MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 14, 2000

Mayor Woods-Flowers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Council members Robert Dodds, Mark Fava, Terence McManus, Ted Power, Gary Santos, Kruger Smith, Thomasena Stokes-Marshall and Bobby Utsey. Also in attendance were Mr. Burdette, Mr. Young, Mr. Ford, Chief Perry, Chief Tetor, Ms. Jernigan, Ms. Phipps, Mr. Peele and Ed Gartner.

Mr. Smith led the prayer followed by a patriotic video presentation with the National Anthem.

Mr. Young certified that the Town is in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

The agenda was approved as published.

AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS Mayor Woods-Flowers, along with Kruger Smith and Gary Santos, recognized retiring employees Henry Whiteside, with the Public Services, and Fred Lincoln, with the Fire Department.

Mrs. Penny Todd, East Cooper Community Outreach, presented a plaque to Fire Station No. 3 employees in appreciation for their assistance at their offices, which are located next door to them.

Mayor Woods-Flowers displayed the plaque that was presented to the Town by Charles Pinckney Elementary School in appreciation for the Town’s assistance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Council meeting of February 8, 2000, and Special Council meetings of February 3, 14, and 25, 2000. Mr. McManus moved for approval; seconded by Mrs. Stokes- Marshall. All present were in favor.

Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a motion to approve the financial statement. Mrs. Stokes-Marshall so moved; seconded by Mr. Smith. All present were in favor.

CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS Mr. Ed George, 1805 Ventura Villas, stated that the current moratorium will expire on March 31st without a concurrency system in place, much less the much needed permit allocation system. He said that the vast majority of the voters would want Council to put these systems in right now. Therefore, the first step is the extend the moratorium until this is accomplished. Mr. George spoke about “fairness”, and from the side of the majority. He defined “fairness” and said that someone is always going to be unhappy or feel unfairly treated. He asked whether the Hungryneck Road issue would be resolved fairly to all parties; whether it is fair to be a party to the condemnation of Laurel Hill property for a high school destroying green spaces; whether it is fair that the town has to deal with every project at Patriots Point as an exception to its supposed master plan and the zoning, an example of which is on this agenda. He asked whether the developer was fair to the citizens when a he built a mound. He said the developer played by the rules, but was he being fair? He asked is it fair for the same developer to ask for a credit on his traffic impact fees to offset his share of the special allocation for roads at Patriots Point. He asked if Council is being fair to the town vision when they rezone to allow more residential development against the advice of the hired consultant. He said that Council needs to be fair to the majority of residents by extending the moratorium until the concurrency and permit allocations are in place. Mrs. Linnea Rogers-Notten, 830 Law Lane, stated that she read an article in the newspaper about the School Board considering buying property at Laurel Hill Plantation. She said that this is a natural, undisturbed wildlife area. She said it is one of the few remaining green spaces within the confines of Mount Pleasant. She questioned why the School Board did not purchase property earlier, and now they are in a bind to find property. She mentioned that the owner left a will that states this property should be kept in its natural state. She asked Council if there is any other land for a high school.

Mr. Santos mentioned that the issue of deconsolidation will be taken up by the legislature this term.

Mr. Joe Albanese, 1470 Diamond Blvd., said he attended the Council meeting when people from Florida made a presentation in regard to concurrency. He said that it appears that a rate of growth ordinance is possible. He asked if there are any plans for the development of such an ordinance, which he would support.

Mr. Dodds stated that the Town has hired a consultant to look at the issue. Mr. Albanese said that that they spend a lot of time developing ordinances on other matters, and he said that they are treating symptoms and not the disease. He said that if they enact the growth management ordinance it would give a perimeter. He urged Council to work hard on this, and he suggested forming citizens committees to help in the process.

Mr. Albanese said it also appears that it would take at least two years to get an ordinance in place. He said that the end of the moratorium is soon, and there are some who recognize the need for immediate growth control. He asked if Council plans to enact a building permit allocation system. Mr. Albanese also asked about Hungryneck Boulevard and the shift of funding to Highway 17, and the timetable for completion of that project.

Mr. Burdette answered the first question – the staff will have a report for Council on building permit allocation and a proposal if Council wants to pursue it. Mr. Ford responded to the second question. He said that it will follow the same time line as the other projects.

Mr. Stuart Whiteside, Seamon, Whiteside and Associates, stated that several weeks ago when the Town began discussions on the concurrency and building permit allocations, etc., a large group of developers met and discussed how these ordinances would affect their livelihood. He said that a committee was formed and met several times to figure out how the developers could participate in the Town’s deliberations. He said that as a result, a letter was written to Council from Joe Griffith and David Bloom. He said that the development community sees that there are problems, and they want to participate in the solutions to the growth problems. He stated that the letter included an offer to return and/or cancel previously approved residential planned development lots so that the growth rate can be re-examined. He said that most PUDs have many more units that will be built, and the Town goes by the ordinance that was approved. They suggested that a coalition should be formed to help provide immediate funds for roads so that they can be built now. He said that the private sector can probably form a lot faster than the public sector, and they feel that there needs to be a partnership with the town to get these roads built now. He said that they support an increase in impact fees for transportation, parks, recreation and other areas. He said in the past everybody has said that they don’t want more impact fees because it would eliminate affordable housing. He said that they support ways to provide more green space, such as implementing local sales tax, contributions by landowners or developers. They support some other way to share the financial burden to get more green space in the town. He said that this does not need to be just the Town’s problem – it is everybody’s. He said that they embrace the Town’s vision statement, including the support for Sullivan’s Island and Isle of Palms, who are part of the East Cooper area. That includes the acceptance of the fact that the current growth rate of Mount Pleasant is undesirable and not sustainable in the long term. However, achieving a desired rate of growth should not unreasonably affect those who have already made substantial economic commitments in the town, nor should they fail to recognize that the growth rate is due to unprecedented economic trends. He said that they support possible extension of or additional moratoriums for new residential PUDs and multi-family units in certain parts of the Town. He said until they get the concurrencies, they want to work with the Town to try to decide how those items are going. He said that they suggest that they conduct open meetings with representatives from all sectors of the community and government to address solutions to growth issues. Mr. Whiteside said that they want to be part of the process, and they have a lot to offer.

Mr. Utsey asked if the group can project a twelve-month growth of houses and commercial development; whether they have come up with numbers. Mr. Whiteside said that the committee that was formed needs to go to the larger group and ask how many units they do not need in order to get specifics. He said that they all agree that they can do that.

Mayor Woods-Flowers asked if the figure of 75% get built is standard. Mr. Whiteside said that some of the bigger developments do not get built.

Mr. Smith asked if they could work out the mechanics of how the bodies would work together and present it to Council. Mr. Whiteside said that they want to have a discussion with the Town.

Mr. Santos thanked them for being proactive and recognizing that they are all in this together. He said that they are interested in talking and making this work.

Mayor Woods-Flowers pointed out that Mr. Whiteside and other developers live in this community and they care just like the Council members. This shows a demonstration of that.

Mr. David Bloom stated that one of the key elements is meetings, not necessarily with council only. He said that they have researched the issues. He said that in Olympia, Washington, there was a group that was separated over twenty years, and then the groups formed an association without a chair person so that every person’s views were heard, and the diverse elements have gotten together working to solve problems and doing things, putting less pressure on government. He said that the development community wants to meet with all sectors of the community. He said that Mount Pleasant is not guilty of sprawl; it is not a community that has subsidized residential and economic growth by increasing its citizens’ taxes and indebtedness with bond issues; it is not Cary, NC, with 3,000 children in trailers and are looking for new schools with 560 new students in the next five years; it is not Portland, Oregon, with 1.7 million people, and they now have inner-city minorities, exclusive suburbs and have gone from of the most affordable cities to the third highest housing cost in the US and are now permitting violations of their own urban growth boundary; Portland subsidized a developer $15 Million and helped fill wetlands to bring in industry, all in the name of jobs. Washington and Florida have a law that was designed to permit continued rampant growth when infrastructure needs could be met. There is a law in Tallahassee that is liberally and legally interpreted, and they approved a 4,000 acre development and adjusted a $10 Million infrastructure payment in lieu of an original $84 Million. Mr. Bloom said that on their development of 40 acres, they offered $1 Million, but it takes a law to get one-tenth for concurrency of what a developer might be willing to do. He said that it is not Boulder, Colorado, where after enacting permit allocations, they watched the growth leap frog in multi-family areas because housing starts fell behind job growth; and ten years later, they have now been forced to begging other governments to join to resolve the problems because Boulder got the burdens and not the tax benefits. Mr. Bloom said the landowners and developers in outlying areas here may concur with building allocations. He said that he has heard about the “vast majority” and he takes issue in that, because he does not think that might necessarily make right. He said that the survey that the Town did in February 1999 questioned: How many people want to limit development and possible tax increases? Answer: 34%. How many people want to encourage appropriate development activities? 61%. How many want to eliminate non-residential youth services? 5%. He said that the Town asked if they would accept a 6-10% increase in tax to pay for growing services? 75% answered yes. PLANNING – Mr. Ford New Business The first item was consideration of an Ordinance to amend Sections 150.002, 156.190, 156.220, 156.240 and 156.351 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to absences of board members and commission members (Ord. No. 99061). Mr. Ford stated that this item was deferred at the last meeting and it went back to the Planning Committee, who recommended that it be deferred to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dodds moved to defer this matter until the May Council meeting in order to give the Planning Commission time to review it and make a recommendation; seconded by Mrs. Stokes-Marshall. Mr. Power clarified that it is Council’s expectation, that in addition to the members of the Planning Commission, other board members should work on the recommendation. Mr. Ford said that he knows that they were going to involve other board members. He said that he was going to discuss the level of involvement with the Planning Commission; however, this was the intent of the committee. Mr. Utsey asked about the comments of the Chairman of the Planning Commission when it was previously reviewed. Mr. Ford said it is reflected in the minutes. Mayor Woods-Flowers said that she recalls that there was no one in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Ford said that the recommendation was not to approve the ordinance as presented. Mr. Utsey asked that Council review the Planning Commission minutes and note the comments by the chairman. Mr. Fava said that is one reason why they are sending it back, and if they are all opposed, they want to know what they would recommend for a solution to absences. Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a vote. All present were in favor.

The second item was consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Sections 156.300 through 156.316, of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances, pertaining to the repeal of all existing Tree Protection Provisions therein and replacement of the same with new Sections 156.300 through 156.311 (Ord. No. 00018). Mr. Ford stated that this was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission after thorough review and they made several recommendations that are included in the ordinance.

Mr. Ford stated that the staff met with members of the development community to go over some of the questions that remains in the ordinance. There were some issues that were raised by the Planning Commission that they did not feel were sufficiently addressed; however, the motion was to forward it to the Planning Committee with their recommendation for approval with those amendments. Mr. Ford explained that some of the amendments had to do with tree replacements, in terms of when trees are removed from various subdivisions or commercial sites, and they are required to plant back trees. He said that they often end up with replacement trees that may not fit on the site once it is developed, more common on commercial development. Further, they discussed whether the funds would go into the Tree Bank Fund, which is available to various groups for landscaping and trees, on a match grant basis. Mr. Ford stated that the Planning Committee recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted.

Mayor Woods-Flowers asked that the Planning Committee consider several items prior to final reading. She said she would like them to reconsider the exception given to hackberry trees, gum and pine. She asked that they also reconsider the penalty, and she pointed out that the City of Charleston required ten times what is removed, without permission. Mayor Woods-Flowers also said she would like them to discuss the section in regard to HOA property and whether it counts toward credit, as well as tree bank funds for trees planted on private property. She asked that they discuss requiring a variance requirement for trees removed along property lines.

Mr. Dodds moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Utsey. Mr. Dodds said that the Planning Committee will discuss the items brought up by Mayor Woods-Flowers. Mr. Power referred to the suggestion that funds for trees cut down be returned to the affected subdivision instead of being put in a pool to be accessed by HOAs later. He said that if trees are to be taken down in a subdivision, it makes sense that the replacement trees be put back where they were taken down.

Mrs. Linnea Rogers-Notten said that a neighbor was taking down sweetgum trees in his yard today, and she advised that he should have a permit. She said she checked with town staff to find out, and she knew exceptions had been made in the tree ordinance. She said she does not think there should be exceptions.

Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a vote on the motion. All present were in favor. Mr. Burdette read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY.

The third item was consideration of an Ordinance providing for the Annexation of Lots 5, 8 and 9-A located on James Nelson Road, bearing TMS Nos. 293, 290 and 379 (Ord. No. 00019). Mr. Ford stated that the next item is the zoning of the property. He stated that this property is located off of US 17. He said that these lots are surrounded by the Gregg Tract and Montclair Apartments are beyond along with the undeveloped portion of Wando East. This is directly across the entrance to the Town Centre. Mr. Ford stated that the property has been zoned residential, and a portion of the property was annexed previous as a result of a sewer project. He said that some lots were left out and these lots are being considered with this annexation. Mr. Ford stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval, as did the Planning Committee.

Mr. McManus moved for approval; seconded by Mrs. Stokes- Marshall. All present were in favor. Mr. Burdette read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY.

The next item was consideration of an Ordinance to zone AB, Areawide Business, eleven (11) lots located on James Nelson Road, bearing TMS Nos. 558-00-00-149, 150, 289-296 and 379 (Ord. No. 00020). (The zoning of the previous item.) Mr. Ford stated that the Planning Commission understood that this is a part of an area that they considered of significant importance when the Town adopted the Land Use Plan. Mr. Ford stated that they also understood the plight of the family requesting the rezoning, in that these individual parcels as they relate to the other tracts, were more independent and had to be requested separately, and therefore, did not want to tie their fate to whatever may become of the Gregg Tract. Mr. Ford stated that the Planning Commission made several recommendations. They asked that right of way, where available, be provided along the front of the property. Mr. Ford noted that two parcels with existing residences are not included in this request. Mr. Ford stated that there are eleven lots being rezoned, and the Commission said they should be considered as one development plan, not individual parcels. Mr. Ford explained that at some point if the property is sold, then there would probably be a re-subdivision of the property, and at that time, they would like staff to reserve a right of way location, whereby this property could tie into the Gregg Tract. This could be done through the subdivision process when the plats are submitted to the Town. Mr. Ford also stated that the Commission suggested that there would be an agreement and concur with the comprehensive plan.

Mr. Young stated that he provided a memorandum in regard to this matter, and he said he would elaborate in executive session if necessary. Mr. Young pointed out that he talked to the attorney for the property owners and he understands that Mr. Larry Dodds may have an offering to Council if given that opportunity.

Mr. Larry Dodds stated that he represents the Reid and Russell families. He said that if they were to receive a favorable first reading at this time, before final reading, they would place deed restrictions on the property, having the Town of Mount Pleasant as a third party beneficiary, which means that the Town would have a say before the deed restrictions could be altered or modified. He said that this would address the four concerns that the Planning Commission and Planning Committee have expressed. He said that he would have these in writing prior to next Council meeting.

Mr. Utsey asked Mr. Ford to explain the road that was recommended. Mr. Ford said that the Commission knew that if this tract is developed, it may be desirable to have a connection to the property adjacent to it. He said that they would want to provide internal access and they wanted to make sure that when the property is laid out that, the town would have an opportunity to have a right of way connection to the next tract. Mr. Utsey asked if it would go down to Mathis Ferry Road. Mr. Ford said it would depend on what other plans take place in regard to this property. Mr. McManus moved for approval for first reading, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Planning Committee, including any requirement affecting zoning and predicated upon Mr. Dodds’ commitment that he would provide the information on voluntary compliance prior to final reading; seconded by Mr. Santos. Mr. Young asked for clarification on the motion. Mayor Woods-Flowers asked if the motion is to recommend approval of first reading, knowing that there are some things that have been discussed that they want brought back for consideration prior to final reading with regard to voluntary conditions to be placed on deed restrictions. Mr. McManus stated that is correct. Mr. Fava said that the motion as stated was against the legal advice they were provided.

Mr. McManus restated his motion to move for approval of first reading; seconded by Mr. Santos. Mr. Young pointed out that the Ordinance before Council does not include those conditions, and he assumes that Mr. McManus is moving for first reading without the conditions. Mr. McManus stated that is correct. Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a vote on the motion. All present were in favor. Mr. Burdette read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY.

Old Business The first item was final reading of an Ordinance to rezone from PD, Planned Development, to OP, Office Professional, two parcels of land located on Old Course Lane in Charleston National Subdivision, being a portion of TMS No. 614- 00-00-286 (Ord. No. 00013). Mr. Power moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Santos. All present were in favor. Mr. Burdette read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED THIS DATE.

The second item was final reading of an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97029 pertaining to a 14.1 acre undeveloped portion of property located at Patriots Point known as known as Parcels B, C and D, providing for additional permitted uses and development controls (Ord. No. 00014).

Mr. Santos moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Power. Mr. Ford stated that the ordinance before Council contains an amendment that was added at first reading that stipulated that a Certificate of Occupancy could not be granted until the road was constructed. Mr. Ford stated that the Planning Committee, at the request of the applicant, considered the idea of a further amendment which had to do with the revision of the sketch plan and the manner in which it was approved. Mr. Ford explained that it was envisioned that there would be subsequent site plan approvals based on that. He said that Mr. Coen has stated that a sketch plan is submitted and if adopted by Council in conjunction with these permitted uses, there would be no necessity to go back to the Planning Commission and Council for subsequent approval. It would require going through the Planning staff and Design Review Board as the buildings are proposed. He said that the Committee concurred and recommended this amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Ford stated that the Transportation Committee discussed whether or not impact fees would be credited against the allocation system that is spelled out in the Ordinance. He said that there was no recommendation from the Transportation Committee.

Mayor Woods-Flowers stated that those items need to be discussed individually. She said that Council met in executive session for legal advice on this project. Mayor Woods-Flowers asked Mr. Young to discuss the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy requirement. She said that they may need additional legal advice in regard to the impact fee credit.

Mr. Young advised that he would like to discuss in executive session prior to going on record with legal advice.

Mr. Utsey asked Mr. Santos if he was comfortable with his motion. Mr. Dodds stated that the motion did not deal with the issue of amending first reading in regard to the sketch plan, as discussed in the Planning Committee. Mr. Dodds said that they also need to address the Certificate of Occupancy issue. He also said that there is additional advice Mr. Young wanted to discuss but time prevented him from doing so. He would prefer to receive legal advice prior to voting on the motion.

Mr. Young said that if a motion was made to go into executive session, it would take priority over the main motion. Mr. Young added that motions to amend the main motion would be in order also prior to the vote on the main motion. Mr. Dodds moved that Council go into executive session to receive further legal advice; seconded by Mr. McManus. Mr. Power, Mr. Smith and Mr. Santos opposed. All others present were in favor.

Upon reconvening, Mayor Woods-Flowers announced that Council met in executive session to receive legal advice on the development proposal at Patriots Point. Mr. Power withdrew his second to Mr. Santos’ motion. There was no second forthcoming.

Mr. Dodds moved that first reading of the ordinance be amended to provide that the construction of Patriots Point Road be completed prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy – that condition be removed; further, as recommended by the Planning Committee that the ordinance be approved with language that states “additional site plan approval shall not be required from the Planning Commission or Town Council if the development plan is consistent with the site capacity plan as determined by the Department of Planning and Development and plans are subsequently reviewed by the Design Review Board”; and that the portion of the ordinance that provides that the applicant will participate in the cost-sharing allocation with respect to the construction of Patriots Point Boulevard shall apply at such time as the construction of that project is included in the Mount Pleasant Capital Improvements Program; seconded by Mr. McManus. Mr. Coen clarified that the development has volunteered to pay its portion of the cost of the traffic impact of this project. He clarified also that they were paying 100% of their portion of the traffic impact of this project.

Mayor Woods-Flowers said that they are paying the allocation as set out in the allocation plan, which is separate from an impact. She said it is important to keep that distinction. She said until such time that the procedure for applying for credit, until such time as they reach that point, it would be the Town’s position that you would be required to pay both of those things – the allocation and the impact fee. Mr. Young clarified that Mr. Coen can apply for a credit in the future; but it is his understanding that the Town is making no commitment one way or the other whether a credit would be given or not given. He is required as of tonight to pay an impact fee and also this allocation requirement. Mayor Woods-Flowers asked Mr. Coen if he understands that to be the case. Mr. Coen answered in the affirmative. Mr. Power pointed out that the transportation impact fee was promulgated by this Council as a means of exacting fees from development for payment of infrastructure throughout Mount Pleasant. He said that by virtue of this development being involved in a special long-term lease arrangement with the State of South Carolina with respect to Patriots Point, that is a separate agreement that was set up by the property lessors who agreed to participate on a pro rata basis. He said in his mind that is distinctly different from the intent of the traffic impact fee that they are assessing all new development, which is for the purpose of raising funds to deal with the infrastructure throughout Mount Pleasant.

Mayor Woods-Flowers called for a vote on the motion. Gary Santos opposed the motion. All others were in favor. Mr. Dodds moved for final reading as amended; seconded by Mr. McManus. Mr. Santos opposed. All others present were in favor. Mr. Burdette read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED THIS DATE.

The third item was final reading of an Ordinance to amend Planned Development Ordinance No. 97010, pertaining to the size limitation of outbuildings as prescribed in the I’On Code (00015). Mr. Ford stated that this was approved last month. Mr. McManus moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Dodds. Those opposed were Mr. Power, Mr. Santos, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Stokes-Marshall, and Mr. Utsey. Those in favor were Mr. Fava, Mr. McManus, Mr. Dodds and Mayor Woods-Flowers. Motion failed by a five to four vote.

The fourth item was final reading of an Ordinance providing for the annexation of the property upon which the Greater Goodwill A.M.E. Church is situated, located at the intersection of Highway 17 North and Highway 41, bearing TMS #580-00-00-043 (Ord. No. 99071). Mr. Ford stated that this was deferred at the last Council meeting, and the staff was instructed to contact Rev. McPherson of the church; however, they have not been able to reach him. He asked that this be deferred until the next regular Council meeting. Mr. Dodds moved to defer this item until the April Council meeting; seconded by Mr. McManus. All present were in favor.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Accommodations Tax Advisory Committee – Mr. McManus Mr. McManus reported that the committee recommends that the Town apply for a grant sponsored by SC Parks, Recreation and Tourism Commission. Mr. McManus stated that the grant request is in the