PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE February 4, 2003

Committee Members Present: Joe Bustos, William Van Nort, Paul Gawrych, Kruger Smith Staff Present: Mac Burdette, Joel Ford, Christiane Farrell, Brad Morrison, Saila Toropainen, Liz Boyles, Allen Young Council Members Present: Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, Larry Carr

Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm, introduced committee and council members, and explained procedure.

1. Approval of Minutes

MOTION: Mr. VanNort made a motion to approve the minutes from last month’s meeting. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Call for the question: MOTION CARRIED 4 to 0.

2. Update on Building Permit Allocation Program

Ms. Toropainen said there was a surplus available through the end of January, and a couple of hours before the business day ended, they did indeed run out of the surplus. There were 12 applications in excess of what was available; and they had already added the 39 cancellations and expirations, so they were well beyond what was initially established for the quarter. In short, 12 applications from January will carry over to the April 1st allocation. They haven’t allocated any more multi-family. It seems on average, they have stayed at the 260 permits per quarter, either running out of permits or getting right at the available number by the end of the surplus. The last allocation when there will be more than 200 permits available will be on April 1st, and after that a new fiscal year will begin with 181 available each quarter. If the town won’t have to allocate within the next couple of quarters, then they would probably start allocating by the second quarter of 03-04. Right now they are meeting the demand. The 180 permits in fiscal year 03-04 will be a little above the 3% growth rate.

Mr. Bustos said they are anticipating an excess.

Ms. Toropainen said they probably won’t have to allocate quite yet. Usually what happens is the town gets 1/3 applications by the deadline, and after the deadline, the surplus is given out. That trend will probably continue for a couple of quarters, and then the builders will start getting the clue that we will start running short of permits.

Mr. Smith asked about the small builder wanting just one application.

Mr. Ford said that small builder would be able to get a permit in the next quarter if it’s not available at the time of application.

Mr. VanNort said the trend is about what was expected.

Mr. Ford agreed.

Mr. Smith asked about the multi-family permits. Looking out towards the future, when can they expect the 689 to be gone?

Mr. Ford said they don’t know. They usually go at about 200 at a time. There are reservations for Rivertowne Condos. Other projects have been approved, but they haven’t reserved any.

Mr. Burdette said there are more approved than there are permits available.

Mr. Smith said in all likelihood, in the next year or two, they will be down to zero.

Mr. Ford said he honestly doesn’t know. He would have to speculate on vacancy rates and the feasibility of a few projects. There was one in Parkwest that might not go through.

3. Review of Planning Commission Recommendations from the January 22, 2003 meeting

a. Request to establish a zoning district designation of RPH, Patio House Residential, for a 5.31 acre vacant parcel bearing a TMS No. 532-11- 00-164 and located off of New Parrish Way.

Ms. Farrell said the property is surrounded by the Bi-Lo on Ben Sawyer Boulevard, which is zoned AB, Northpoint subdivision (PD), Harborgate Shores (R-2, low density residential), and Riverwood apartments zoned MF. The developer will be required to extend New Parrish Way from in front of the Bi-Lo parking lot to the second entrance of Lakeside Terrace. A turnaround at the end of New Parrish Way would be provided, an existing 1.46 acre lake--not designed for this development that the developer is required to demonstrate any excess volume exceeding the minimum storage area--will be in compliance with the town’s storm drainage regulations, and efforts should be made to save the significant tree on lot four. The motion from Planning Commission was a recommendation for approval to zone the property RPH.

Mr. Bustos asked if there is any plan to connect Sandbar Road to Harborgate Shores.

Mr. Burdette said he would anticipate a lot of opposition. He asked if there is any way to tie this project into the new Bi- Lo development.

Mr. Ford said they would have access to the Bi-Lo.

Mr. Burdette said there would be an exit from the Bi-Lo out onto Rifle Range Road.

Mr. Ford said the driveway turnout is already there.

Mr. Burdette said there is at least one stub out street from Harborgate to this easement, but folks are generally against new traffic through a subdivision. It would be a difficult sell.

Mr. Ford said that was deeded over from the Hyman family to MPW. When Home Farm was built, instead of connecting Rifle Range back into Home Farm, they came up with Bay Club Drive and Center Street extension. The ROW is where a major sewer force main is located now.

Mr. Bustos said he is concerned at the turn off onto Rifle Range, there is a gas station, a private road, the karate place, and this.

Mr. Ford said the private road is still unincorporated.

Mr. Smith asked if there has been a hard look to see if there’s adequate drainage.

Mr. Ford said the pond was created in part because of the drainage problems.

Mr. Burdette said the drainage problems at Momma Brown’s are a parking lot issue, and the drainage problems at Simmon’s Point have nothing to do with this project. That water drains toward Simmon’s Seafood.

Mr. Ford said Bi-Lo will be redeveloped and retention ponds will be built then. The drainage pond has an outfall that goes into our easement across Northpointe and on down. This ties into that.

Mr. VanNort asked if Northpointe uses this lake at all for drainage.

Mr. Ford said they don’t since they’re downstream and headed the other way.

Mr. Burdette said before improvement was made this area did have some impact on Northpointe.

Mr. Bustos said the Planning Commission asked that staff coordinate to preserve a 20” tree.

Tom Durante, Empire Engineering

Mr. Durante said they did move the property lines over for lots 1 - 4 and put the line basically where the tree is in order to save it.

Mr. Burdette said it’s a good infill project. Mt. Pleasant Academy has one of the lowest enrollments in the area. He would have to check to see if students would go to Whitesides or the academy since it’s right on the line.

MOTION: Mr. Gawrych made a motion to approve the item as stated for recommendation to Town Council. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Call for the question: MOTIONN CARRIED 4 to 0.

b. Proposal to amend the following sections of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to the sequencing of terms of office on boards and commissions: Section 156.400 (B) Term of Office (Planning Commission) Section 156.420 (B) Term of Office (DRB) Section 156.431 (B) Term of Office (TAC) Ms. Toropainen said a while back the committee directed staff to review the terms of boards and commissions. Both DRB and TAC have had occurrences of up to four terms expiring at the same time. The thought was it is detrimental to the board to lose that many members at one time. Committee members have a handout in their packets showing all current terms and proposed new expirations for the terms. BOZA went through the same process approximately a year ago. They are now staggered so two terms expire each January. They have done the same thing for DRB and TAC so two terms expire each January; and, none of the current terms would be reduced in length. Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed code amendment, and it has forwarded a recommendation different from staff’s draft. The recommendations are: Planning Commission terms remain as they are now and no amendments be made. Currently, those terms are staggered so they expire every five months and there is no incidence of more than one term expiring at one time. Both TAC and DRB reviewed the proposals. DRB agreed to adopt a schedule whereby two terms expire at one time, with the exception of rather than January as originally proposed, the terms would expire the previous August. For TAC, there would be up to two member expirations at one time in October rather than January.

Mr. VanNort asked if staff has any problems with the recommendations.

Mr. Ford said they don’t. When you get down to it, the burden is really on the committee because they have to come up with the appointments. The question comes up if it is better to consider all appointments once a year or three times throughout the year. It looks like it would be two appointments in August, two in October, and as many as three or four in January (BOZA and the Planning Commission). Staff doesn’t have strong feelings one way or another. Their job is to remind the committee of expirations, but after that the notice goes in the paper, applications are received, and then it comes to council.

Mr. Smith said he would think the Planning Commission had strong feelings about their suggestions, and he would support them since they are in the hot seat.

MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion to recommend to Town Council that the terms and expiration dates be consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Call for the question: MOTION CARRIED 4 o 0.

4. Request to change zoning designation for parcels bearing TMS Nos. 598-00- 00-028, currently zoned ED, Economic Development District, and 598-13-00- 001, currently zoned PD, Planned Development District, to RPH, Patio House Residential District, OP, Office Professional District, and AB, Areawide Business District. The said undeveloped parcels are located on 28.79 acres northeast from the intersection of US HWY 17 North and Lexington Drive. Impact Assessment approval also. Action item.

Ms. Farrell said this request is for changing the zoning designation for the property known as Laurel Park located near Ivy Hall. Both properties are undeveloped, and parcel 001 was zoned PD in 1994 as part of the Ivy Hall PD. The current allowed uses for that property are OP. In 1998 an impact assessment and PD ordinance was adopted for Laurel Park Senior Village consisting of 46 cottage units, 80 apartments, 70 residential assisted living units, and 88 nursing home rooms. The PDO has expired. Parcel 028 was rezoned to ED by council in July, 2002. The developer is proposing to rezone 19 ½ acres for residential patio homes with the remaining 7 ½ to be subdivided into two outparcels. Parcel A, closest to Lexington Drive, would be zoned OP; parcel B would be zoned AB with deed restrictions not allowing fast food restaurants and gas stations. When parcel 028 was rezoned the Comp Plan was also amended to recommend economic type uses. The residential component of the proposal would not be in compliance with the current land use plan. In terms of the impact assessment, it has actually been changed since the original submittal so that it’s now 76 lots. The two outparcels would be rezoned OP and AB. By request of the Planning Department, a 50’ ROW has been reserved through the property between the outparcels and the residential portion. The ROW would become part of the parallel road system adjacent to Highway 17 and connect to Parkwest. Acquisition of additional property from First Baptist Church and Laurel Hill Plantation would be required. The site falls within the Charleston County Overlay District, so a 100’ natural roadside buffer is generally required. However, it can be reduced by Town Council during the planning process. The developer is requesting that the buffer be reduced to 50’ in width. Staff had a number of issues with the original submittal. There would be a loss of up to four historic trees. Today’s plan has been revised from 79 to 76 lots, and there has been an increase of open space, and all historic trees will be saved. However, when Eddie Bernard, the town’s site planner, visited the site he felt several significant trees were missing from the tree survey. Staff has not seen an updated tree survey. The developer is proposing to install a sewer pump station since the existing gravity sewer system in Ivy Hall is not deep enough to serve the proposed development. A letter of coordination from MPW states that they object to the additional pump station and they would like the developer to connect by gravity to the existing system. The developer needs to coordinate with MPW to determine which system is best suited for the site. The town’s long range transportation plan recommends the installation of a multi-use path on Highway 17 from Highway 41 to Parkwest Boulevard. Staff would recommend the path be installed on the front of the outparcels along Highway 17. A letter of coordination from SHPO states that an archeological survey may be necessary. A follow-up letter from Brockington and Associates states that they will conduct a survey prior to the issuance of any OCRM permits. Brockington also states in the letter that if any significant cultural resources are found, they will assist the developer in the management of those resources. The town will provide garbage collection to the residential portion with the commercial portions contracting with a private agency. Site plan and design review approval will be required for both outparcels. Staff had additional issues with the sketch plan, which have all been modified or taken care of. There were two motions from the Planning Commission. The first one for approval failed. The second motion was a recommendation for denial of the applicant’s request to change the zoning designation. It also included recommending denial of the impact assessment. Finding of fact: The town has an overabundance of property approved for residential development while it has a shortage of land zoned for ED. The town will not be able to continue providing necessary services to all residents if the town systematically rezones all ED land to part residential use. Furthermore, this project is in part contrary to the town’s Comp Plan. There was a recommendation for denial with a vote of 7 to 1.

Mr. Morrison said the land uses of 79 single family homes, 25,000 sq ft of office, and 25,000 sq ft of specialty retail would generate about 2000 daily trips with150 at am peak hour and 180 at pm peak hour. Staff looked at nine intersections, and the analysis all went from Parkwest Boulevard to Longpoint Road, as well as all the accesses to Highway 17 and Lexington Drive. They did assume approved development traffic with the analysis for the shops at Rivertowne, the high school, Charleston National town homes, Hamlin town homes, and the Cambridge Square development in Parkwest. All the site accesses do conform to the town’s minimum separation requirements. For instance, US 17 to the proposed frontage roads is 370 feet, and then back to Laurel Park Trail is another 240 feet. The right in/right out access on US 17 is almost 800 feet from Lexington Drive. Additional property would have to make the connection to Laurel Hill Plantation and the First Baptist Church property. The project was run in QRS and no significant adversity was found. The intersection of Parkwest and US 17 has a signal and has an existing and future level of service of acceptable. US 17 and Lexington Drive-- they look at turns for unsignalized intersections. Existing level of service is E for am peak hour and D for the pm peak hour. E means you incur over a 35 second delay. F is over 50 seconds. A signalized intersection would have a longer delay; unsignalized thresholds are lower. Basically they will add about 50 pm peak hour trips to the right turn, so they would be considered E or F at that time. They looked at if adding volumes would warrant a traffic signal--it is unlikely because the majority of the turns are right turns, which are generally not counted for the turn movements since they can be unimpeded. They also discussed the intersection of US 17 and Porcher Bluff. They will probably need to develop turn lanes for the approach, although it’s not as a result of this project. US 17 and Highway 41 should be completed by March or April 2004. Any existing deficient level of service would be corrected with that improvement. US 17 and Hamlin Road’s existing level of service for am and pm peak hours is C or better. Without the project it would likely fall to LOS D due to general growth. It would primarily be due to the side street movement delays. US 17 and Longpoint Road LOS at am and pm peak hour is D or better. With the future condition, they assume the improvements the town is proposing, so the LOS of C or better would be maintained. Accesses to the project at 17 would be an acceptable LOS. Staff concurs with the installation of a right turn lane due to the high speed approach and the volume associated with that movement. The rest of the Lexington Drive access would be LOS B or better with the build scenario.

Mr. Gawrych asked what the currently zoned ED portion was zoned previously.

Mr. Ford said it was zoned ED in July 2002. It was part of the overall ED based on the strategic ED plan.

Mr. Smith said the portion that was PD has expired, so what would it be zoned?

Mr. Ford said it reverts to its previous zoning of low density residential in Charleston County.

Ms. Farrell said the PD is a very small portion as indicated and is zoned for office uses.

Mr. Ford said the Land Use Map is revised in accordance with ED strategic plan. There was a more intensive land use previously adopted for in terms of number of units, etc. In that regard, this request is less than what was approved by a previous Town Council. Here again, they only approve a PD with the idea that the developer will go forward and carry out the PD. Unbeknownst to the town, evidently the group that owns this property decided not to do the retirement community and they let the PD expire.

Ms. Farrell said the Planning Commission vote was 7 to 1 for denial of rezoning.

Mr. Smith said there were many issues not resolved between the Planning Commission and this committee hearing it for the first time. He asked if the staff has reconciled these questions.

Ms. Farrell said the trees are the biggest issue and that was resolved by reduction of lot numbers and increase in open space. The other issues were just sketch plan issues like a section of sidewalk was missing which would be caught by the preliminary plat stage.

Mr. Smith said staff comments noted that the residential aspect would go against the town’s Land Use Comp Plan. Is it still against that?

Ms. Farrell said the Land Use Plan is shown as ED.

Mr. Ford said there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting about ED. Mr. Estee did send in a letter requesting the opportunity to expand upon his reasons why ED is or is not feasible or appropriate for the site. Since there was no change to the proposal per se, except for dropping three lots, the applicant was told to come back to the committee.

Mr. Smith said the school letter of coordination as well as the SCE&G letter need to be addressed.

Ms. Farrell said Mr. Surles has commented on the SCE&G letter in that it lacked in a number of details. His point is he would want all power lines to be located underground. The school’s letter of coordination had numbers inconsistent with numbers submitted previously. She has discussed that more than once and doesn’t know if it’s due to the transition from Dr. Davis to an interim person. Staff comments note what the correct number should be.

Mr. Gawrych asked if roughly 25 acres would be ED. Is there a cutoff as to what size?

Mr. Ford said consultants worked for the town but they didn’t ask for staff’s opinion on criteria for feasibility. He cannot think of any sites less than ten acres that were recommended.

Mr. Bustos asked if the developer would like to speak.

Rick Estee, Meridian Development

Mr. Estee said he has spent a lot of time, energy, and money on this project. It’s very important and he would not have spent that much time and money if he thought the project wasn’t good for the town as well. He lives in the town, he’s a local developer, and this is a $20 million investment. Unlike many of his competitors, he is the largest locally based home builder, and he builds a more catered product. The profits are reinvested right here in Mount Pleasant. They got killed during the Planning Commission, so he would like to address those issues here today.

Mr. Smith asked if the developer knew the property was zoned ED.

Mr. Estee said he did not because the seller of the property did not know it was zoned ED. Lenny Krawcheck is here on behalf of the seller. They are under contract, but the property has not been purchased yet.

Mr. Bustos said he won’t allow an open ended presentation. Could the applicant do it in about ten minutes?

Mr. Estee said he had asked Mr. Ford for as much as 45 minutes.

Mr. Ford said the length of time is up to the committee.

Mr. Estee said when they talked about the project they didn’t involve the Ivy Hall HOA. The president is present and wishes to speak. Because one of the issues is whether or not there is too much residential product, he commissioned Prudential Carolina Real Estate’s Will Jenkinson to speak of supply versus demand. He hired a consultant from Columbia who wrote a letter about the site and its viability as an ED site, and listed what is and what isn’t available for ED.

Mr. Bustos said he wanted Mr. Estee to go back to the Planning Commission last month because if they had heard what he had to say, they might not have voted 7 to 1 against it.

Mr. Ford said he could not have gone back to the Planning Commission last month.

Mr. Bustos said they could have started the process.

Mr. Estee said his problem is he is under contract with a deadline.

Mr. Smith said this has been a bone of contention for some time in which people present to the committee a different picture from what was presented to the Planning Commission. It has been the policy to have the Planning Commission hear everything and make the decision at that point. Then the committee would look at how the project would fit.

Mr. Bustos said he would allow about 15 minutes.

Steve ___, President of Ivy Hall HOA

Mr. ___ said he understands the biggest issue is that the site was zoned ED. From Ivy Hall homeowner’s perspective, the last thing they want to see is some large commercial development in their back yard. He understands the need for ED growth in the community, however there is a shortage of homes within the price range proposed by Rick Estee. That project would be beneficial to the 250 homeowners in Ivy Hall because property values would go up. The project fits in very well with Ivy Hall. The commercial development would be one story, low impact with increased buffer lines along Lexington Drive, a turn lane into the commercial area, and 76 homes perhaps one tier in quality above Ivy Hall that would fit well. He and Mr. Estee met with the Ivy Hall board and it is in support of the project. The key word is strategic, and Ivy Hall would rather see Mr. Estee’s project with commercial and residential components.

Mr. VanNort asked if the residents met with Mr. Estee.

Mr. ___ said time did not permit that. Trying to get a consensus from 250 homes would be tough. He would venture to say that in all likelihood, those properties abutting the project would not be appeased because they are looking into woods now. However, given the choice of a storage area, for example, they would probably prefer seeing someone else’s back yard.

Mr. Estee said some key issues were 28 acres from the 50 zoned ED would be too large a chunk. In fact, at the July 2002 council meeting, they gave final reading approval to 148 acres. Taking out this 28 acres would still yield 120 acres of property zoned ED with a finished area ratio of 10,000 sq ft per acre. That’s 1.2 million sq ft of office space to be built on properties already zoned ED. Mr. Estee also hired an ED consultant who has met with Mr. Stempin and appropriate developers and folks in the community. His findings were, bottom line, this is not a viable site for ED. He displayed a list of sought after properties for ED.

Mr. Krawcheck said his client did not receive notification. He did receive written notice of the Planning Commission hearing and the vote dismissing the application. There was notice published in the newspaper, but his client did not know of it.

Mr. Ford said he was at the public hearing.

Mr. Krawcheck said the result of that meeting was that the ED zoning was dismissed as far as he was concerned.

Mr. Ford said Planning Commission recommended denial at that time, so he probably assumed that was the end of the line.

Mr. Bustos said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this being rezoned ED.

Mr. Ford said yes it did, initially.

Mr. Estee said it was voted down 5 to 3.

Mr. Krawcheck said it came as a complete surprise to the owner of the property.

Mr. Estee said based on the data base, there are 719 acres targeted for ED which would yield another 7.2 million sq ft of office space. Another 880 acres were identified as properties like the Marino Tract that are unincorporated, and if annexed into the town would yield another 8.8. In all that is 16 million sq ft of ED land named as viable sites. Of that 16 million, based on the current absorption, the town absorbs an average of 96,000 sq ft per year and is building 125,000 sq ft per year. That would yield a 165 year supply of office space. It is very competitive and difficult to get those projects. Over the past three years the ED authority for Charleston Regional Development Alliance has announced 41 projects, and not one was for Mount Pleasant. As a result of not winning much of that business combined with the absorption of the existing 1.2 million sq ft there is a 165 year supply if everything gets built out. The argument to that is there are 150 acres currently zoned ED, and what’s the chance they can get any more zoned? Recently the town announced projects it’s proud of towards ED--ATD, Ness Motley, Benefitfocus, Those projects went on properties not zoned ED. They went there because they were logical for ED. Further, those projects happened not because it’s cheap to do business in Mount Pleasant, but because their principals and many employees already lived here. The residential drove the office investment. A case in point is he moved to Mount Pleasant and many of his employees did also. He commuted to Faber Place but made the decision to work where he lived. They built a 16,000 sq ft office building on the bypass. He can counter the argument that residential doesn’t pay for itself. Thirty percent of his proposed project will be commercial and generate higher fees. As far as fees go, these competitive projects are so competitive that things like impact fees, inspection fees, etc come off the table. In fact, there are tax abatements for ED projects. The only way to win the business for ED is to give up some incentives. The way to do that is cutting the 2 ½ times ratio. Another point made was the town has an overabundance of property approved for residential development. When looking at the residential component altogether, it may look like a lot of lots and homes sitting idle. There is a high supply and a low demand. You have to be equally balanced and economic employers will want to know that their junior management and administrative people can afford to buy housing in the town. Otherwise, they have to move to James Island and West Ashley and commute, which ties back into traffic. Finally, Mr. Estee said the last point he wants to make is that the project is not consistent with the Comp Plan. When the property was in the county it was zoned for residential use, then it became a PD, and at some point it was commercial and ED. The June 4th Planning Commission meeting showed the request being denied 5 to 3 to zone ED. He read from the minutes that staff didn’t want a 27 acre commercial area in front of Ivy Hall. Ivy Hall should have a seat at the table in terms of if this does or doesn’t make sense. The minutes said even if it’s not zoned ED the town should at least amend the land use plan to clarify it be something other than commercial. Larry Carr said it might be appropriate to rezone the property to avoid any B type uses, mainly shopping centers. The problem with Comp Plans is there are so many parcels of land that sometimes it isn’t logical. Is there a way to break it up so it’s logical? A residential buffer up against Ivy Hall and commercial up front on the highway would be logical. Logically Ivy Hall would get close to what they want, the town gets higher fees, and it’s a sensible project.

Will Jenkinson, Prudential Carolina Real Estate

Mr. Jenkinson said he was handing out stats compiled by Prudential. The $160,000 - $180,000 price range is in high demand. There is a glut of $260,000 and above. In the ten newest subdivisions in Mount Pleasant, the lots start at $60,000. When you take that lot cost with set restrictions and builder requirements, the price range of $250,000 and above is reached. As of today, the availability of homes under $180,000 (commensurate with a young professional’s salary) is only 35 active homes. Of those 35 there is only one home considered new construction. Six of them were built since 1997. Mr. Estee’s product is v