Planning Commission

Town of Summerville Planning Commission March 20, 2023 - 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 February 27, 2023. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (public hearing notice in Post & Courier on 03.05.23 and signs posted on the properties on 03.03.23) 1. Petition by CVEA Summerville III, LLC to annex TMS#220-00-02-147, located on N. Maple Street and totaling approximately 10.34 acres. Currently zoned PD – OP/IP, Planned Development – Office Park/Industrial Park, in Berkeley County and will be zoned G-B, General Business, upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits. (Council District 2) 2. Request to rezone TMS#232-00-02-131, located on Marymeade Drive and Angus Drive, approximately 12.983 acres, and owned by Invesco LP, from L-I, Light Industrial, to G-B (General Business). (Council District 2) 3. Ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), 13.3.4, Tree Protection Board (TPB) by: more fully setting forth the authority under which the TPB was created; clarify the section under which an administrative review is appropriate; and, add a new section 13.3.4(C)(5), Appeals from Decisions of the TPB. III. OLD BUSINESS: IV. NEW BUSINESS: 1. New Street Names (as needed)  2. Petition by CVEA Summerville III, LLC to annex TMS#220-00-02-147, located on N. Maple Street and totaling approximately 10.34 acres. Currently zoned PD – OP/IP, Planned Development – Office Park/Industrial Park, in Berkeley County and will be zoned G-B, General Business, upon annexation into the Town of Summerville’s municipal limits. (Council District 2) 3. Request to rezone TMS#232-00-02-131, located on Marymeade Drive and Angus Drive, approximately 12.983 acres, and owned by Invesco LP, from L-I, Light Industrial, to G-B (General Business). (Council District 2) 4. Ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), 13.3.4, Tree Protection Board (TPB) by: more fully setting forth the authority under which the TPB was created; clarify the section under which an administrative review is appropriate; and, add a new section 13.3.4(C)(5), Appeals from Decisions of the TPB. V. MISCELLANEOUS: VI. ADJOURNMENT: ____________________________________ Chairperson or Vice Chairperson Posted March 13, 2023  The Town of Summerville Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 2023 This meeting of the Town of Summerville Planning Commission was held in Town Council Chambers and was attended by Commission Members, Jim Reaves, Chairman; Kevin Carroll; Betty Profit; and Elaine Segelken. Tom Hart; Jim Bailey; and Charlie Stoudenmire were 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 January 23, 2023. Ms. Segelken made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Mr. Carroll made the second. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings: The first public hearing opened at 4:01 PM and was for the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, to provide an “Event Venue” use and provide for the districts in which it is allowed in Section 3.3, and to provide for the applicable conditions to allow the use in Section 3.4. Mr. Reaves introduced the item and asked Ms. Shuler to present the request. Ms. Shuler explained that staff was requesting this amendment to address the missing use of a smaller event venue within the ordinance. This was brought to staff’s attention by a recent request from a property owner. Staff researched different ordinances across the state and tried to address any concerns or issues that could arise with this use. As currently written, the use could be allowed in certain residential zoning districts as long as all of the conditions were met and a special exception was granted by the BZA. Hearing no public comment, this public hearing was closed at 4:03 PM. The second public hearing opened at 4:03 PM and was for the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Section 13.3.5 to provide that the seven-member Design Review Board is to be comprised in part, of one architect, to include a landscape contractor in Section 13.3.5(b)(2) and three at-large seats. Mr. Reaves introduced the item and asked Ms. Shuler to present the request. Ms. Shuler noted that this request was brought by a member of Council, and received first reading from Council at the January Council meeting. She explained that prior to the UDO, only one architect was required on the DRB, but that the UDO changed the requirement to two to provide multiple architectural viewpoints on the Board. Ms. Shuler was not provided the reasoning for the request to switch back; however, she did mention that finding two architects to serve on the DRB had proven to be somewhat difficult. 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 ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 13, Section 13.8.2(A)(4) to exclude demolition of noncontributing accessory structures. Mr. Reaves introduced the item and asked Ms. Shuler to present the request. Ms. Shuler stated that this change was being made to correct an unintentional contradiction in the ordinance. The amendment would clarify that demolition of noncontributing accessory structures can be approved at a staff level. Hearing no public comment, this public hearing was closed at 4:06 PM. The last public hearing opened at 4:06 PM and was for the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 15, Definitions, to provide the definition for “Event Venue” and correct the definition for “Utility Pole.” Mr. Reaves introduced the item and asked Ms. Shuler to present the request. Ms. Shuler briefly explained that this just added the one definition and corrected another that was incorrectly defined due to an error. 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 that there is one new street name to consider for the alley between People, Places, and Quilts and Public Works Arts Center. It was recently brought to staff’s attention that this alley is a public alley, so it needs to be named. She noted that the possible names were from a local artist who has had his studio off the alley for a number of years. Ms. Segelken made a motion to approve the name of Melfi Alley, and Mr. Carroll made the second. Mr. Reaves commented that he has a bit of a hang up about naming a street after living people because they may turn out to be scoundrels, and Ms. Segelken noted that that was one reason that she went with Melfi Alley. He called for the question, and the motion passed unanimously. The second item under New Business was the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 3, to provide an “Event Venue” use and provide for the districts in which it is allowed in Section 3.3, and to provide for the applicable conditions to allow the use in Section 3.4. Ms. Segelken made a motion to recommend the amendment as stated, and Mr. Carroll made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question and the motion passed unanimously. The third item under New Business was the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance Chapter 13, Section 13.3.5 to provide that the seven-member Design Review Board is to be comprised in part, of one architect, to include a landscape contractor in Section 13.3.5(b)(2) and three at-large seats. Mr. Carroll made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment, and Ms. Segelken made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question and the motion passed unanimously. The fourth item under New Business was the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 13, Section 13.8.2(A)(4) to exclude demolition of noncontributing accessory structures. Ms. Segelken made a motion to recommend the amendment as stated, and Ms. Profit made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question and the motion passed unanimously. The fifth item under New Business was the ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 15, Definitions, to provide the definition for “Event Venue” and correct the definition for “Utility Pole.” Mr. Carroll made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment, and Ms. Profit made the second. Mr. Reaves called for the question and the motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: There were no items under Miscellaneous. Adjourn With no further business for the Commission, Ms. Segelken made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Carroll making the second. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Date: __________________________ Jessi Shuler, AICP Director of Planning Approved: _________________________________________________ Jim Reaves, Chairman or Jim Bailey, Vice Chairman  ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 2023 Owner/Applicant: CVEA Summerville III, LLC TMS#s: 220-00-02-147 Location: N. Maple Street Description: one tract totaling 10.34 acres Request: Annexation and Zoning to G-B, General Business The property owner is requesting for the above referenced tract to be annexed into the Town from Berkeley County. The existing zoning in Berkeley County is PD-OP/IP, Planned Development – Office Park/Industrial Park. This property is included in the Town’s ‘Industrial’ area as identified within the Summerville: Our Town, Our Future Comprehensive Plan as well as on the accompanying Future Land Use Map. This property was acquired by the property owner in order to provide a full commercial corridor along N. Maple Street, as the properties to both sides and across N. Maple Street are zoned G-B. The area also falls under the Sheep Island focus area in the 2014 Vision Plan appended to the Comprehensive Plan. That plan proposes a mix of uses, including single-family and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and civic uses. Under the G-B “General Business” zoning district, most of these uses would be allowed, with the exception of single-family detached and industrial uses. This property is planned to be developed in coordination with the other properties along N. Maple St. Although the proposed zoning does not meet the Town’s Future Land Use Plan, given the surrounding zoning, annexation and zoning to G-B is recommended for approval.  RD W Y K PK R N PA X O T S E NES N SI BU T EX LE MAP N T N HL Y BRIN A L Z onin g G -B L I A nnex atio nandZ onin gtoG -B 2023 D isclaimer:T hismapisagrap hicrep resentationo fdataob tainedfro m vario usso urces. Allefforts P U D hav eb eenm adetow arran tth eaccu racyo f thismap;ho w ever,th eT owno fSummervilled isclaimsall rep resentatio nan dliab ilityfortheu seo f thism ap . A nne xatio nRe q u est 0 0.1 0.2 M i C oord inateS ystem :WG S1984W ebM ercato rAu xiliaryS p h ere  REZONING STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 2023 Owner/Applicant: Invesco LP TMS#s: 232-00-02-131 Location: Marymeade Drive and Angus Drive Description: one parcel totaling 12.983 acres Request: Rezoning to G-B, General Business, from L-I, Light Industrial The property owner is requesting for the above referenced parcel to be rezoned from L-I, Light Industrial, to G-B, General Business for the reasons of buffers and use. This property is included in the Town’s ‘Business Park’ area as identified within the Summerville: Our Town, Our Future Comprehensive Plan as well as on the accompanying Future Land Use Map. The property has remained vacant, and the applicant is requesting to rezoned to G-B, which is the same zoning that abuts two sides of the property. Most of the uses prioritized in the Business Park area identified in the Comprehensive Plan would also be allowed under the G-B zoning district. While the Town does have a limited amount of land zoned for industrial uses, the intensity of the development surrounding this property greatly limits the type of industrial development that would be feasible in this location. Based on these findings the requested G-B, General Business, zoning district is interpreted by staff to be in conformance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and is recommended for approval. 2  S 7A 1 Y IR W A C IG H EY H EL K ER B NG UM ST M A B E RY M RLIN E A D ED GM R YERSP K W Y F A R M S PRIN G SR D Z onin g G -B R ezonin gtoG -B L I D isclaim er:T h ism apisagrap hicrepresentatio no fdatao btain edfro m M F-R vario thism usso ap;h u o rces. A w ev lleffo er,th eT rtsh o w no av eb fS eenm um m ad etow ervilled arran isclaim ttheaccu sallrep racyo resen f tation 2023 0 0.15 0.3 M i R ezo nin gRe q u est an dliabilityfo rth eu seo f thism ap. Km C oord inateS ystem :WG S1984W ebM ercato rAu xiliaryS p h ere 0 0.3 0.6  UDO AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 2023 Description: Amendments to Chapter 13 – Administration, Section 13.3.4 – Tree Protection Board Reason for request: The requested amendments are proposed by staff to deal with issues that were brought to staff’s attention regarding authority of the Tree Protection Board under state law, the authority of staff to approve tree removal, and the correct process for appeals of decisions of the Tree Protection Board. These amendments clarify those points. Town Council gave first reading to these amendments at their meeting on March 9, 2023. 3  ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO), 13.3.4, TREE PROTECTION BOARD (TPB) BY: MORE FULLY SETTING FORTH THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE TPB WAS CREATED; CLARIFY THE SECTION UNDER WHICH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IS APPROPRIATE; AND, ADD A NEW SECTION 13.3.4(C)(5) APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE TPB WHEREAS, since its inception the trees in the Town of Summerville (Town) have been an integral part of the Town’s character and history, and WHEREAS, the motto of the Town is “Sacra Pinus Esto – The Pine is Sacred”, and WHEREAS, the Town was the first municipality in the State of South Carolina to receive the designation “Tree City U.S.A.”, and WHEREAS, UDO 13.3.4(A). AUTHORITY does not cite S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-870, the authority under which the TPB was created, and WHEREAS, S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-870 provides in part “A local government which enacts a zoning ordinance which makes specific provision for the preservation and protection of historic and architecturally valuable districts and neighborhoods or significant or natural scenic areas …. may provide for appointment of a board of architectural review or similar body.”, and WHEREAS, UDO 13.3.4(C)(3) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW allows the TPB to hear appeals from Staff regarding decisions made under UDO 8.3 which provides for decisions made in conjunction with the TPB and not for unilateral decisions of Staff, and WHEREAS, UDO 13.7 allows for unilateral decisions of Staff regarding tree removal, and WHEREAS, UDO 13.3.4 TREE PROTECTION BOARD does not specify a procedure of how appeals are to be made from a decision of the TPB, NOW THERFORE, Be it Ordained by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Summerville, in Council Assembled that: 1. The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance to the same extent as if set out verbatim. 2. UDO 13.3.4(A) is hereby amended so that it will hereafter read: A. Authority: The TPB is hereby established to assist the Town in the protection of its tree canopy, grand trees, and landscapes pursuant to the authority granted under S.C. Ann.§6-29-870. 3. UDO 13.3.4(C)(3) is hereby amended so that it will hereafter read:  3. Administrative Review: The Board may hear and decide appeals where it is alleged Town Staff erred in an order, requirement, decision or determination regarding Section 13.7, et seq. In such cases the Board may affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, Town Staff’s action. The Board has all the powers of Town Staff in such cases and may direct the issuance of a permit. 4. UDO 13.3.4(C) is hereby amended by adding a new section (5) which will hereafter read: 5. Appeals from the Tree Protection Board: Any person who may have a substantial interest in any decision rendered by the Tree Protection Board may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Dorchester County, South Carolina by filing a written Petition with the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days after the decision of the Board is rendered. If there is any conflict with the appeals process in UDO 13.7, the provisions of this section shall prevail, AND, It is so Ordained! Dated this day of , 2023 A.D. ___________________ Ricky Waring, Mayor Town of Summerville ATTEST: ___________________________ Beth Messervy, Clerk to Council Introduction and First Reading: _____________ Second and Final Reading: _________________