Planning Commission

Town of Summerville Planning Commission June 20, 2022 - 4:00 PM Town Hall, Council Chambers The meeting will be live-streamed through the live-streaming link on the Town’s website: www.summervillesc.gov For additional information regarding items on this agenda including any public hearings, please contact the Planning Department at planning@summervillesc.gov or 843.851.4217. Applications and related documents for this meeting are available for review at any time at www.summervillesc.gov/AgendaCenter. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes from meeting on May 16, 2022. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (public hearing sign posted on properties beginning on 06.03.22 and with notice in Post & Courier on 06.05.22) 1. Petition by Nash-Nexton Holdings, LLC to annex Berkeley County TMS#s 221-07-05-132 and 133, Lots 31-A and 31-C (total of 20.833 acres), located along Brighton Park Blvd., currently zoned PD- MU, Planned Development Mixed Use in Berkeley County and will be zoned PUD, Planned Development District upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits, and the existing Nexton PUD shall be amended to include this acreage and the additional land use intensities. (Council District 2) 2. Petition by Carroll S. Brown & Blackard Crosscreek, LLC to annex TMS# 161-04-03-002, 6.18 acres located on Crosscreek Drive, currently zoned R-4, Multifamily Residential, in Dorchester County and will be zoned UC-MX, Urban Corridor Mixed-Use upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits. (Council District 6) III. OLD BUSINESS: IV. NEW BUSINESS: 1. New Street Names (as needed) 2. Petition by Nash-Nexton Holdings, LLC to annex Berkeley County TMS#s 221-07-05-132 and 133, Lots 31-A and 31-C (total of 20.833 acres), located along Brighton Park Blvd., currently zoned PD- MU, Planned Development Mixed Use in Berkeley County and will be zoned PUD, Planned Development District upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits, and the existing Nexton PUD shall be amended to include this acreage and the additional land use intensities. (Council District 2)  3. Petition by Carroll S. Brown & Blackard Crosscreek, LLC to annex TMS# 161-04-03-002, 6.18 acres located on Crosscreek Drive, currently zoned R-4, Multifamily Residential, in Dorchester County and will be zoned UC-MX, Urban Corridor Mixed-Use upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits. (Council District 6) V. MISCELLANEOUS: VI. ADJOURNMENT: ____________________________________ Chairman or Vice Chairman Posted June 9, 2022  The Town of Summerville Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 16, 2022 This meeting of the Town of Summerville Planning Commission was held in Town Council Chambers and was attended by Commission Members, Jim Reaves, Chairman; Jim Bailey; Tom Hart; Charlie Stoudenmire; Betty Profit; and Elaine Segelken. Kevin Carroll was unable to attend. Staff in attendance included Jessi Shuler, AICP, Director of Planning. The public was invited to attend in person, or they viewed the meeting via live-stream. Jim Reaves, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. Approval of Minutes: The Chairman asked if there were any edits or additions to the minutes from the meeting on March 21, 2022. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Mr. Bailey made the second. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings: The first public hearing opened at 4:01 PM and was for the request to rezone TMS#s 136-12-04-106, 911 D Central Avenue, owned by Gary A. Charpia; and 136-12-04-108, 911 B & C Central Avenue, owned by Leonard A. & Sylvia L. Holmes; two parcels totaling approximately 0.936 acres, from GR-5, General Residential (5 units/acre), to N-B, Neighborhood Business. (Council District 1). Mr. Reaves introduced the item. Ms. Shuler explained that this area was shown as single-family in the Future Land Use plan; however, it is adjacent to other neighborhood business properties and the current access to the properties is from Central Avenue through another property already zoned N-B. That property fronting Central Avenue is a small retail strip center, and Ms. Shuler stated that she believes the owners would like to expand the neighborhood commercial use behind that existing building. The Commission members questioned the exact location of the properties, and Ms. Shuler answered that they were behind the small strip center and adjacent to the self-storage facility. The Commission members then asked if staff received any public comment prior to the meeting, and Ms. Shuler responded that she received no public comment at all regarding the request. Ms. Shuler also noted that a buffer would be required between these properties and the adjacent residential properties. Hearing no public comment, this public hearing was closed at 4:04 PM. The second public hearing opened at 4:04 PM and was for the proposed amendments to the Summerville Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3, Lodging. Mr. Reaves introduced the item. Ms. Shuler provided a brief explanation for these amendments and the next ones on the agenda. She explained that in applying the UDO, staff had come across some inconsistencies in the Lodging Conditional Uses, particularly in regards to the N-MX zoning, so this amendment tried to address those concerns. The next amendment for accessory structures is an attempt to address issues that have arisen since the size restriction on accessory structures was completely removed in a prior amendment, while still providing some flexibility. Hearing no public comment, this public hearing was closed at 4:05 PM. The third public hearing opened at 4:05 PM and was for the proposed amendments to the Summerville Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2, Uses Customarily Accessory to Residential Dwellings. Mr. Reaves introduced the item and then noted that it had just been covered by Ms. Shuler. Hearing no public comment, this public hearing was closed at 4:06 PM. Old Business There were no items under Old Business. New Business: The first item under New Business was New Street Names. Ms. Shuler stated these four names were for a neighborhood off of Orangeburg Road, and that additional names for this neighborhood will be forthcoming in the future as more than four will be needed. The proposed names were Gloriosa, Dahlberg, Marblewing, and Coulter. Ms. Segelken made a motion to approve the proposed street names, and Mr. Hart made the second. The motion passed unanimously. The second item under New Business was the request to rezone TMS#s 136-12-04-106, 911 D Central Avenue, owned by Gary A. Charpia; and 136-12-04-108, 911 B & C Central Avenue, owned by Leonard A. & Sylvia L. Holmes; two parcels totaling approximately 0.936 acres, from GR-5, General Residential (5 units/acre), to N-B, Neighborhood Business. (Council District 1). Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval, and Ms. Segelken made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question and the motion passed unanimously. The third item under New Business was the proposed amendments to the Summerville Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3, Lodging. Ms. Shuler briefly went through the specific changes being proposed. She explained that the main change was to the owner occupancy requirement in the N-MX, Neighborhood Mixed-Use district, since N-MX does allow for commercial uses. She explained that in discussions with the Planning & Development Committee of Council, they suggested that the requirement for owner occupancy be based off of the surrounding uses, and this is staff’s attempt to include that in the ordinance. She then detailed the specific conditions (location, manager’s office, meals, leasing of common areas, compatibility, and screening) that were being proposed to be added to the Inn use in the N-MX zoning district as it is currently listed as a permitted use. Ms. Segelken asked about the requirement for 24 hour desk service for the Inn use in N-MX, and Ms. Shuler confirmed that the intent was to have a resident manager, so that if there are issues or complaints, there will always be someone on-site to respond quickly. Mr. Bailey asked how the uses of adjacent properties would be determined by staff. Ms. Shuler explained that staff would have to do a site visit, and would most likely also use the County assessor data and business licenses data to determine surrounding uses if questionable. He then asked what would happen if an adjacent use changed after the conditional use was already approved, and Ms. Shuler noted that as long as the conditions were met at the time of application and approval, a conditional use permit would not be revoked if an adjacent property’s use changed because that property owner would have already been aware of the existing lodging use when the adjacent property was purchased. Mr. Hart then asked about the definition of an Inn – what if it had less than ten rooms? Ms. Shuler noted that Inn was defined in the definitions in Chapter 15 of the UDO. She explained that the other lodging uses of ten rooms or less were types of B&Bs, so if someone had ten rooms or less but wanted to serve meals other than breakfast and/or to people who were not staying the night, then it could be considered an Inn. Mr. Hart made a motion to recommend approval, and Ms. Segelken made the second. Mr. Reaves asked if the short term rental regulations would cover AirBnBs or vacation rentals and prohibit the renting of an entire home while someone is out of town. Ms. Shuler confirmed that that would indeed be the case, and the current regulations already prohibited that as the owner-occupancy requirement includes the requirement to be on site when the property is rented. The only change to that is with the N-MX properties. Following the discussion, Mr. Reaves called for the question, and the motion passed unanimously. The fourth item under New Business was the proposed amendments to the Summerville Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2, Uses Customarily Accessory to Residential Dwellings. Ms. Shuler noted again that the round of amendments back in August 2021 took away any size restriction on accessory structures, and staff is starting to see some issues with accessory structures that are almost the same size as the house or even larger. More specifically stormwater and runoff issues have cropped up because accessory structures did not previously require a full Engineering review due to their limited size. These proposed changes add back in size requirements but relate them to the size of the lot, so if you have a larger lot, you would have more flexibility with the size of your accessory structure. In speaking with the Planning & Development Committee of Council, they recommended that the size be related to the lot size. The idea with the changes is to limit the impact that runoff can have on adjacent properties. Ms. Segelken made a motion to recommend approval, and Mr. Hart made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question, and the motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Ms. Shuler reminded the Commission members about their required three hours of training for the year, and she also introduced Leah Davenport, who is an intern with the Planning Department for the summer. Adjourn With no further business for the Commission, Mr. Bailey made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Hart making the second. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 4:23 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Date: __________________________ Jessi Shuler, AICP Director of Planning Approved: _________________________________________________ Jim Reaves, Chairman or Kevin Carroll, Vice Chairman  ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 2022 Owner/Applicant: NASH-Nexton Holdings, LLC TMS#s: 221-07-05-132 and 133, Lots 31A and 31C Location: Brighton Park Blvd. Description: two parcels totaling approximately 20.833 acres Request: Annexation and Zoning to PUD, Planned Development District The property owner is requesting that the above referenced properties be annexed into the Town from Berkeley County. The existing zoning in Berkeley County is PD-MU, Planned Development Mixed- Use, and upon annexation, the existing Nexton PUD and DA will be amended to include these properties and the associated land use intensities. The amended PUD is included in your packet. The amended DA will go before Town Council. Parcels 221-07-05-132 and 133 are included in the Town’s ‘Single-Family Residential’ area as identified within the Summerville: Our Town, Our Future Comprehensive Plan as well as on the accompanying Future Land Use Map; however, the Comp Plan does recognize the mix of residential, business park, and commercial uses within the overall master plan for Nexton and recommends following the Nexton Master Plan. Based on the proposed uses for this property and the allowed uses within the existing Nexton PUD, staff recommends approval of this annexation. 67$7(2)6287+&$52/,1$        3(7,7,21)25$11(;$7,21 &2817<2) Berkeley    727+(+2125$%/(0$<25$1'72:1&281&,/2)6800(59,//( :+(5($66(&7,21  &RGHRIODZVRI6RXWK&DUROLQDSURYLGHVIRUWKHDQQH[DWLRQRIDQ DUHDRUSURSHUW\ZKLFKLVFRQWLJXRXVWRD7RZQE\ILOLQJZLWKWKHPXQLFLSDOJRYHUQLQJERG\DSHWLWLRQVLJQHG E\DOOSHUVRQVRZQLQJUHDOHVWDWHLQWKHDUHDUHTXHVWLQJDQQH[DWLRQDQG :+(5($6WKHXQGHUVLJQHGDUHDOOSHUVRQVRZQLQJUHDOHVWDWHLQWKHDUHDUHTXHVWLQJDQQH[DWLRQDQG :+(5($6WKHDUHDUHTXHVWLQJDQQH[DWLRQLVGHVFULEHGDVIROORZVWRZLW 6$,'3523(57<ORFDWHGDW Brighton Park Blvd. - Lots 31A & 31C DSSUR[LPDWHO\20.833 DFUHV WREHDQQH[HG LVLGHQWLILHGE\WKH Berkeley &RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶V2IILFHDV3URSHUW\,GHQWLILFDWLRQ1XPEHU 706 221-07-05-132 WRLQFOXGHLIQHFHVVDU\WRHVWDEOLVKFRQWLJXLW\DQ\URDG ZDWHUZD\HDVHPHQWUDLOURDGWUDFNPDUVKODQGRUXWLOLW\OLQHWKDWLQWHUYHQHVEHWZHHQWKLVSURSHUW\DQGWKH PXQLFLSDOOLPLWVRIWKH7RZQRI6XPPHUYLOOH 12:7+(5()25(WKHXQGHUVLJQHGSHWLWLRQWKH7RZQ&RXQFLORI6XPPHUYLOOHWRDQQH[WKHDERYHGHVFULEHG DUHDLQWRWKHPXQLFLSDOOLPLWVRIWKH7RZQRI6XPPHUYLOOH 21st 'DWHGWKLV  GD\RI May 22  )5((+2/'(56 2:1(56 6,*1(' '$7(2)6,*1$785( 5/21/22 6LJQDWXUH  'DWH  J. Brent Gibadlo 3ULQW1DPH  6LJQDWXUH  'DWH  3ULQW1DPH  June 09, 2022 Ms. Jessi Shuler Town of Summerville 200 South Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 Nexton PUD Amendment Summerville, South Carolina In April 2011, Summerville Town Council approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 392.06 acres of land known as Parks of Berkeley/Sheep Island Tract. Following this approval, the PUD has been amended or modified numerous times with the last amendment in February of 2017. Since that time, development plans have continued to evolve, and an additional area has been identified to be annexed into the Town of Summerville. As a result, Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC requests annexation of two parcels currently shown as TMS 221-07-05-132 and 133, currently located in unincorporated Berkeley County, and totaling 20.83 acres (see attachment 1-Annexation Exhibit). Along with the annexation, Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC requests an amendment of the PUD to include the annexed property and make the following updates: The following tables list the parcels that are included or excluded in this request: The following tables list the parcels that are included or excluded in this request: I. Property Included in PUD Amendment The following table list the parcels included in the amendment: TMS No. Area (acres) Ownership 221-00-00-188 22.74 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC 221-00-00-215 38.61 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC 221-00-00-157 14.28 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC 221-00-00-195 1.00 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC 221-07-05-132 12.332 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC 221-07-05-133 8.501 Nash-Nexton Holdings LLC The Parcel Map has been updated to include the annexed property within the Nexton PUD limits and to reflect properties included in the amendment (see attachment 2-Updated Parcel Map). II. Proposed Land Uses and Intensities The Land Use Plan has been updated as a result of the additional property being annexed, modified development plans, and an updated traffic memo (see attachment 3-updated Land Use Plan). The following are additional land use intensities being requested in addition to those approved with the 4th Amendment in 2017: Attachment 1: Annexation Exhibit  LEGEND AREA TO BE ANNEXED (APPROX. 20.83 AC.) PROPOSED TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE LIMITS Y YELLOW HATCH DENOTES 20.83 AC. TO BE ANNEXED TO TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE P KW (PREVIOUSLY PORTIONS OF TMS NO. 221-07-05-132) ON XT NE BR I GHT ON PA RK BL VD SI GMA DR I V E Attachment 2: Parcel Map 133 TMS #221-07-05-133 Attachment 3: Land Use Plan NEXTON COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (MIXED USE) Attachment 4: Traffic Memo Memorandum To: Brent Gibadlo, Nexton From: Jennifer T. Bihl, PE, PTOE, RSP2I Date: June 6, 2022 Re: Town of Summerville Nexton Crescent Area Annexation - Traffic Memo This memo reviews the traffic components for the Nexton Crescent Area annexation. Details of the specific area and TMS numbers associated with this annexation are included in the amended PUD document. The Crescent Area was programmed with the following land uses as part of the background conditions in the Town of Summerville Nexton PUD traffic study (November 22, 2016):  300,000 square feet (sf) office  101 beds assisted living  40,000 sf retail  300 multifamily units As part of the Crescent Area annexation, the following land uses will be shifted from the Berkeley County Nexton PDMU to the Town of Summerville Nexton PUD and will become Town of Summerville Nexton PUD trips.  300,000 sf office  101 beds assisted living  40,000 sf retail  90 multifamily units The remaining 210 multifamily units are associated with the portion of Crescent Area (TMS #221-07-05- 130) that is not part of this annexation request. As a result, the property and associated land uses will remain part of Berkeley County Nexton PDMU and accounted for as part of the background conditions land uses. Summary The overall trip projections will remain the same as noted in the Town of Summerville Nexton PUD traffic study. This annexation will shift trip projections from the background trips category to project trips category. As individual parcels are taken down in the PUD, site specific traffic analysis will be completed. 306 Meeting St., Suite 300, Charleston, SC 29401 Mail: PO Box 31318 (29417) P: 843-637-9187 1  ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 2022 Owner: Blackard Crosscreek, LLC and Carroll S. Brown Applicant: JJR Development, LLC TMS#s: 161-04-03-002 Location: Crosscreek Drive Description: one parcel totaling approximately 6.18 acres Request: Annexation and Zoning to UC-MX, Urban Corridor Mixed-Use The property owner is requesting that the above referenced parcel be annexed into the Town from Dorchester County. The existing zoning in Dorchester County is R-4, Multi-family Residential. The property is included in the Town’s ‘General Commercial’ area as identified within the Summerville: Our Town, Our Future Comprehensive Plan as well as on the accompanying Future Land Use Map. This property is also identified as a part of the Oakbrook Commercial Center in the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends new development include commercial uses and “multifamily to provide customers in close proximity to support the commercial development.” In addition, this property is included as a priority annexation area in the Community Facilities & Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the recommendation of prioritizing areas directly adjacent to the municipal boundary to prevent the overextension of infrastructure and reduce costs. The adjacent properties within the Town are zoned UC-MX and MF-R. The current development plan for the property is proposing 108 apartment units and 6,500 sf of commercial space. These proposed uses would be in line with the recommendations of the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will most likely be required to do a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed use, but this will be dependent on the final number of units proposed and other safety considerations. The fiscal impact analysis shows that the project will lead to a very minor loss for the Town over 20 years in the most conservative estimate, and will break even if it performs only 2% better than the most conservative estimate (with the current millage rate of 59.5 mils at the time of posting of the agenda packet). Based on these findings the requested annexation with a zoning of UC-MX, Urban Corridor Mixed- Use, is interpreted by staff to be in conformance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and is recommended for approval. 2 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) PETITION FOR ANNEXATION COUNTY OF PnRCR&»re.g.) TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF SUMMERVILLE WHEREAS,SECTION 5-3-150(3)Code oflaws of South Carolina provides for the annexation ofan area or property which is contiguous to a Town by filing with the municipal governing body a petition signed by all persons owning real estate in the area requesting annexation, and WHEREAS,the undersigned are all persons owning real estate in the area requesting annexation, and WHEREAS,the area requesting annexation is described as follows, to wit: SAID PROPERTY,located at (U^O&SCf^e.&k' "0^10 (approximately ^ acresi to be annexed is identified by the t>ofZr County Assessor's Office as Property Identification Number: TMS # /^ / ~ Q V ~ 0"^ "OO 2, to include, if necessary to establish contiguity, any road, waterway, easement, railroad track, marshland or utility line that intervenes between this property and the municipal limits ofthe Town ofSummerville. NOW,THEREFORE,the undersigned petition Ae Town Council ofSummerville to annex the above described area into die municipal limits ofthe Town of Summerville. Dated this day of Ay^ .2022. FREEHOLDERS(OWNERS)SI.GNED DATE OF SIGNATURE (Signature) (Date) (Pjait Name) / gnature) (Date) (Print Name) May 23,2022 To: Jess! Shuler, Director of Planning,Town of Summervllle Re: Annexation of Parcel 161-04-03-002, Crosscreek Drive Dear Ms. Shuler As the owners of the vacant parcel on Crosscreek Drive with TMS number 161-040-03-002, we give permission to JJR Development, LLC to submit an annexation petition to the Town of Summervllle on our behalf. Blackard Crosscreek, LLC Date Carroll S. Brown X Date  pond residential residential residential wet area 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT residential residential pond residential clubhouse pool Total Site Area pond Y SEW ER EA 6.183 Acres 269,331 Sqft SPR SEME IN commercial NT CROS LOC GVIEW SC LOCAL REEK DRIVE LY MA 50' R/W INTAIN ALLY LA ED 20' SA MAIN NE 50 Total High Area NITAR 5.034 Acres ' R /W TAIN 219,281 Sqft ED 6 3-story Apartment Buildings 1 Commercial Building Apartment Units - 108 Commercial Space - 6,500 sqft Parking Spaces = 193 A-1 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PROPOSED SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN COPYRIGHT JJR DEVELOPMENT, LLC SITE PLAN CROSSCREEK DRIVE, SUMMERVILLE, SC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TMS: 161-04-03-002 Based on a Survey by Forsberg Engineering & Surveying, INC - April 11 2022 NORTH Scale: 1/64" = 1'-0" MAY 25, 2022 LINE LEGEND LEGEND HATCHING LEGEND TRACT G SOUTH CAROLINA WETLAND SURVEY CROSSCREEK DRIVE TMS 161-04-03-002 DORCHESTER COUNTY, LEWIS S. MOORE DATE APRIL 11, 2022 DRAWN/CHECKED LSM/JSC LAST REVISED APPROVED LSM SCALE 1"=50' PROJECT NO. 5651 SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 1  Town of Summerville Fiscal Impact Analysis Template Project Name: Crosscreek Rd Project Client: JJR Development, LLC Project Location: Dorchester County, SC TMS NO: 161-04-03-002 TMS NO: TMS NO: TMS NO: LINE INSTRUCTIONS PROJECT BASICS 1A 6.18 Total Project Acres Enter total acreage of all parcels included in the PUD 1B 6.18 Acres in Dorchester County 1C - Acres in Berkeley County Note: If project is split between two counties, the team will need to provide figures related to the residential/commercial split by county. 1D - Acres in Charleston County 1E 6.18 Should Equal Total Acres 5.052 Acres in Residential 0.470 Acres in Commercial 0.658 Acres in Other (Town Park) 1F YES Site Plan / PUD Application Provided RESIDENTIAL INPUTS Single Family Residential 2A - Number of Single Family Residential Homes Enter total number of units included in the PUD. 2B Median Value of Single Family Residential Homes Enter the median anticipated sales price. Be prepared to share how your company developed the estimate. 2C Median Size of Single Family Residential Homes (in Square Feet) Enter the median anticipated size of homes. Let Kristy know if you have multiple and widely varying home types and price points. Town Homes 2D Number of Town Homes See instructions for Single Family Residential Homes. 2E Median Value of Town Homes 2F Median Size of Town Homes (in Square Feet) Multifamily Housing/Apartments 2G 1 Number of Apartment Developments Enter the number of apartment complexes in the development. 2H 108 Total Number of Apartment Units Enter total number of units across all planned complexes. 2I 6 Number of Apartment Buildings Enter total number of buildings across all planned complexes. Do not include accessory buildings such as garages, utility buildings, club houses, etc. 2J 158,976 Total Size of All Apartment Buildings (in Square Feet) Enter total square feet of all buildings quantified in 2I. 2K $ 28,000,000 Anticipated Value of all Apartment Complexes Enter anticipated value of all apartment complexes. Kristy will compare to other complexes in the market. COMMERCIAL INPUTS 3A 6,500 Total Square Feet of Commercial Buildings Enter total square footage of commercial space. If unknown at this time, assume 10,000 square feet per acre. 3B 1 Total Number of Commercial Buildings Enter total number of commercial buildings. BUSINESS MIX INPUTS 4A 30.0% Projected Amount of Retail (%) Enter the anticipated mix of businesses for the PUD. All uses should equal 100%. Do not include hotels. 4B 40.0% Projected Amount of Hospitality (Food/Beverage) (%) 4C 30.0% Projected Medical/Service/Office (%) Other (%): 4D 0% Describe Other Enter the type of business if it is not retail, hospitality, or medical/service. Other (%): 4E 0% Describe Other Enter the type of business if it is not retail, hospitality, or medical/service. Other (%): 0% Describe Other Enter the type of business if it is not retail, hospitality, or medical/service. TTL 100% Total should equal 100% HOTEL INPUTS 5A - Projected Number of Hotels Enter number of hotels included in the PUD. 5B - Total Number of Buildings Enter number of buildings. 5C - Total Number of Rooms Enter total number of rooms. 5D - Average Annual Nightly Cost Enter anticipated average annual nightly cost. Be prepared to provide source. PUBLIC AMENITY If the project will provide a public amenity, please describe. Examples of a public amenity include: 6 dedicated affordable housing, public park (including trails or greenways), right of way for a needed town project, town facility, public school, etc. OTHER KEY INFORMATION 7 Please provide additional information that will help quantify the fiscal impact of this project. LINEAR FEET OF ROADWAY 8 Please provide the anticipated linear feet of roadway included in the development. 0 Component 1: Residential Revenue Projection RESIDENTIAL REVENUE SCENARIO A Assumes all SFR & TH units are owner occupied SF Residential (SFR) Town Home (TH) Apartments (APT) NUMBER OF UNITS Copied from Inputs 0 0 108 Copied from Inputs Median Appraised Home Value (Land + Building) Copied from Inputs $ - $ - $ 28,000,000 Copied from Inputs Primary Resident Assessed Value (4%) Calculated Field Per unit $ - $ - N/A Calculated Field Non-Resident Assessed Value (6%) Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 1,680,000 Calculated Field Value at 4% Calculated Field All Units $ - $ - Calculated Field Value at 6% Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 1,680,000 Calculated Field RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO A All SFR Owner All TH Owner All Apts Renter MILLAGE CALCULATIONS RATE Occupied Occupied Occupied County Operating Calculated Field 0.0549 $ - $ - $ 92,232 Calculated Field County Debt Calculated Field 0.0085 $ - $ - $ 14,280 Calculated Field County Library Calculated Field 0.0055 $ - $ - $ 9,240 Calculated Field County Capital Improvements Calculated Field 0.0068 $ - $ - $ 11,424 Calculated Field Children in Crisis Calculated Field 0.0010 $ - $ - $ 1,680 Calculated Field Senior Citizen Centers Calculated Field 0.0019 $ - $ - $ 3,192 Calculated Field School Trident Tech Calculated Field 0.0033 $ - $ - $ 5,544 Calculated Field School Operating Calculated Field 0.1836 $ - $ - $ 308,448 Calculated Field School Debt Calculated Field 0.0650 $ - $ - $ 109,200 Calculated Field School Vocational Calculated Field 0.0092 $ - $ - $ 15,456 Calculated Field Town of Summerville Calculated Field 0.0595 $ - $ - $ 99,960 Calculated Field TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (County, School, Municipal) Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 670,656 Calculated Field School Operating and Vocational Credit Calculated Field $ - $ - Calculated Field Annual Property Tax Revenue (Total - School) Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 670,656 Calculated Field Annual Dorchester County Portion Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 570,696 Calculated Field Annual Summerville Portion Calculated Field $ - $ - $ 99,960 Calculated Field COUNTY SUMMERVILLE Total County Revenue Calculated Field $ 570,696 Calculated Field Minus Existing Tax Revenue Copied Field $ (13,209) See "Existing Tax" Tab Copied Field Total New Annual Revenue County Calculated Field $ 557,487 Calculated Field New Annual Revenue Summerville Calculated Field $ 99,960 Calculated Field 20 Year Revenue Calculated Field $ 11,149,741 $ 1,999,200 + $218,400 @ 66.0 mills Calculated Field ADDITIONAL REVENUE Solid Waste Collection Fee Calculated Field $ - $ - $ - Calculated Field Stormwater Management Fee Calculated Field $ 36.00 $ - $ - $ 3,888 Calculated Field TOTAL $ - $ - $ 3,888 Total Add Rev $ 3,888 20 Year Add Rev $ 77,760 Component 2: Residential Population Projections (All Fields are Automatically Update) Units Ave HH Size Additional Population Single Family Residential 0 2.78 - Town Home 0 2.5 - Apartment 108 2 216 Total Additional Population 216 Sources: Single Family Residential Household Size Estimate US Census Bureau Quick Facts, 2013-2017 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/summervilletownsouthcarolina Town Home & Apartment Household Size Estimate National Multifamily Housing Council https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/quick-facts-figures/quick-facts-resident-demographics/ Component 3: 2019 Town of Summerville Cost of Services (All Fields are Automatically Update) Additional Cost Per Person Total Additional Population 216 Copied Field General Government $ 142 $ 30,672 Public Safety $ 331 $ 71,496 Streets and Drainage $ 94 $ 20,304 Recreation $ 61 $ 13,176 Interest & Financial $ 12 $ 2,592 Total Cost for New Population $ 138,240 Cost of Services for Twenty Years $ 2,764,800 Source: 2021 Fiscal Impact Anaylsis for Planned Developments, Town of Summerville Component 4: Projected Commercial Property Value Estimate Dorchester County Commercial Acreage 0.47 Copied Field Total Square Feet 6,500 Calculated Field Value Per Square Feet $ 260 Projected Appraised Value $ 1,687,314 Projected Assessed Value (6%) $ 101,239 Calculated Field DORC TAX MILLAGE CALCULATIONS RATE REVENUE County Revenue Calculated Field County Operating 0.0549 $ 5,558 Calculated Field County Debt 0.0085 $ 861 Calculated Field County Library 0.0055 $ 557 Calculated Field County Capital Improvements 0.0068 $ 688 Calculated Field Children in Crisis 0.0010 $ 101 Calculated Field Senior Citizen Centers 0.0019 $ 192 Calculated Field School Trident Tech 0.0033 $ 334 Calculated Field School Operating 0.1836 $ 18,587 Calculated Field School Debt 0.0650 $ 6,581 Calculated Field School Vocational 0.0092 $ 931 Calculated Field Summerville 0.0595 $ 6,024 Calculated Field TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE New Annual Revenue County $ 34,391 Calculated Field New Annual Revenue Summerville $ 6,024 Calculated Field Total Revenue $ 40,415 Calculated Field Twenty Year County Revenue $ 687,817 Calculated Field Twenty Year Summerville Revenue $ 120,474 Calculated Field Total Twenty Year Revenue $ 808,291 Calculated Field Total Summerville Annual $ 6,024 Calculated Field Twenty $ 120,474 Calculated Field Component 5: Impact and Permittting Fees Anticipated Development Permits Type of Building Unit Number of Units Impact Fee/Unit Total Impact Fee Residential Building Permit Single Family Home Dwelling unit 0 $ 839 $ - Admin Fee For Each Residential Permit $ 30 Per Permit 108 Units $ 3,240 Townhome Dwelling unit 0 $ 666 $ - Apartment Dwelling unit 108 $ 3,214 $ 347,112 Building Residential Valuation RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Total Residential Estimated Impact Fees $ 347,112 Median Building Square Footage 26,496 Commercial Per 1,000 SqFt 6,500 $ 3,241 $ 21,067 ICC Construction Cost $ 139.06 Current Town rate $120.47 (ICC, Jan 2021) Commercial Buildings 1 $ 3,684,534 ICC Square Ft Const. Cost; February 2022; R-2 Residential Multifamily; Construction Type VB Total Residential + Commercial Estimated Impact Fees $ 368,179 https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/BVD-BSJ-FEB22.pdf Multifamily Building Permit Fee removes Parks & Rec Impact Fee Valuation Per Unit $ 3,684,534 First $100,000 $ 100,000 $ 460 Fee $ 460 General Office Space Per 1,000 SqFt $ 5,020 $ 3,584,534 Remaining to Calculate Fractions of $1,000 General Retail Space Per 1,000 SqFt $ 3,241 Fractions of $1,000 Remaining 3,585 $ 3 Per $1,000 $ 10,755 Base + Fraction / Unit $ 11,215 Fees based on impact fee schedule approved by Summerville Town Council on March 10, 2022. Total Residential Building Permits 6 Units $ 67,290 Commercial Permit Fee Admin Fee for Each Commercial Permit $ 30 Per Permit 1 Units $ 30 6,500 Commercial Valuation Total Building SqFt 6,500 COMMERCIAL BUILDING ICC Construction Cost $ 214.08 Current Town rate $188.18 (ICC, Jan 2021) $ 1,391,520 ICC Square Ft Const. Cost; January 2021; B Business; Construction Type IIB Commercial Permit Fee Average Valuation of Each Building $ 1,391,520 First $500,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,660 Fee $ 1,660 $ 891,520 Remaining to Calculate Fractions of $1,000 Per Fraction of Fractions of $1,000 Remaining 892 $ 2 $1,000 $ 1,784 Total per Commercial Building $ 3,444 Total all Commercial Buildings $ 3,444 Gas Permits Residential Units 108 For issuing permits $ 20 108 units $ 2,160 Total Residential $ 2,160 Commercial Buildings 1 For issuing permits $ 20 1 units $ 20 Total Commercial $ 20 TOTAL GAS $ 2,180 Mechanical Permits Residential Units 108 For issuing permits $ 30 108 units $ 3,240 Total Residential $ 3,240 Commercial Buildings 1 For issuing permits $ 30 1 units $ 30 Total Commercial $ 30 ITS  TOTAL MECHANICAL $ 3,270 Plumbing Permits OTHER PERMITS Residential Units 108 For issuing permits $ 30 108 units $ 3,240 Total Residential $ 3,240 Commercial Buildings 1 For issuing permits $ 30 1 units $ 30 Total Commercial $ 30 TOTAL PLUMBING $ 3,270 Electrical Permits Residential Units 108 For issuing permits $ 30 108 units $ 3,240 Total Residential $ 3,240 Commercial Buildings 1 For issuing permits $ 30 1 units $ 30 Total Commercial $ 30 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $ 3,270 Plan Review Fee Residential Building Permit Fee $ 70,530 Commercial Building Permit Fee $ 3,474 Plan Review (Half of Permit Fee) $ 37,002 Miscellaneous Permit Fees (Res + Comm) Assumes almost double professional permits + sprinkler/alarm $ 25,500 Total Base Permit Fees $ 136,506 Single Family Residential Valuation Total Building Square Footage 158,976 Square Footage per Building 26,496 ICC Construction Cost $ 120.47 ICC VB, Feb 2021 (current Town policy) $ 3,191,973 Single Family Residential Permit Fee Valuation Per Unit $ 3,191,973 First $100,000 $ 100,000 $ 460 $ 3,091,973 Remaining to Calculate Fractions of $1,000 Fractions of $1,000 Remaining 3,092 $ 3 Base + Fraction / Unit $ 9,736 Total Residential Building Permits 6 Single Family Residential Valuation Total Building Square Footage 158,976 Square Footage per Building 26,496 ICC Construction Cost $ 139.06 ICC VB, Feb 2022 $ 3,684,534 Single Family Residential Permit Fee Valuation Per Unit $ 3,684,534 First $100,000 $ 100,000 $ 460 $ 3,584,534 Remaining to Calculate Fractions of $1,000 Fractions of $1,000 Remaining 3,585 $ 3 Base + Fraction / Unit $ 11,215 Total Residential Building Permits 6  Fee $ 460 Per $1,000 $ 9,276 Units $ 58,416 Fee $ 460 Per $1,000 $ 10,755 Units $ 67,290 Component 6: Other Taxes & Licenses Dorchester Commercial SqFt 6,500 Copied Field Annual Rent @ $25/sqft $ 162,500 Calculated Field Cost for NNN lease @ 29.7% of rent $ 47,938 $ 210,438 Calculated Field Payroll Costs @ 20% of total sales $ 33,670 Calculated Field Profit Margin @ 2.5% of total sales $ 5,950 Calculated Field Total Sales Needed to Cover Costs (Year 1) $ 250,058 Calculated Field BUSINESS MIX Rent increases by 3% each year 30% 40% 30% Total Rent @ $25 / Rent + NNN (Base Payroll Costs @ 20% Profit Margin @ Total Sales to Cover Service, Office, Dorchester Sqft Cost of NNN Lease (29.7%) Sales) of Base Sales 2.44% of Base Sales Costs Retail Food Medical ANNUAL RENT @ $25/sqft, 3% Ann. Increase $ 162,500 $ 162,500 $ 48,263 $ 210,763 $ 42,153 $ 5,017 $ 257,932 $ 77,380 $ 103,173 $ 77,380 2 $ 167,375 $ 167,375 $ 49,710 $ 217,085 $ 43,417 $ 5,168 $ 265,670 $ 79,701 $ 106,268 $ 79,701 3 $ 172,396 $ 172,396 $ 51,202 $ 223,598 $ 44,720 $ 5,323 $ 273,640 $ 82,092 $ 109,456 $ 82,092 4 $ 177,568 $ 177,568 $ 52,738 $ 230,306 $ 46,061 $ 5,482 $ 281,849 $ 84,555 $ 112,740 $ 84,555 5 $ 182,895 $ 182,895 $ 54,320 $ 237,215 $ 47,443 $ 5,647 $ 290,305 $ 87,091 $ 116,122 $ 87,091 6 $ 188,382 $ 188,382 $ 55,949 $ 244,332 $ 48,866 $ 5,816 $ 299,014 $ 89,704 $ 119,606 $ 89,704 7 $ 194,033 $ 194,033 $ 57,628 $ 251,661 $ 50,332 $ 5,991 $ 307,984 $ 92,395 $ 123,194 $ 92,395 8 $ 199,855 $ 199,855 $ 59,357 $ 259,211 $ 51,842 $ 6,170 $ 317,224 $ 95,167 $ 126,890 $ 95,167 9 $ 205,850 $ 205,850 $ 61,137 $ 266,988 $ 53,398 $ 6,356 $ 326,741 $ 98,022 $ 130,696 $ 98,022 10 $ 212,026 $ 212,026 $ 62,972 $ 274,997 $ 54,999 $ 6,546 $ 336,543 $ 100,963 $ 134,617 $ 100,963 11 $ 218,386 $ 218,386 $ 64,861 $ 283,247 $ 56,649 $ 6,743 $ 346,639 $ 103,992 $ 138,656 $ 103,992 12 $ 224,938 $ 224,938 $ 66,807 $ 291,745 $ 58,349 $ 6,945 $ 357,038 $ 107,112 $ 142,815 $ 107,112 13 $ 231,686 $ 231,686 $ 68,811 $ 300,497 $ 60,099 $ 7,153 $ 367,750 $ 110,325 $ 147,100 $ 110,325 14 $ 238,637 $ 238,637 $ 70,875 $ 309,512 $ 61,902 $ 7,368 $ 378,782 $ 113,635 $ 151,513 $ 113,635 15 $ 245,796 $ 245,796 $ 73,001 $ 318,797 $ 63,759 $ 7,589 $ 390,145 $ 117,044 $ 156,058 $ 117,044 16 $ 253,170 $ 253,170 $ 75,191 $ 328,361 $ 65,672 $ 7,817 $ 401,850 $ 120,555 $ 160,740 $ 120,555 17 $ 260,765 $ 260,765 $ 77,447 $ 338,212 $ 67,642 $ 8,051 $ 413,905 $ 124,172 $ 165,562 $ 124,172 18 $ 268,588 $ 268,588 $ 79,771 $ 348,358 $ 69,672 $ 8,293 $ 426,323 $ 127,897 $ 170,529 $ 127,897 19 $ 276,645 $ 276,645 $ 82,164 $ 358,809 $ 71,762 $ 8,541 $ 439,112 $ 131,734 $ 175,645 $ 131,734 20 $ 284,945 $ 284,945 $ 84,629 $ 369,573 $ 73,915 $ 8,798 $ 452,286 $ 135,686 $ 180,914 $ 135,686 TOTAL 20 YEAR $ 4,366,436 $ 4,366,436 $ 1,296,831 $ 5,663,267 $ 1,132,653 $ 134,812 $ 6,930,733 $ 2,079,220 $ 2,772,293 $ 2,079,220 Source: Online Research Source: Online Research Source: Summerville Market Data Provided by M. Lisle  COUNTY TAX SUMMERVILLE BIZ LICENSE DORCHESTER DORCHESTER DORCHESTER ON SALES ON SALES ON RENT COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SUMMERVILLE SUMMERVILLE SUMMERVILLE SUMMERVILLE ON RETAIL LOST ON RETAIL ON FOOD ON FOOD CLASS 1 CLASS 3 CLASS 7 0% 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 1.2 1.9 3.3 6% County Sales 2% Hosp Tax - 2% Hosp Tax - Other Tax 1% Local Option 1% Transportation Dorchester Summerville $1.30 / $1,000 $2.10 / 1,000 $2.50 / 1,000 $ - $ 4,643 $ 774 $ 774 $ 2,063 $ 2,063 $ 235 $ 162 $ 527 Summerville Revenue $ 24,831 $ - $ 4,782 $ 797 $ 797 $ 2,125 $ 2,125 $ 242 $ 167 $ 543 $ - $ 4,926 $ 821 $ 821 $ 2,189 $ 2,189 $ 249 $ 172 $ 559 Business License Projection Base $ - $ 5,073 $ 846 $ 846 $ 2,255 $ 2,255 $ 256 $ 178 $ 576 Per $1,000 $ - $ 5,225 $ 871 $ 871 $ 2,322 $ 2,322 $ 264 $ 183 $ 593 $ 1.30 Class 1 Retail, Food, Bev, Hotel $ - $ 5,382 $ 897 $ 897 $ 2,392 $ 2,392 $ 272 $ 188 $ 611 $ 2.10 Class 3 Medical, Office, etc. $ - $ 5,544 $ 924 $ 924 $ 2,464 $ 2,464 $ 280 $ 194 $ 629 $ 2.50 Class 7 Leasing/Management $ - $ 5,710 $ 952 $ 952 $ 2,538 $ 2,538 $ 289 $ 200 $ 648 $ - $ 5,881 $ 980 $ 980 $ 2,614 $ 2,614 $ 297 $ 206 $ 667 $ - $ 6,058 $ 1,010 $ 1,010 $ 2,692 $ 2,692 $ 306 $ 212 $ 687 $ - $ 6,240 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 2,773 $ 2,773 $ 315 $ 218 $ 708 $ - $ 6,427 $ 1,071 $ 1,071 $ 2,856 $ 2,856 $ 325 $ 225 $ 729 $ - $ 6,619 $ 1,103 $ 1,103 $ 2,942 $ 2,942 $ 335 $ 232 $ 751 $ - $ 6,818 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 3,030 $ 3,030 $ 345 $ 239 $ 774 $ - $ 7,023 $ 1,170 $ 1,170 $ 3,121 $ 3,121 $ 355 $ 246 $ 797 $ - $ 7,233 $ 1,206 $ 1,206 $ 3,215 $ 3,215 $ 366 $ 253 $ 821 $ - $ 7,450 $ 1,242 $ 1,242 $ 3,311 $ 3,311 $ 377 $ 261 $ 846 $ - $ 7,674 $ 1,279 $ 1,279 $ 3,411 $ 3,411 $ 388 $ 269 $ 871 $ - $ 7,904 $ 1,317 $ 1,317 $ 3,513 $ 3,513 $ 400 $ 277 $ 897 $ - $ 8,141 $ 1,357 $ 1,357 $ 3,618 $ 3,618 $ 412 $ 285 $ 924 Total Biz Lic $ - $ 124,753 $ 20,792 $ 20,792 $ 55,446 $ 55,446 $ 6,307 $ 4,366 $ 14,158 $ 24,831 Assumes 100% of commercial property is rental. This has been confirmed by _________ commercial realtor development partner. Component 7: Summary Summerville Summary 20 Year Component 1: Residential Prop Tax Income $ 1,999,200 20 year Component 1: Stormwater, Solid waste Revenue $ 77,760 20 year Component 6: Impact Fee (One Time) $ 368,179 One Time Component 6: Permitting Fees (One Time) $ 136,506 One Time REVENUE $ 2,581,645 Component 5: Commercial Prop Tax Income $ 120,474 $ 6,024 N/A Hospitality Tax Component 7: Business License & Other Tax $ 24,831 $ 1,242 OTHER REVENUE $ 145,306 TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,726,950 +$231,561 @ 66 mills Component 3: Cost of Citizen Services $ 2,764,800 INCOME - COST OF SERVICES DIFFERENCE: $ (37,850) $ (1,892) +$193,711 @ 66 mills at 59.5 mills at 66 mills Most Conservative Scenario $ (37,850) At year 20, as Calculated (Most Conservative Estimate) $ 193,711 Break Even Scenario $ 16,689 Project Breaks Even if it Performs 2% Better than Calculated $ 252,881 Best Case Scenario $ 1,598,320 Project at 60% Better than Calculated $ 1,968,811 Component 10: Existing Tax TMS NO: OWNER ACRES APPRAISED VALUE ASSESSED VALUE PROPERTY TAX TAX DISTRICT COUNTY 161-04-03-002 Brown Carroll & Blackard Cross 6.17 $ 610,023 $ 36,600 $ 13,209 221 DORC 6%