PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE December 3, 2002

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, Kevin Mitchell, Colleen Jernigan, Lee Cave Council Members Present: Larry Carr, Thomasena Stokes- Marshall, Bobby Utsey

Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 12:32 pm, introduced Committee and Council members, and explained procedure.

1. Approval of Minutes

MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes of the November, 2002 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. VanNort made a motion to amend the agenda in order to move up items 6 and 11. Seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

2. RiverTowne Condominiums--amend condition of motion

Mr. Ford said staff received a letter from the Ginn Company requesting a deferral. Also, at the last meeting the Planning Committee instructed Mr. Ford and Mr. Young to meet with notable parties of the HOA. Mr. Ford did try to contact a Mr.Fillipone, and Ms. Farrell spoke with him. Mr. Fillipone could not be here due to a death in his family. They are trying to set up a meeting between the developer and Mr. Young to discuss the technicalities of the two conditions.

MOTION: Mr. VanNort made a motion to defer this agenda item until the next regularly scheduled Planning Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

3. Request to rezone from CO, Conservation-Open Space, to R-1, Low-Density Residential, a 1.147 acre marsh island portion of a vacant lot located off Brick Kiln Point and bearing a TMS# 583-13-00-038.

Mr. Burdette said Jack Smith is here to represent the property owners and request a deferral. Mr. Ford said the applicant is trying to receive information from Archives and History regarding the significance of an Indian archeological site that is related to the nature of this rezoning request. The applicant has not received the requested information yet.

Mr. Smith said since they are waiting for Archives and History, and making history is sometimes slow, it may be judicious to ask for 60 days.

MOTION: Mr. Gawrych made a motion to defer this agenda item to the February Planning Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Discussion: Mr. Smith said if the information comes in early, the applicant is certainly welcome to come back before the 60 days. Mr. Burdette said this item was deferred by Council, so it will be on the agenda. Mr. Bustos said this will be a recommendation for deferral to the full Council. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

4. Updates a. Building Permit Allocation Program

Ms. Toropainen said a deadline just passed on December 1st for the January 1st allocation. January 1st will be the 3rd quarter of this fiscal year, and there will be 217 single family permits available at that time. Applications for 79 have been received; thus leaving a surplus of 138. No other low income housing allocations have been issued; nor any multi- family allocations.

Mr. Bustos clarified that through June 30, 2007, there are 2,677 single family permits available.

5. Building Code amendments - Mr. Santos a. Proposal to amend building codes b. Code violation fines

Mr. Santos said the building codes need to be straightened up and strengthened. Right now shelving board or anything can be used around windows, doors, corner boards, etc. After a year or two they rot and decay, so he would like the Committee to ask staff to look into adjusting the building codes to require all outside trim be made of rot-resistant or treated wood. This would be a good way to protect citizens and help them know that a house will last a good while.

Mr. Burdette said the Committee needs to understand that to exceed the SC code they need to go through a board procedure.

Mr. Cave said recently he spoke with Larry Wiggins, the administrator for the SC Building Codes Council. Mr. Wiggins said any request for modifying the codes would have to go on the agenda for that Council and demonstrate geographical or chronological reasons why our code should be different than everywhere else in the state. For this particular issue of architectural trim, Mr. Wiggins suggested researching through the National Weather Service. Mr. Cave said it would be easy enough to demonstrate this area’s high humidity level and rainfall averages. It can conceivably get done.

Mr. Burdette asked if Mr. Cave can handle new regulations with his current staff.

Mr. Cave said he could. At some point they would have to get into quality control--other than just code issues--and that may tax his staff further. It’s hard to say at this point of the allocation program.

Mr. Burdette said if the Committee wants to look into this he would suggest a working Committee of professional inspectors and people in the industry. They would make a list of obvious problems, not warranty issues.

Mr. Smith said if the change does come about, it would be difficult for Mr. Cave to police it. Would his staff have the ability or recourse for fines to the builder? Or, if it is not caught and a CO is issued, would that give the builder a clean slate?

Mr. Cave said to his knowledge there is no statute of limitations. A CO being issued would not draw a line on his ability to enforce a code violation after the fact.

Mr. Smith said as long as the code violation could be documented, the owner of the building has some recourse.

Mr. Cave said his gauge is whether he is comfortable in a court of law to without a doubt demonstrate someone violated the codes. Thankfully, most builders have moved away from using wood trim around windows. He prefers to gain compliance over going to court.

Mr. Burdette asked if Mr. Cave has some concerns with the quality of workmanship and supervision in the field.

Mr. Cave said without a doubt he has concerns. With so many production builders, and because of the number of houses they are trying to turn over every month, quality supervision is hard to provide. He doesn’t know how to solve the problem.

Mr. Santos said the site he visited did not have anyone who could speak English.

Mr. Smith said when they ran into a similar problem of call backs for re-inspections, they changed the fine to make it more punitive.

Mr. Cave said the $20 re-inspection fee didn’t work, so they upped it to $50. It has helped some, but they still do a lot of re-inspections--40 percent.

Mr. Smith suggested making the fine more punitive.

Mr. Cave said they use the re-inspection fee as a tool if they feel their time has been compromised. Mr. Burdette said it may be February until staff can get back to the Committee on this issue.

MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion to ask staff to consider a proposal to amend the building codes and code violation fines as a result of negligent code violations. Seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Discussion: Mr. Gawrych said perhaps this is an opportunity for the Town to reach out to builders. Mr. Cave said his department’s rapport with the building community, their management, is very good. They run into problems with the guys in the field actually doing the work--subcontractors supervised by one of the builder’s representatives. The representatives are spread so thin that it is hard to make sure quality work is being done. Mr. Gawrych said which in turn would mean there is a problem with the management. If managers cannot control their employees… We need to make sure they’re aware of what is being done. Mr. Santos said he contacted the supervisor of the workers shown in his photograph. The supervisor told Mr. Santos that they saw the rot and were instructed to cover it. That type of intentional negligence is what he wants to go after. Workers do as they’re told in many cases. It doesn’t start with those workers; it actually goes up much further than that. A little slap on the wrist won’t stop it from happening. The builders need to be substantially impacted in a negative way to insure they do a good job. Two or three years down the line, the house is rotten, the builder is gone, the warranty is over, and the owners are stuck with fixing their own house. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Burdette said at this point, this issue would stay at the Committee level.

6. Open Space Foundation

Mr. Burdette said there are two parts to this agenda item— whether or not the Board will come back to Council for budget approval and for amending its own bylaws.

Mr. Smith asked if this affects their tax free status.

Mr. Robert Dodds, attorney

Mr. Dodds said going either way on either issue would not affect the 501C3 status. From a tax and a legal perspective, they are free to go either way. There are certain inherent constraints on the board, even if the Town doesn’t require them. They couldn’t fundamentally alter their purpose so that they go beyond the scope of what’s been approved without going back to the IRS and seeking further approval. But there is some legal room, and the way to make sure they don’t deviate is to require they come back to the Council.

Mr. Burdette asked if the amendments are added, would there still be the flexibility as originally intended?

Mr. Dodds said the bylaws are the governing instrument and set forth the specific purposes for which the organization was created. It won’t take away the necessary operating flexibility that they need to function as a separate entity. Also, they’ll be forced to operate within the constraints of a budget. With non-profits and the way they generate funds, most of the time the people giving them the money place further constraints. If it is reasonable to expect for this to work, the Town will have to be committed at some level, financially.

Mr. VanNort said the two changes need to be made.

Mr. Smith said eventually the municipalities will probably be the conduit for the monies.

MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion to request Council to do a resolution supporting the two changes as presented by staff. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Burdette said the second part of the guidance request is appointing the board. The plan is to advertise openings, then seek volunteers for the seven member board. Three have to be from Mount Pleasant, and there are categories for four members such as attorney, conservation work, etc. The respondents’ names will be provided to Council so they can nominate individuals above and beyond those volunteers. The cutoff date would probably be at the end of January. Staff will create a matrix of all the names so Council can rate them and have an Executive Session. They can ask Council to authorize the Committee to make a recommendation.

Mr. Smith asked how widely they would advertise.

Mr. Burdette said they would advertise in the Post & Courier and the Moultrie News.

The Committee agreed to the proposal.

Mr. Burdette said he would send out a memo to that effect before Tuesday night; so, if anybody wishes to raise an objection, it can be discussed by Council at that time.

7. Review of Planning Commission Recommendations from the November 20, 2002, meeting a. 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 (Commercial Development DRB) Section 156.431(B) Term of Office (Town Appearance Commission)

Ms. Toropainen said the Planning Committee directed staff to review the terms of office for boards and commissions, specifically for DRB and TAC in which up to four terms would expire at the same time in certain years. The Town had adopted similar changes for the terms of the BOZA. The terms for BOZA were arranged so that each January, two terms will expire at one time. Changes along those same lines are proposed for the Planning Commission, DRB, and TAC. Staff looked at current terms and scheduled them so two terms would expire each January. According to this proposal, no current terms would be reduced; if necessary, current terms would be extended beyond the four year term. This modification would enable the Town to review applications and conduct interviews once per year for all boards, and streamline the board approval process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, and there was nobody from the public to speak for or against the item. The Planning Commission forwards to this Committee a recommendation only pertaining to the Planning Commission’s terms of office. They recommended that these amendments not be adopted, but the Planning Commission terms of office will remain as currently scheduled. The Planning Commission sent this proposal to DRB and TAC for their review and comment. Due to the scheduling of board meetings in December, the earliest the commission can receive a response is during the January meeting.

Mr. Ford said the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation at a later date.

Mr. Bustos asked how much more information they need.

Mr. Ford said the commission just wants the other boards’ opinion. Ultimately, it is the Committee’s decision. This Committee had a problem with the fact that several board members expired at the same time. Staff addressed that and tried to put it in a reasonable time frame.

Ms. Toropainen said the earliest the issue could come back to this Committee would be February.

MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion to defer this item for a period of 60 days or until the Committee meeting in February. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

b. Proposal to amend the following sections of the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances as they pertain to development approvals and expirations of the same: Land Development Regulations Section 155.021 Sketch plan submission and review Zoning Code Section 156.054 Impact Assessment Section 156.413 Additional Procedures for BOZA Section 156.433 Procedures for TAC And to create Section 156.422 Procedures for DRB

Ms. Toropainen said staff was asked to review Town ordinances as they pertain to development approval among various boards. Staff was also asked to review whether there are any loopholes in the current regulations or are contradictory to each other. The amendment goal was to ensure that any applicable building approvals have definite expiration dates. Staff wanted to ensure each development approval expiration has an approved process whereby an applicant may take an expiring approval to the respective board to request an extension. The proposed amendment changes are very “light”, and staff is not introducing any extraordinary new regulations. Primarily, they are trying to streamline to see if any details in the text need to be addressed. Staff is trying to coordinate the regulations so that all similar types of building provisions or decisions carry through from one board approval to another. The two major substantive changes are: introducing an expiration date for sketch plans for projects not requiring an impact assessment, and ensuring DRB has expiration dates for its approvals. There is some language that can carry over from one board process to another--requests for extensions. During the Planning Commission’s public hearing no one spoke for or against the item. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the amendments with two changes: regarding the impact assessments where it reads “if construction improvements lapse for a consecutive period of six months or more…” the Planning Commission recommends that the “or more” provision be taken out so the language will read, “If construction improvements lapse for a consecutive period of six months from the initial date of commencement…”. The “or more” phrase would create an exception to the rule in the new Planning Commission. Also, regarding impact assessments, the Planning Commission recommended that the six month period be determined by the building inspections office. Language should be added pertaining to the field engineer’s work regarding the inspections of the road improvements going in residential subdivisions.

Mr. Bustos said the thrust of this is to remove the “or more”. The six months would be a definite period, and the ambiguity would be removed.





MOTION: Mr. Smith made a motion that the proposed changes in the ordinances as presented in 5b be recommended to Council for approval. Seconded by Mr. VanNort. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.

8. Request to change the zoning designation from AB, Areawide Business, to PD, Planned Development, and to adopt a planned development ordinance for an approximately 17.65 acre high ground portion of parcel TMS#514-00-00-019, located at the western terminus of Wingo Way adjacent to U.S. Highway 17. Request for Impact Assessment approval also.

Mr. Ford said the next agenda item is related to this one.

Ms. Farrell said staff covered this item last month for information only. The proposal is for a mixed use project to be developed on 16.45 acres of high land on the main tract. The tract also includes 1.11 acres of marsh islands to be developed for passive uses. The developer is putting forth two possible scenarios for the site--one including a 60,000 sf office, 250 room hotel, and 166 condos; the other does not include the hotel and increases the amount of office space to 150,000 sf. Within the PD guidelines for this property, the developer would request a maximum building height of 80 feet for Eastport Village instead of the allowed 50 feet. It would be a mixed use development and ED project, but would also include residential condos. Originally the developer wanted to use ULI shared parking guidelines, but has since retracted that since shared parking would not work there. The 166 units will exceed the allowed density for the tract; total allowed should be no more than 152. The sketch plan approval checklist normally requires information regarding setbacks, tree removal, replacement chart, exact number of parking spaces, lighting, and garbage locations be shown on the sketches. This submittal is a bubble plan that illustrates the approximate but not exact location of buildings and parking. The conceptual master plan, to some degree, does address the sketch plan approval checklist. The developer owns several marsh islands adjacent to the 16.54 acre site; they will not be developed, but the Town will extend boardwalks for passive use development. The final recommendation from Planning Commission included no more than 152 units, the 80’ to be allowed, no request for reduced setbacks on Wingo Way, developer responsible for additional cost for installation of power lines underground, 1.11 acre of marsh islands not to be developed but saved for public use. If this project is approved as a Planned Development, then the Bridgeport Office Complex can move forward. It would basically be an amendment to the Eastport PD. If Eastport is not approved, then the Bridgeport request cannot move forward.

Mr. Richard Coen, developer

Mr. Coen said the Planning Commission supported the project conceptually, but three members did not vote in favor of the project because of concerns over the number of buildings, building locations, and the setbacks on Wingo Way. Similar concerns were expressed at the last Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Coen has tried to address those concerns. A tract of land this large at this location presents an opportunity to master plan the whole area. Right now it’s zoned AB, so a number of uses could go there, or it could be split up. A PD district gives the opportunity to master plan the whole thing; but, he didn’t understand the level of detail they were interested in as part of the zoning procedure. Staff has given direction in what needs to be seen. He asked for feedback so the plans can reflect what is agreed upon at the December 9th meeting. Being the gateway to the Town made everybody look at this in context of the area. The area was the waterfront of Mount Pleasant facing downTown Charleston and coming in on the new bridge. The Ness Motley project, Patriot’s Point area, and the Wingo Way extension were included in the area. He indicated on drawings the Bridgeport project-- two 30,000 sf buildings that have already received impact assessment and DRB approval. The reason it is part of this proposal is because the building was designed before the implications of the new building code were realized, and the structural steel has been doubled. The ceilings were dropped because of the code, but they really want to have nine foot ceilings. They want to add a foot to each floor and put a higher pitch on the roof. The DRB wanted more verticality, and it just got approved. This would have to go back to DRB if this project is approved today. The plan is to go from 50’ to 55’ to allow for another foot on each floor.

Mr. Ford said the DRB has approved buildings that meet the current code requirements.

Mr. Coen said if they get approval for the additional five feet, the developer would redesign the building to add a foot for each floor, increase the roof pitch a little, and then go back to DRB for final approval in January, 2003. BOZA deemed it not a hardship but an issue of height restrictions (i.e. zoning).

Mr. Bustos said since this is part of the Peoplelease building he recused himself for conflict of interest reasons.

Mr. Smith took over as chairman.

Mr. Burdette said the only way they can consider giving the extra five feet is if the project becomes part of a PD that includes Eastport. They cannot waive their own ordinances.

Mr. Coen said this is presented in context of the area. The Ness Motley was approved for 80 feet. There is nowhere in Mount Pleasant that he would propose an 80’ building except here. They are trying to blend in with what’s existing and make it balanced with verticality. Fifty foot on one side and 80’ on the other is not balanced. In comparison to the new bridge’s massing, the difference between 50’ and 80’ is very little. They are proposing the 80’, not because they need the density, but because it’s appropriate. If it’s not appropriate on the whole project, he would like feedback in case it’s appropriate for part of the project. There was the suggestion of trimming down the heights as they move away from the water. A drawing of the new bridge’s size and perspective as it relates to the existing buildings was shown. Mr. Coen said it is absolutely massive.

Mr. Ford said it is much higher than 80’ from mean sea level. The ground it is built on is 22 feet. So it’s really like 102’ high.

Mr. Coen said if the buildings get squished down and fatter, it would miss something coming in to the Town. Mr. Smith asked what the relationship is between Eastport and the Bridgeside project. Eastport is actually closer to the bridge than the existing Ness Motley building. It truly will frame the entrance to the Town. This road and this connection will be critical. This area could be a big shopping center or a movie theater, things we already have in Town. Therefore, a well- planned PD district would be an advantage. Mixed use would be a good option because this site will hold about half the existing office space the Town has right now. There is no class A office space, so this presents a unique opportunity to introduce a product for lease in the Town. If the hotel doesn’t happen, then it would become office space. Both would be considered ED, and the residential component would be complementary and makes for a nice blend of uses.

Mr. VanNort clarified that all four structures would be 80’ tall.

Mr. Ford said the Planning Commission’s concern was they thought it ought to be less than 80’ on the indicated side of Wingo Way, towards Johnnie Dodds Boulevard. The property immediately adjacent to it will be a future park site.

Mr. Coen said the option of tapering the heights as the buildings move away from the water would take away from the balance.

Mr. Gawrych said he is concerned about public access to the waterfront. How will the islands be accessed?

Mr. Coen said they talked about a small parking area that is not reflected on the plan, and then a walkway in the 35’ buffer area that would connect to the Town’s waterfront park. Between the Hilton and existing marina will be a harbor walk and promenade, not unlike the Battery downTown. This property is an incredible opportunity. Mr. Ford requested a building in perspective--a section cut through the site. Mr. Coen displayed the drawings of those sections. He indicated the photos of view corridors through the surrounding neighborhoods. The conclusion was that nobody’s view corridor of the harbor or marsh was affected. Mr. Coen said he would never do another bubble plan since they don’t show enough. Without a master planning, you can’t know what’s going where. The exhibit indicated shows a 35’ setback for the buildings from Wingo Way. Staff recommended the building height be measured so the tops would all be the same or less than existing. The 35’ critical line buffer would be no less than 20 feet.

Mr. Gawrych asked who the controlling entity will be when the Wingo Way extension is built out.

Mr. Morrison said that he’s not sure if that has been absolutely determined.

Mr. Ford said right now it is a state road from Mathis Ferry to Holiday Inn and then it stubs out and dead ends. After that point, all the way over under the new bridge and past Ness Motley will be built to all the various state criteria. But they indicated during the sidewalk and pedestrian pathway discussion, that section at Magrath Darby and Wingo Way under the new bridge would be a local road. He thinks it will be designed by DOT under their contract for the portion up to the Bridgeside development.

Mr. VanNort said he doesn’t have big problems with the project as long as he knows there are five buildings. There should be no more buildings than that. As long as they stay within the same general concept, he doesn’t see big problems.

Mr. Coen said he understood that a master plan would have to be followed for the building locations, and there should be no more than the number shown on the plat.

Mr. VanNort said he doesn’t like to approve something when there’s too many variables.

Mr. Coen said this is a very unique piece of property. When you give the developer some flexibility and business can be attracted to stay in Mount Pleasant…AB will allow a residential component above the other uses. It will allow office and hotel. This is more restrictive in terms of your “control of what’s ultimately built”, but it is less restrictive in terms of setbacks, buffers, and being able to fill the uses with what the demand is. If there’s no demand, the land will sit vacant or possibly be an inferior project. For a nice, class A project they need the zoning that allows flexibility. They have really limited the flexibility when compared to AB zoning. They could probably live with AB zoning, but this would be a better…

Mr. Smith said contrary to Mr. VanNort, he does not believe the 80’ is appropriate for that side. The Committee has been very stringent on that side. On the other side, the buildings did not go from 50’ to 80’; the height limit there started at 75 feet. He cannot see changing the zoning to permit someone to build 80’ buildings. It’s not a good enough reason.

MOTION: Mr. VanNort made a motion to make a recommendation to Council for the approval of the request to change the zoning designated from AB to PD, and to adopt a planned development ordinance for approximately 17.65 acres with the parcel # TMS 514-00-00-019 located at the western terminus of Wingo Way adjacent to Highway 17. Seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Discussion: Mr. Gawrych asked for clarification. Mr. Ford said they should clarify that it would be in accordance with the numbers that Ms. Farrell read at the first, in terms of maximum amount of office space, maximum hotel rooms, maximum number of condominium units. Also, it would be a good idea to reference the plans presented today that are labeled LA1 through LA8. He asked if there were any other recommendations pertaining to traffic improvements? Mr. Morrison said they were reflected in staff comments for the current design. Ms. Farrell said the other items were they could not request a variance from the setbacks (35 as shown on LA8), installation of power lines underground with the cost difference for doing so the developer’s responsibility, and the marsh islands would not be developed, but retained for passive recreation use. Mr. Gawrych asked if they are saying that all five buildings will be 80 feet. Mr. Ford said that is how he understood the motion. Mr. VanNort said the maximum would be 80 feet. Mr. Ford suggested rather than measuring the elevation from at the ground level, it would be measured from the roof of the Ness Motley building. They could stipulate 80’ measured from which ever point they decide. It could be mean sea level or base flood elevation or average lot grade. Mr. VanNort said he thought Ness Motley was taken at sea level. Mr. Ford was measured from the grade. Mr. Stuart Whitesides said it was from 22, so the top