PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Committee Members Present: Bobby Utsey, Ted Power, William Van Nort, Joe Bustos Staff Present: Mac Burdette, Joel Ford, Allen Young, Christiane Farrell, Brad Morrison, Liz Boyles, Kevin Mitchell, Colleen Jernigan, Saila Toropainen Council Members Present: Larry Carr, Thomasena Stokes- Marshall, Kruger Smith

Mr. Utsey called the meeting to order at 12:00 pm and explained procedure.

1. Approval of Minutes

MOTION: Mr. Van Nort moved to approve the minutes from last month’s Planning and Development Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Bustos. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

2. Updates a. Building Permit Allocation Program

Ms. Toropainen said there was a deadline for quarter 2 of this fiscal year this past Friday. Seventy five applications have been received out of the 239 available. They thought the number would be lower since the new construction code was adopted in June. Apparently it created a gold rush.

Mr. Utsey asked if last month there was a surplus of 21.

Ms. Toropainen said there was and that 21 were included in the 239 permits.

b. Comprehensive Plan Process

Mr. Ford said Ms. Boyless will pass out a revised outline based on previous meetings. Mr. Utsey had suggested the staff meet with Charleston County Planning staff, which they did. They went over the Comprehensive Planning process as the Town staff foresees it for the Town. The county’s timeline is further back than Town’s. The county probably will not begin efforts in that direction until after the first of the year. There was discussion about large, specific tracts of land that may or may not be affected by the annexation, land use, and zoning policies. They also talked about water and sewer service and further acknowledged some of the difficulties the county is dealing with right now. They felt like they barely got the UDO passed. When it did get passed, one of the last concessions made by the Planning Department dealt with stripping many qualifiers for their Planned Developments. The County’s were similar to the Town’s, but it was changed in that an acre of land could not support a Planned Development. Mr. Ford did receive some encouraging comments in that the county wouldn’t necessarily endorse a request for a Planned Development. The big issues for the Town of Mount Pleasant are land use and density. They also discussed the possibility of trying to submit changes to the County Council to qualify Planned Developments based on the size and scope--mixed use, preservation, open space, etc. The county does not feel, at staff level, that it is the thing to do at this point in time. They will try again in the planning process, when they get to it. He would anticipate it being a no-change scenario well through the year. It will probably take them at least a year to get anywhere from where they are now.

Mr. Utsey asked if there is the possibility of having a mesh, if you will, between the two.

Mr. Ford said anything is possible. One of the county’s largest concerns is that a lot of the UDO supporters are up for re-election. County elections will be held in November, so they’re just standing back to see what happens. It does very little good for a staff to propose sweeping changes if they don’t think they have popular political support. That’s just hard reality.

Mr. Burdette said if they want to be successful in getting the Town to recognize urban land use problems and their regulations, they’ll have to get their constituents to start talking about it. He gets the impression that most county folks think politicians get elected by the rural people.

Mr. Ford said it was a very nice meeting.

Mr. Utsey said he would like to see it go in the direction of making life easy for the county, Town, and Waterworks. If the county and Town can come together and generate a master land use plan, then there wouldn’t be spitting contests while looking at tracts of land. He has asked for a meeting with Mr. Scott, an off the record conversation about getting the county’s plan a little closer to the Town’s to make life easier for everyone. After the election, whether he is re-elected or not, Mr. Utsey thinks the issue will take a higher profile.

Mr. Burdette said from staff’s standpoint, a future issue is annexation policy.

Mr. Utsey said he thinks there is room for teamwork.

Mr. Van Nort said it is on the Town’s front burner, but the county’s back burner.

Mr. Ford said a positive thing he heard was that on smaller rezoning requests (spot rezoning), there is a lot of frontage on US 17 that people assume is protected, and they did agree at staff level to recommend disapproval on any request inconsistent with the color designation (colors on land use map). That’s at least a starting place. He has been at meetings for a rezoning request and yet County Council is participating through the CTC on 17/41 realignment, when they don’t even know what it will do to the access. At least they will have staff support on that particular issue.

Ms. Boyles said she heard them say they would look more at urban areas than the last time. They were fighting so many fires in the rural areas that they couldn’t deal with the urban areas.

Mr. Power said as part of the update, they need to revisit the vision statement. As the statement was drawn up it speaks of what the Town is and what it is going to try and retain in terms of residential character, protected neighborhoods, agricultural/residential, original neighborhoods, etc. In his experience, a vision statement should also speak to what the organization or entity aspires to. Perhaps it should be tweaked so it is more prospective. If staff believes there is value to his suggestion, it should be done fairly early in the process because it may provide more guidance for the reviewers.

Mr. Burdette said a vision statement is a good place to start, but it is only as good as the people who put it together. He encourages a process involving Town Council, not just staff.

Mr. Power asked for some ideas on how to review the vision statement.

Mr. Utsey said he does not have a problem with that.

Mr. Carr said since the county’s Comprehensive Plan review process is the same as the Town’s, and the Town has a five year deadline from the last vote, is their deadline the same?

Mr. Ford said the county is out of synch because the Town has the original state deadline. Since so few municipalities and counties were meeting the deadline, they changed the state law and extended the deadline. Five years would be from the new deadline. The county is off by at least a year.

Ms. Boyles said part of that is because the Town adopted its Comp Plan in two sections, and the Town is aiming to meet the deadline of five years from the first part. The land use part was adopted almost a year later.

Mr. Ford said staff would like two review teams--one focused on land and development patterns and the other on community facilities and level of service.

Mr. Power said he would like staff to review with Council the objectives of the review teams. That way they’ll be in agreement as to what those folks will be asked to do.

3. Review of Planning Commission Recommendations from the August 21, 2002 meeting

a. Request to change the zoning district designation for property located at 1080 Rosemead Road, TMS# 535-12-00- 069, consisting of lot 69 in the Rosemead subdivision, from R-2, Low-Density Residential, to LO, Limited Office.

Mr. Ford said the Planning Department received a fax dated 9/3/2002 requesting this agenda item be withdrawn. It had been recommended for denial by the Planning Commission following a public hearing. Withdrawal is tantamount to denial. It will be Mr. Young’s and Mr. Burdette’s call to include it on the Council’s agenda. Typically, a motion is needed to accept the withdrawal as a denial.

MOTION: Mr. Van Nort moved to recommend to Council to accept the withdrawal of TMS# 535-12-00-069. Seconded by Mr. Power. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

b. Impact Assessment and Sketch Plan approval for Marsh Cove at Dunes West, 88 single-family lots, and Harpers Ferry Way Road extension (information only)

Ms. Farrell said this item is for information only. There are 88 lots in Marsh Cove to include the Harpers Ferry Way Road extension to Highway 41, which will be the second gate. It was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission by a 6 to 0 vote.

4. Request to amend the Sweetgrass Office Park Planned Development Ordinance allowing for a fast food restaurant as a permitted use on Lot 1, TMS# 558-00-00-398.

Mr. Utsey read a letter addressed to Saila Toropainen from Buck Investments in which they request a withdrawal. The applicant wrote, “We understand that by choosing this action we would have to wait one year to reapply, but that Council could be asked to consider a shorter reapplication period should the client wish to reapply within a year”. Mr. Utsey said that needs to be made clear in the motion.

MOTION: Mr. Van Nort moved to recommend to Council to accept the withdrawal of TMS# 558-00-00-398 as requested by the applicant. The applicant is fully aware that he will be subject to a one year waiting period unless Council sees fit to modify the waiting period. Seconded by Mr. Power. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

5. Revised Impact Assessment and Sketch Plan for River Watch at Remley’s Point

Mr. Ford said he is trying to recall if a recommendation was made at the last committee meeting. The June item shows as an impact assessment and sketch plan approval. The reason it’s back here is because they are working on the open space dedicated area in exchange for abandonment of the right of way, the monetary amount, and docks, etc. He thought they actually had a formal recommendation as far as the impact assessment and sketch plan.

Mr. Utsey said they did. They recommended approving the impact assessment, but they are here today because of issues to be worked out between the two attorneys. The committee was not going with a second reading of the ordinance to abandon the right of way, nor go to Council with approval until the two parties came to complete agreement. He asked the two attorneys to address the issues.

Mr. Tom Harper, attorney for the developer, said the last 30 days have been productive. There is agreement on all issues except the perimeter fencing. The neighborhood requested that there not be a uniform perimeter fence around the project to give it the feel of separation from the rest of the community. Lot owners would have the right to erect their own fence if they so choose. There are a few places in which the developer has asked permission to put up one side of a lot owner’s fence to protect the view. The developer has withdrawn one of the four areas, the community has agreed to two of them, so the only issue is a fence along the lines of lots 18 and 29. They’ve agreed that the developer will not put a uniform fence around the perimeter, but will be allowed to put a fence on the western edge of lot 8, the eastern edge of lot 1, and will not put one on the eastern side of 17. They are down to the last issue and hope to announce a resolution next Tuesday at the Council meeting.

Mr. John Altman, attorney for ECCC and Remley’s Point community, said Mr. Harper completely and accurately described the process. The issue of separation has been important for the community from the get go. They don’t want another community, another neighborhood, within their community. Their focus is inclusion rather than exclusion. There was concern with privacy fences constructed along the indicated areas. He pointed out two areas where fences will be allowed for the benefit of the property owners and the Town.

Mr. Carr asked if the parties involved are discussing restrictive covenants outside the Town’s purview, or something they would make a provision of the impact assessment.

Mr. Utsey said the Town does not want to get involved with restrictive covenants--it’s not their bailiwick.

Mr. Carr said when Council composes its motion; it should be clear under what guise the agreement is being made and what the enforcement mechanism is going to be.

Mr. Harper said the developer will agree to put a restriction on the development saying the HOA will not construct the uniform fence. The fences they’ve discussed on sides one and eight would be part of the committee’s recommendation to Council.

Mr. Altman said the general terms of the agreement have already been outlined and Mr. Young has been copied on correspondence. This is the only outstanding issue.

Mr. Utsey said the only thing the Town would be party to enforcing will be outlined in the motion and approved by Council. HOA and restrictive covenants would not be covered.

Mr. Young agreed. He said since it appears there was a deferred recommendation made (not specific), now would be the ideal time to weigh in on specific conditions. Each condition can be discussed. If there is something out of line with the Town’s authority, hopefully one of the attorneys would raise the point. For thoroughness and process, the committee needs to specifically list conditions at this time.

Mr. Utsey clarified that the motion action was to defer the impact assessment until after the other two committees completed their work, which has been done, and then the item will come back to this committee for the recommendation to Council.

Mr. Power asked if all the considerations have been memorialized from a Town perspective in the approval process of the Finance Committee’s recommendations.

Mr. Young said it was to the best of his understanding, but he would suggest the Planning Committee make them part of their recommendations as well. He would also include wording about the abandonment being approved and be very thorough. The Planning Committee’s recommendation should include everything.

Mr. Power said he was going to recommend that staff collate the series of recommendations from the Finance Committee, the Transportation Committee, Planning Commission, this committee, which dealt with the perimeter fencing, and have it available for next Tuesday.

Mr. Burdette said they could have a special committee meeting prior to the Town Council meeting next Tuesday.

Mr. Utsey said that’s a good recommendation.

Mr. Bustos clarified that the fence issue should be in the covenants and restrictions, and not necessarily part of the motion.

Mr. Utsey said some of it could be part of the motion, but if the HOA gets together after the fact and generates their set of covenants, this committee has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Power said there is nothing wrong with acknowledging, that as part of this whole agreement, the parties agree to do that within the context of what they’re responsible for.

Mr. Bustos said his point is if it’s not in the motion, but left to the HOA, the homeowners can all get together and change their covenants at some point.

Mr. Altman said there will be a preclusion in the homeowner’s agreement preventing them from getting together subsequent to the approval. The individual homeowners will be allowed to put up fences on their parcels, but as an association, there will be an express preclusion, even if there is agreement amongst the homeowners.

Mr. Bustos said he doesn’t want the Town to be fighting that two years down the road. He asked if the applicant is satisfied with the mechanism being in place to prevent it from happening.

Mr. Altman said he doesn’t think he’s being overly optimistic. The structure of the agreement between the parties has already been prepared, and hopefully it will be formalized over the next few days. The Town will be provided a copy of the agreement.

Mr. Van Nort said time has run out on the whole subject. Next Tuesday should be the day. And if it isn’t, he will vote against the whole thing. There are too many irons in the fire every month. It’s time to fish or cut bait.

Ms. Elizabeth Gillette, of Trico Engineering, said the developer has been very sympathetic to the separation issue. There will not be a sign differentiating this portion of Remley’s Point from the rest of Remley’s. The developer is only asking for one side at the front, instead of after the lot is sold.

Mr. Utsey said they need to defer this to a special Planning Committee meeting prior to Town Council. Staff will gather all the needed data from the two attorneys and all that’s been covered by Finance and Transportation.

Mr. Ford said if he will be gathering information, which he doesn’t mind doing, he wants to make clear that he does not want the Town of Mount Pleasant to become implicated in trying to figure out who builds which fence when, what kind it is, etc. The attorneys need to run their agreement by Mr. Young or Mr. Ford to assure that the Town will not be implicated in a neighborhood level fence enforcement. The easiest thing would be to have a plat showing a specific area not allowed to have fencing.

Mr. Young said he concurred with Mr. Ford. Also, he noted that there will be an agreement between two parties, but the Town will not be a party to the agreement. The terms should be carefully crafted, and some of the language might need to be included in the impact assessment that the Town is not a party to the agreement.

Mr. Van Nort asked if the HOA will address fences.

Mr. Harper said it has not been prepared yet, but it will.

Mr. Van Nort said fences should be covered by the HOA, not the Town.

Mr. Power said they will acknowledge that they will do that as part of the series of understandings and agreements that have been reached.

Mr. Carr said he thinks they are trying to avoid a Molasses Creek situation--an 8 foot fence separating the neighborhood from the area. That is in within the Town’s authority to prohibit. He suspects that the parties are already sorting out the difference between a four foot fence to keep the dog and kids in from an eight foot barrier around the subdivision. He doesn’t think anyone here ever supported the idea of separating from the rest of Scanlonville and Remley’s Point. Mr. Ford and Mr. Young can sort out what is appropriate for the Town to cover as a blanket authority in terms of the impact assessment. For example, no fences higher than X.

Mr. Bustos said the idea of not being a gated community meant there wouldn’t be any separation. He doesn’t want to belabor it, but he can’t believe the applicant would let the whole thing hang in the balance of a fence.

MOTION: Mr. Power moved to have this committee convene prior to next week’s Council meeting for the purpose of consolidating the committee recommendations with respect to the matter of this project. Then it will be recommended to Council at its meeting. Seconded by Mr. Van Nort. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

6. Procedures for appointments and reappointments to Board and Commissions

Mr. Burdette said there was some discussion about when a vacancy or reappointment came up, there would be an automatic advertisement. Currently, if a person wishes to be reappointed, and makes that wish known to Council, Council would decide to advertise the position by a vote in an open session. A vacancy would automatically be advertised.

Mr. Power asked Mr. Young what is specifically required if a Council member wants a position to be advertised. What does the ordinance say?

Mr. Young read from Section 31.023--Proceedings to fill a vacancy: “Reappointments will also be made by Town Council and notice thereof shall be provided by the clerk of Council approximately 30 days prior to the expiration date of the term. Reappointments will be placed on the Council agenda by the Town administrator as soon as reasonably possible. Reappointments will be made pursuant to parliamentary procedure and will not be treated as a vacancy unless a majority of Town Council objects to the same pursuant to a motion on the public record at a Town Council meeting. If the reference objection is passed by Town Council, the position will be advertised and the identified procedure herein above will be followed”.

Mr. Power said there were comments made about making sure this process is uniform for all boards and commissions. He believes there are three entities to concern themselves with: BOZA, Planning Commission, DRB. All the other boards are not under any particular committee’s oversight.

Mr. Burdette suggested adding TAC to the list.

Mr. Power said they have never been involved with it.

Mr. Ford said Town Council does their reappointments, and it is part of the zoning code.

Mr. Power said they haven’t been involved in any interviewing process.

Mr. Burdette said that’s an ad hoc responsibility.

Mr. Power said he wants to clarify it is three entities with the possible inclusion of TAC.

Mr. Van Nort said he thinks it’s all boards and commissions. It doesn’t matter if the Council has interviewed the people or not. The others are equally important.

Mr. Power said his feeling is based upon what transpired last month. There is no need to make any change to the ordinance as Mr. Young just read it. Council and its authority to appoint citizens to boards and commissions also has a prerogative not to extend their appointment. The existing ordinance that allows a member of Council to propose a position be put out for advertisement should continue. If that individual Council member can get a majority support, then the process should stay in place. Reappointments, unless there’s an objection or desire to have the position advertised for appointment, that the individual be reappointed. However, as was raised last month, they need to correct the situation with BOZA in which three members’ terms come up the same month. He thought it had been taken care of three years ago. He wants to make sure there is no overlay of terms creating a vacuum in experience. They should use the Planning Commission template as a way of duplicating the same process on all the other boards and commissions.

Mr. Utsey said he thinks the ordinance is good. If there is someone they don’t want appointed, then it can be dealt with. A board like BOZA, DRB, or Planning Commission, they really don’t need three people walking off at one time. It needs to be staggered.

Mr. Bustos said he knows Mr. Burdette has been building a litany of subjects for a retreat, and this could be one.

Mr. Burdette said if they have the time to interview, it’s a good thing.

Mr. Utsey said the staff works with boards and commissions much more closely than Council, so staff has the prerogative of coming to the committee and suggesting replacement.

Mr. Burdette said if there were anything serious, especially a question of integrity, staff would certainly make that known. Staff has a different perspective of boards and commissions than the committee does.

Mr. Utsey said they rely upon staff for opinions on anything and everything.

Mr. Van Nort said he doesn’t have a problem with the ordinance as written, but the committee should look at the overlapping of tenures. MOTION: Mr. Power moved to recommend to Council that the existing procedure for reappointments to the Town’s boards and commissions remain in place, as is. Seconded by Mr. Van Nort. Discussion: Mr. Utsey asked if it was okay to do it that way. Mr. Young said it is certainly an appropriate motion. Mr. Power said Council asked this committee to look at it. He’s not sure what going to a retreat to discuss the matter will solve. The question was whether or not they would deal with reappointments. Mr. Van Nort said he would like to add having staff look into members of each committee to be in alignment…Mr. Power said he would be happy to amend the motion. Mr. Power amended the motion to include a complete review of all boards and commissions to minimize the overlapping of appointment dates. Mr. Van Nort seconded the motion. Call for the question: MOTION CARRIED 3 to 1 with Mr. Bustos opposed.

Mr. Burdette said staff needs to get Council to figure out the right time to schedule interviews.

Mr. Power suggested, in regard to the three BOZA openings, the committee affect the normal ordinance procedure. At the next Council meeting if the majority of Council makes it a decision to have any and all positions re-advertised, then they follow the ordinance.

7. Request from East Cooper Community Outreach for impact fee relief

Mr. Burdette said there is a letter on file requesting consideration with the Public Services and the Planning Committee for development impact fees. Mr. Burdette explained to Mr. Williams that there is no provision in the Town’s ordinances for relief from impact fees, save transportation impact fees for churches. Every other building permit applicant is responsible for paying an impact fee. He told them they were willing to plead their case with the Planning Committee in case there is some mechanism to offer relief through Council. The applicant has not pulled a permit for the building yet. A rough estimate for impact fees could be as high as $24,000. There is no question that ECCO does a good job for the community at large. But Town staff is bound to relay that ordinances are ordinances. It would take an act of Council to provide a donation to ECCO.

Mr. Lyons Williams, president of ECCO’s board of directors, said they are close to construction of a new building. ECCO developed right after Hugo when there was a tremendous need to provide relief for many people. ECCO provides support to thousands of people even now--food items, clothing, dental care, help with prescriptions, electric bills, water bills, etc. ECCO has been operating since Hugo in a woefully inadequate 4000 square foot facility on North Lansing Drive. They need a lot of warehouse space for food items. They have gathered enough money to build a 12,000 square foot facility on Six Mile Road. A rendering of the building was displayed.

Mr. Rick Leary, Executive Director, indicated the warehouse, dental clinic and office space on the drawings. Currently there are 73 volunteers and 29 dentists involved with the organization. They are looking at other organizations and state agencies, such as DHEC and DSS, using office space on a transitory basis.

Mr. Williams said all their funding comes through charitable donations, and they struggle each year with a paid staff of three. They try to be good stewards of the money given them by making it go as far as possible. The demand always exceeds what they are able to provide. They would like to use the money people donate for helping the needy in the area. If they could get some relief from the impact fee, it would help a lot.

Mr. Utsey asked how much the building will cost to build.

Mr. Williams said the building will probably cost around $900,000, much of which came from a very generous donor’s estate. If it hadn’t been for the donor, they wouldn’t be building today.

Mr. Utsey said they should be commended for advancing the project this far. He feels everyone should be given the opportunity to speak. Sometimes Council can deliver, and sometimes it cannot. The Town needs to find some way to generate money to help charities. There is a local case in which affordable housing is being built and they would like relief. He thinks the Town attorney would say they cannot do anything about that. There is a certain obligation to help, although what it is, Mr. Utsey doesn’t know.

Mr. Burdette said this is a difficult area for public agencies. The Town is steward of tax dollars and must make decisions with great discretion as to how the money can be used. And they have to be careful about favoring one charity over another. He would put this in the same category, in one respect, as Economic Development. There are incentives in that if not for the Town’s involvement, the industry may not choose to relocate in Mount Pleasant. There are certain organizations like ECCO or Meals on Wheels, that need facilities. They’re not like Rotary or Sertoma. The work they do in the community depends on the facility they have. If you want them in your community, you may have to do some investing, just like Economic Development. The committee can decide to donate money to an organization for the benefit of the community at large. They could go to Executive Session for discussions with Mr. Young about it. The next step would be to ask businesses and corporations to help with matching funds. Although $24,000 is a big hit on ECCO, it is a lot of tax dollars too.

Mr. Utsey asked if there is a source of funding to tap, like the accommodations tax.

Mr. Burdette answered no.

Mr. Smith said some years ago the Town recognized that Meals on Wheels was an important part of the community and made a $10,000 contribution. Meals on Wheels and ECCO are the only two charitable organizations of note that benefit the public at large.

Mr. Burdette said if they feel the need for an official connection, the Town has made it known that it will rely on ECCO in times of emergency to help distribute goods and services. The Emergency Preparedness Plan designates ECCO as running a major distribution point. Perhaps the Town could be linked with ECCO in that regard to transfer some money to help construct the facility. Perhaps ECCO could then t