municipal complex building a, public meeting room 1 staff

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

JANUARY 10, 2014 MINUTES

Municipal Complex Building A, Public Meeting Room 1

Present: Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, Chair, Chris O'Neal, Mark Smith, Elton Carrier. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Kent Prause, Kelly Cousino Ms. Stokes-Marshall called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. She stated that comments from the public were submitted on cards to the Committee at the last meeting and those comments were forwarded to Town Council. She asked that the public reserve their comments until after staff’s presentation. 1. Approval of the December 19, 2013 Special Planning Committee Meeting minutes Mr. Smith moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Continued discussion regarding the relationship of revitalization efforts and existing

neighborhoods specific to parking, setbacks, density, and mixed use Ms. Farrell stated that staff has worked extensively to prepare the requested information. She reviewed the issues for additional discussion with the Committee. Ms. Farrell reviewed the mixed use ordinance with the Committee. She stated that there is no percentage requirement for the mixture of uses except in the Live Oak to Chuck Dawley area which requires 60% of ground floor street frontage to be retail, restaurant, or entertainment uses. She reviewed the density incentive with the Committee. Ms. Farrell reviewed the current density with the Committee. She reviewed visuals of different densities with the Committee. She reviewed graduated density scenarios with the Committee. Mr. O’Neal asked if the option 3 with incentives would mean that there would be 49 units on two acres. Ms. Cousino clarified that it would be mixed use and therefore some of the development would be commercial, not entirely residential. Ms. Farrell reviewed lot sizes with the Committee. Ms. Farrell reviewed parking with the Committee. Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked if on-street parking provides more buildable area. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Ms. Farrell reviewed setbacks with the Committee and stated that in the UC-OD there is also a build-to line. Ms. Farrell reviewed building heights with the Committee. Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked the Committee for their thoughts on mixed use. Mr. O’Neal expressed surprise that there was not a minimum requirement for mixed use. He suggested that mixed use should be better defined in order to have good mixed use developments.

Special Planning Committee January 10, 2014

of 7

He stated that he does not want to see haphazard mixed use or “token” mixed use developments in order to receive the bonus density. He suggested that a percentage of commercial or residential should be determined to ensure good mixed use developments. Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked the Committee if a percentage should be determined for mixed use. Mr. Carrier suggested that mixed use if good for the boulevards, but should remain on the boulevards and not be off of the main boulevards. He suggested that it should be determined where the mixed use would not be allowed as moving away from the main boulevards. Mr. Smith agrees with having a percentage in concept, but suggested that this might be too restrictive. He suggested that the mixed use percentage requirement would be better if allowed on the main boulevards. Mr. Carrier suggested that the percentage would not be as important if restricted to the main boulevards. Mr. Smith asked if there are any areas that would be of concern regarding redevelopment and using mixed use. Ms. Farrell answered that there would be several properties. Ms. Farrell asked for clarification and if commercial would not be desired. Mr. Carrier answered in the affirmative. Ms. Farrell stated that the underlying zoning would have to be considered as it would mean a rezoning of those properties. Mr. O’Neal expressed concern with those properties already zoned commercial. Mr. Smith stated that he would not be comfortable rezoning properties from commercial. Ms. Farrell answered that the overlay district could be constructed to provide further limitations and suggested that if desired, a property owner could then request to be taken out of the overlay district. Mr. Smith expressed concern with infringing on the property owner’s rights. Mr. O’Neal asked if a very dense residential site could be accomplished with minimal commercial. Ms. Farrell stated that staff would review the site to determine if the amount of commercial would satisfy the spirit of mixed use. She stated that there currently is not a specific standard. Mr. Carrier suggested that all of the issues discussed should be considered and “tweaked” in order to accomplish a good, smart development. Mr. Smith asked how the design approval process works. Ms. Farrell answered that it would be reviewed by staff for design and form and to determine if it meets requirements such as architecture, landscaping, lighting, etc. She suggested that this is similar to form-based zoning. Mr. Smith stated that Design Review Board (DRB) approval is currently optional and suggested that if it were not optional, the benefit would be for more opinion from design professionals and more public input. Mr. DeMoura stated that the DRB was established in order to have a formal review of commercial projects to maintain the quality of buildings constructed in the Town. He stated that several years ago, Town Council determined that having the option for staff design review would expedite commercial projects and would be less burdensome for property owners and developers.


of 7

Ms. Stokes-Marshall suggested that the majority of the developers and property owners choose to have staff design review. Mr. Smith suggested that there should be a balance and asked if the process should be changed. Ms. Stokes-Marshall suggested that the DRB process is not under review at this time and suggested that this should not be changed. Mayor Page suggested that the mixed use is not the issue, but rather the bonus density. She suggested that bonus density should be addressed. Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked about having a percentage for mixed use. Ms. Farrell answered that there is currently no percentage requirement. Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked about density. Ms. Farrell answered that there is a bonus density allowed for mixed use. Mr. O’Neal suggested that the bonus density is allowed in order to encourage mixed use. Ms. Farrell agreed. Mr. Smith asked if staff has a recommendation on how to move forward. Ms. Farrell answered that mixed use as provided is appropriate. She stated that with respect to certain elements, when taken together affects the number of units that could be constructed. She suggested that some modifications to these elements would address the concerns. She suggested that the height limits are sufficient, address the concerns, and recognize adjacent residential. Mr. O’Neal asked if setbacks and parking modifications would be needed. Ms. Farrell answered that if modifications are done in these areas it would affect the number of units that could be accomplished. Mr. Smith asked if the number of stories should be decreased. Ms. Farrell answered that it could be decreased if desired, but stated that the number of stories should not be increased within the 40 foot height. Mr. Smith asked about parking and what staff would recommend. Ms. Farrell answered that the two considerations are whether on-street parking is allowed and the number of spaces required per residential unit. She stated that the 20% reduction for commercial was allowed in order to have a more walkable community. She suggested that on-street parking should be allowed; however, a master plan should be devised and approved by SCDOT showing where the on-street parking would be allowed. She suggested that the on-street parking might not be allowed to be counted by the developer for the project. Mr. Smith asked if residential parking could be increased to two spaces. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Ms. Stokes-Marshall agreed that an on-street parking master plan is needed and should be accomplished. Mr. O’Neal moved to direct staff to work with SCDOT for an on-street parking plan in the UC-OD and determine where parking would be allowed. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. Mr. Carrier asked about the 500 foot parking allowance. Ms. Farrell answered that parking within 500 feet can be counted toward required parking spaces, but there is not a limitation on how many


of 7

times that on-street parking can be counted for multiple businesses except as determined by staff. Mr. Carrier asked if this is only for commercial. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Ms. Stokes-Marshall expressed concern with being able to count the parking 500 feet for multiple projects. Ms. Farrell answered that requiring on-site parking would address this. Mr. Smith suggested that the motion should be inclusive of all elements. Mr. O’Neal suggested that this was a separate issue from the other elements, but would defer voting until all elements are addressed. Mr. Smith asked about lot sizes. Ms. Farrell suggested that a good solution would be to have public dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Smith asked if this would be a 30 foot right-of-way. Ms. Farrell answered that 30 feet could be considered and stated that it would be built to Town standards and then dedicated to the Town. Ms. Farrell stated that lot standards should be addressed such as setbacks, parking, etc. She stated that the minimum lot size for townhomes is 1500 square feet, with 4000 square feet for patio homes. Mr. Carrier asked if the parking would be tandem. Ms. Farrell answered that there could be an allowance for tandem parking for better aesthetics. Mr. O’Neal asked if the issues could be separately addressed. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. O’Neal moved to require parking on site for residential units with a minimum two parking spaces per residential unit in the UC-OD. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. The Commission discussed setbacks. Ms. Farrell recommended that the reduction footnote for certain properties be eliminated. Mr. Smith asked if this would affect the build-to line. Mr. Farrell answered in the negative. Mr. Carrier moved for removal of the footnote allowing for a reduction of setback in the UC-OD. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Smith asked what the negative aspect would be. Ms. Farrell answered that it would reduce the buildable area. Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. Smith moved to require a minimum 30 foot dedicated right-of-way for single family residential, attached or detached units. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Carrier moved to approve a maximum 40 foot height with a maximum two stories allowed. Ms. Stokes-Marshall seconded the motion.


of 7

Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked the ramifications of changing the height. Ms. Farrell answered that it would mean less floor area. Mr. Smith suggested that the design could be addressed through design standards. Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 1 to 3 vote, with Ms. Stokes-Marshall, Mr. O’Neal, and Mr. Smith opposed. Mr. Smith expressed concern with having a minimum lot size that could effectively mean the property was unbuildable. Mr. O’Neal asked how the proximity of houses could be addressed. Ms. Farrell answered that a minimum setback could be established for each lot. The Committee agreed that no changes were needed regarding minimum lot size. Mr. O’Neal asked how street frontage would be addressed. Ms. Farrell answered that this could be addressed by staff. Mr. O’Neal asked about setbacks for individual lots. Ms. Farrell answered that staff could come back with recommendations. Mr. Smith moved to direct staff to bring back recommendations on internal setbacks with illustrations. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Carrier asked if the motion regarding parking would address setbacks. Ms. Cousino answered in the negative and stated that the location of the parking was not specified. Ms. Farrell expressed concern with specifying where parking would be located. Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. Mr. Carrier asked if graduated density should be addressed. Ms. Farrell answered that it could be addressed if desired, but suggested that it would be difficult to apply. Ms. Carmen Scott, 506 Royall Ave, asked about enforcement of current requirements for projects such as Earl’s Court not having five foot sidewalks, landscaping, etc. Ms. Stokes-Marshall stated that Earl’s Court has already been approved and permitted and therefore the new recommendations would not be applied to that project. Ms. Scott clarified that the development is not in compliance with the current requirements. Mr. Carrier answered that his understanding is that the sidewalk would be widened to five feet. He stated that in regard to the landscape canopy, he is not aware of what the requirements are. Mr. Smith stated that his understanding is that the project is in compliance and that the email from Ms. Scott was responded to by staff. He stated that a certificate of occupancy cannot be issued until all requirements are met. Ms. Scott stated that the community would like to ensure that the requirements are being met during the process of construction so that there is not a delay in receiving the certificate of occupancy and the property sits dormant. Ms. Stokes-Marshall stated that she is confident that staff will be reviewing this project to ensure that it is built as required. Ms. Lucy Borden, Simmons Point, expressed concern with the amount of traffic in the Simmons Point area and asked if that area could be removed from the UC-OD. Ms. Farrell stated that Town Council’s direction was to incorporate Ben Sawyer Boulevard as part of the UC-OD when the overlay district was established.


of 7

Mr. O’Neal stated that this would be continually reviewed and issues addressed as needed. Mr. Smith agreed that Town Council is aware of the concerns that have been expressed and any concerns would be addressed. Mr. Bob Royall, King St, suggested that the key issue is that Mount Pleasant should be a wonderful place to live. He suggested that high density, more congestion, poor parking, etc. have created safety hazards and increased traffic, which will affect the quality of life. He suggested that the Old Village Historic District has seen increased traffic because of previous approvals. He expressed concern with safety hazards on Whilden Street and parking issues. He suggested that the residents are being pressured to allow a development that would bring in additional safety hazards and would increase traffic. He suggested that the African American residents should not be pressured to have a high density development next to where they live. He suggested that Earl’s Court should not be allowed. He suggested that the Old Village Historic District area should be protected and preserved so that the quality of life is maintained for that area. Governor Edwards concurred with Mr. Royall’s comments. Mr. Dave Shimp, Simmons Point, suggested that requiring developments to go through DRB Board approval would be beneficial in order to have public input and more opportunity to ensure smart development. He expressed concern with the impact to infrastructure increased development would have. Ms. Virginia Boyd, resident, expressed concern with the impact of recent developments to the area and asked that their concerns and opinions be considered. Mr. Tom Utsey, 813 Pitt St, expressed concern with changing the density for the Coleman Blvd area and suggested that this is what happened with the establishment of the UC-OD. He expressed concern with the bonus density. He suggested that the ordinance should be eliminated in its entirety. He suggested that the UC-OD should be eliminated and the underlying zoning re-established and require off-street parking. Mr. Walter Brown, Venning St, agreed with Mr. Royall and Gov. Edwards. He suggested that the African American residents are being impacted by Earl’s Court. He suggested that the African American community was removed from the Old Village Historic District. He suggested that Earl’s Court should not be allowed. He suggested that the community should be engaged and involved in the approval processes and in the election process. Ms. Karen Wilde, 617 Ann Street Extension, agrees with the comments and stated that those that signed the petition wanted significant change or elimination of the UC-OD. She suggested that mixed use should be revisited. She suggested that the residents should be making the decisions for the Town. She expressed concern with pedestrian and bike safety in the Old Village area and Coleman Boulevard area. She suggested that the UC-OD ordinance should be reviewed and significant changes made. Mr. Jeff Kirkland, resident, concurred with Ms. Scott relative to the compliance of the construction of Earl’s Court. He suggested that the Town has a fiduciary responsibility to place a stop work order on the property until SCDOT gives approval or ensures that the development is being


of 7

constructed to the requirements. He suggested that the back two parcels should remain greenspace and if this were accomplished, the residents would be satisfied. Ms. Stokes-Marshall suggested that she is not aware of any Town officials or staff that is pushing the African American community out of the Old Village area. She stated that there has been extensive work over many years for the UC-OD and it has evolved over time. She stated that there was extensive public input and many opportunities for the public to be involved in the review process. She stated that it is important for the residents and the community to be involved and engaged in the development of the Town and to attend meetings. She stated that staff did not make a determination on where the boundaries would be for the OVHD. She thanked the residents for their attendance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComm01102014

January 10, 2014

Issues identified by Planning Committee at December 19 Special Meeting for further discussion • Mixed Use- industry standard

• Density- graduated density and lot size

• Parking- impact of removal of on street parking and increasing residential parking requirements

• Setbacks- provide review of current standards and illustrations of various setback distances

• As noted by Planning Committee, the focus of discussion should be on

the Coleman- Ben Sawyer portion of the Urban Corridor Overlay

Current Ordinance: For the purposes of calculating residential density, mixed use projects or

developments are those consisting of both residential and nonresidential uses such as commercial, retail, office, or professional services.

156.329(E)(1) A mixture of commercial and residential uses is encouraged overall. This mixed use may include separate commercial use buildings and residential dwellings on the same property, as well as commercial and residential uses in the same building. In order to facilitate the mixture of commercial and residential uses in the same building, residential uses may occur on the street level or any building level containing commercial uses

156.329(P)(3) Specific mixed use requirements for certain areas. (a) A minimum of 60% of the ground floor street frontage shall be utilized for retail, restaurant,

or entertainment use in buildings with frontage on Coleman Boulevard, within the area located between Live Oak Street and the intersection of Coleman, Ben Sawyer, and Chuck Dawley Boulevards. Such retail, restaurant, or entertainment space shall be of a meaningful depth so as to create a functional, usable commercial space that addresses the activity zone and creates interest and activity in the public realm.

(b) The remaining 40% of first floor level floor area may be devoted to office or residential use.

(c) This requirement shall only apply to parcels that have greater than 100 feet frontage on Coleman Boulevard, measured property line to property line

Direction from Committee: Research industry standard for minimum requirement of mixed use

Findings: Mixed-use developments will generally follow the

pattern of the surrounding development or current market trends. Markets driven by residential development will have a larger percentage of residential uses as a percentage than office or retail and vice versa. Just as retail strip centers, shopping centers, office buildings, and residential are developed based on location, population, income, supply and demand, traffic patterns, financing, and a myriad of market factors, mixed use developments are even more sensitive to these same market factors. As a result, there is no single formula or rule-of-thumb for mixed use development.

Findings paraphrased from information from the American Planning Association, Urban Land Institute, Congress for New Urbanism, Urban3- a nonprofit management group, and Urban Planning professors from the University of Arizona and University of Washington

Current Ordinance: 156.329(H) Base density varies depending on location within the Urban Corridor. The base

density for Coleman- Ben Sawyer is 16 units/acre for single use residential and 20 units/acre for mixed use. Density incentives are as follows:

• (a) Minimum size block. For each block comprised of at least four acres. A block need not comprise one parcel, or one ownership, but all owners should agree on combined uses and site design, with one cohesive development plan.

• (b) Workforce housing. For a minimum of 15% of total units provided for workforce housing, as defined in § 156.007.

• (c) Public space/open space/parks. For dedicated, contiguous public gathering space, open space, or improved park area with a minimum area of 4,000 square feet for projects greater than one acre in size; or for a minimum of 10% of total project area for projects of one acre or less in size.

• (d) Curb cuts. For projects with no curb cuts on the boulevard or frontage road, but that instead rely upon a parallel or perpendicular street for access. For projects with no frontage on the boulevard or frontage road, this incentive is available when there are no curb cuts on the primary access road, as determined through the design review process.

(3) Density increase for residential units. A corresponding 0.2 increase in density of residential units is allowed in conjunction with increased FAR for the provision of the above incentives. Therefore, the increased floor area may be utilized to accommodate an increase of up to 20% of residential density for each incentive.

(4) No residential density limitation. No residential density limitation shall apply to projects that are mixed use and meet all of the requirements of divisions (2)(a) through (d) above.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/South Carolina/pleasant/titlexvlandusage/156.007

Direction from Committee: • Analyze the application of “graduated” density

as development approaches residential areas

outside of the Overlay;

• Review the impacts of minimum lot size

requirements

Visualizing Density, Julie Campoli, Alex S. Maclean

Graduated Density Scenarios • Scenario 1- 100 x 100 parcel (10,000 square feet) • Scenario 2- 200 x 200 parcel (40,000 square feet) • Scenario 3- 300 x 300 parcel (90,000 square feet) • Density was graduated every 50 feet beginning with

4 units/acre, 8 units/acre, 12 units/acre, and 16 units/acre

• No density incentives have been applied • Scenarios do not consider other site impacts, such as

trees and access, that may limit buildable area

Relevant Information • One acre= 43,560 square feet • 10,000 square feet= R-1 low density minimum lot size

Graduated Density

Scenario 1: 100 x 100

Graduated Density


Graduated Density


Illustrations only represent unit totals and do not include commercial or consider unit type.

Consideration: By only allowing higher density on the portion of the property furthest from residential, developers may choose

to construct commercial adjacent to existing residential and use the other portions of the property for the higher density.

The above scenarios do not consider site constraints which could affect the total number of units.

Scenario One

10,000 sf

Two

40,000 sf

Three

90,000 sf

Graduated Density

4, 8, 12, and 16 units per acre 0 units 6 units 23 units

Areawide Business (Underlying Zoning)

12 units/ acre 2 units 11 units 24 units

Single Use Residential (Overlay Zoning)


Mixed Use (Overlay Zoning)


Mixed Use plus one incentive (Overlay Zoning)


Lot Size Current Ordinance: 156.329(N) There are no minimum lot sizes for residential lots within the overlay. Single family lots may be platted as “postage stamp lots” and do not require public right of way. The following are scenarios applying various minimum lot sizes in conjunction with a required right of way for single family detached homes. Scenarios do not consider other site constraints, such as trees and access, that may limit buildable area.

Rectangular Parcel Scenarios

Square Parcel Scenarios

The same parameters were applied to the Square parcel scenarios as were applied to the

Rectangular parcel scenarios. This scenario only evaluates 1000 square foot lots.

Current Ordinance: 156.329(M) On Street Parking

• Shall be allowed on residential streets within and adjacent to the UC-OD; provided it is depicted on an on-street parking plan map, approved by the town and SCDOT, submitted with the development site plan.

• On-street parking spaces located in the right-of-way and within 500 feet of walking distance from any building entrance may count toward the required parking for the use or uses on the lot, utilizing Urban Land Institute shared parking standards; provided, however, that care and discretion are exercised in the design review approval process to not “recount” the same parking spaces for multiple uses, and to ensure that parking demand is realistically assessed and met.

Parking Requirements • Required parking shall be calculated utilizing the shared parking standards established

by the Urban Land Institute.

• No additional parking spaces shall be required for uses conducted in the designated activity zone.

• Required parking for commercial uses may be reduced by 20%.

• Parking spaces for residential uses shall be limited to a minimum of one space and a maximum of two spaces per dwelling unit.

Parking Garage • There shall be no maximum parking requirements for commercial uses if a

parking structure is utilized on site.

Direction from Committee: Analyze the

impact of changing parking requirements • Requiring parking to be met on site

• Increasing residential parking requirements

Scenario- Two acre mixed use

development with 20 units per acre and

4,000 square feet of retail commercial

space

Primary difference illustrated is one parking space per dwelling versus two spaces

Current Ordinance: Setbacks are measured from the

property line. Setback requirements vary from one area to another. The

following applies to Coleman- Ben Sawyer. 156.329(P)(5)

All properties fronting the boulevards have a “build-to line” except for the

last two properties on Ben Sawyer at the causeway which have a setback.

Front and Side Setbacks on Other Streets • 20 foot setback- A1,B1, D3, E2, F1, F2, G1

• 10 foot setback- D2

• 20 foot setback with ability to reduce to less than 5 feet- C1, C2, C3, E1

Rear Setbacks: Five feet except where rear or side

property lines abut residential properties lying outside

of the overlay, a 15 foot setback with a minimum 10 foot

type “C” bufferyard with an F3 fence is required.

Direction from Committee: Provide a

review of setbacks where the overlay

abuts residential, include illustrations

showing various setbacks

Current Ordinance:

Rear Yard Setback/ Buffer • 15 foot setback

• 10 foot Type C Buffer 3 canopy trees, 6 understory trees, 20 shrubs/ 100 linear feet

• F3 fence= 6 foot wood stockade fence

Setbacks

5 feet

10 feet

20 feet

Less than 5 feet

Setbacks

5 feet

10 feet

20 feet

Less than

5 feet

Measured off of aerial photos from back of curb/ edge of asphalt to building face.

This measurement represents to distance from the street edge to the building, not the actual setback from the property line.

Measured off of aerial photos from back

of curb/ edge of asphalt to building

face.

This measurement represents to

distance from the street edge to the

building, not the actual setback from

the property line.

Measured off of aerial photos from

back of curb/ edge of asphalt to

building face.

This measurement represents to

distance from the street edge to the

building, not the actual setback

from the property line.

Current Ordinance: The maximum height for buildings in the UC-CBS

that are located within 50 feet of an abutting

residential property line, or an abutting street right

of way adjoining residential property; provided such

residential property is located outside of the UC-

CBS, shall be 40 feet, measured from grade to roof

ridge, and further provided that no such building

shall exceed a maximum of three stories.

156.329(P)(5)

Illustrating 40 foot height limit zone

Illustration showing 40 foot

height limit within 50 feet

of residential

Hilton Garden Inn

Johnnie Dodds Blvd. and

Wingo Way

municipal complex building a, public meeting room 1 staff

Documents