town) First implemented in 1999 Plan Implementation Regional Approach Selected = • Stronger coordination • Shared resources • Network of regional agencies • Hurricane • Flood • Geologic Land Subsidence • Wildfire • Levee Failure • Tornado • Tsunami • Earthquake • Avalanche/ Landslide • HAZMAT • Landslide/ Mudslide • Rip currents • Volcanoes • Climate Change (drought/ heat/ • Expansive Soils global warming) • Typhoon • Winter Weather (Ice/ Snow) • Pandemic (Bird Flu) • Air/ Water Pollution • Dam Failure • Terrorism FEMA HAZARDS The Mitigation Plan encompasses a regional perspective rather than a single municipality or organization, the effect is a more complete and coordinated plan to improve the safety of citizens against potential natural and manmade hazards.. Based upon the responses to the latest survey questionnaire, the following are the goals for this plan: (listed in the order of importance) 1. Reduce potential flood damage 2. Improve storm drainage 3. Minimize future flood occurrence 4. Minimize future hurricane damage 5. Improve hazard resistance of infrastructure 6. Minimize future earthquake damage 7. Protect environmental resources/preserve open and green space 8. Minimize future terrorist incidents 9. Improve water quality 10. Preserve historic building inventory 11. Higher regulatory standard 12. Minimize future hazardous material incidents PLAN GOALS  • Property Protection • Preventative Activities • Natural Benefit • Structural Projects • Emergency Services • Public Information • GIS CORE FOCUS AREAS  Plan Update Assess Review Mitigate PLAN PROCESS The Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of a community wide effort to determine appropriate mechanisms to address the various types of hazards facing the Charleston Region. • Complete “Status Update” for prior year • Develop “Action Plan” for next year • Update Drainage projects and studies • Participate in Plan updates and Sub-committees • Development of Public Information Committee • Annual review of action plan updates • 5-year re-adoption of full plan (2017) PLAN ACTIONS  • Background of Charleston Region • Goals of the Plan • Planning Process • Citizen input • Jurisdiction surveys • Committee input • Hazard Identification Assessment • Problem Assessment • Possible Activities • Actions Plans/ Status Reports • Public Information Plan (required for CRS) 2017 PLAN UPDATES – CHANGES Goals are intended to minimize future losses of life and property associated with hazard events facing the Charleston Region. WHEREAS the Town of Mount Pleasant has experienced the effects of natural and man-made hazard events; and WHEREAS the Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Project Committee has prepared a recommended Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS the recommended Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been widely circulated for review by residents/business organizations/professional organizations of the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Charleston County, state, federal, regional and local government agencies and has been supported by those reviewers; and WHEREAS the County of Charleston and Town of Mount Pleasant originally adopted the Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 1999 and readopted it in 2013, and is required to adopt the amended version of this plan on a five-year cycle for the Town to remain eligible for certain Federal programs in which the Town of Mount Pleasant participates, and NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that 1. The Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of the Town of Mount Pleasant, and 2. The Charleston Regional Hazard Mitigation Project Committee is recognized as a continuing entity charged with reviewing, maintaining in accordance with Community Rating System, Flood Mitigation Assistance, and Disaster Mitigation Act and Public Information Plan requirements, and periodically reporting on the progress towards and revisions to the plan to the Mount Pleasant Council. … DRAFT 2017 ADOPTING RESOLUTION  The best defense is to be prepared. https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments /building-inspection-services/hazard- mitigation-plan.php QUESTIONS?