Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think so.

All right. Bennett. I'm chair of the planning commission. We'll call the April meeting of the commission to order. Um I have a motion to approve the agenda. Second. All those in favor say I. I approval of the minutes from last month edits or requested changes clarification. If not

I'll move to approve second by Mr. All in favor say I. Mr. Stone, planning commission update.

Hey, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, planning commission. We have updates from town council's April meeting. I'll start with the text amendments first that we reported on. We have the amendment to chapter 1.5 for access the flag lots and enhanced standards that received first reading approval. Also final reading approval was the zoning code amendment to apply density to properties under one acre and the amendment to the wetlands to create a wetlands ordinance that was uh given approval. And then we have final reading an ordinance providing for an amendment to the Indigo Square. That was the Olive Branch Amy Church property that was approved for final reading. The Dunes West Park West PD for the 6acre tract for 43 multif family units that was approved with conditions and the ordinance to annex and zone the um property on Highway 17 North for the RV campground. That was that was finally given approval. So, that's all the staff has.

Thanks, Mr. Stone. Um, general correspond. I think I read one one letter that was submitted and I assume that was the only there were two. There were two. Okay, I missed one.

Okay. Good. Um, general public comment. So for those of you who may not be familiar with our procedure or protocol, uh each meeting we have an opportunity for public comments of of a general nature. For those of you who are here to speak on any one of the two public hearings we have on our agenda tonight, you're also welcome to speak more specifically to those those proposals. So anyone here to make a general public comment this evening? close and move right into this public hearing for 10 overlay zoning district.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll hand this over to Liz Boils who will be presenting this and she's been working. Everybody, how are you today?

I wanted to give you a little bit of background, make sure that we're all kind of on the same page. I know some of you have talked about this before, but

that better. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um settlement communities in the Mount Pleasant area. So over the past decade or so, um the county and the town have kind of throughout our um planning processes focused some attention on the settlement communities as kind of a special um cultural asset for the for the for the greater area. um 2016 the county's um historic resource survey first kind of identified that you know under federal guidelines you know these these areas really can be important designated as important for cultural historical recognition. Um and so ever since then you know then the county adopted a historic preservation ordinance. the town did our comp plan where we focused on settlement communities as one of our big issues which was followed up with our settlement community task force which we gathered the town gathered um representatives from all the East Cooper communities to talk through issues and come up with some recommendations some of which you'll kind of see mirrored in our district presentation today um since that time the 10 mile neighborhood and county has achieved historic district status within the county. It's a county designation. It's not they haven't yet gone to say a national registered level or anything like that, but that's designated as a historic district in the county. Um, and last year after a couple years of work, we're able to get an overlay district passed which um was designed to help protect the character of the community. in concert with the historic district um designation that they've got out there. So, that's kind of the the quick version of the history, but what we're going to

be talking about um today, excuse me, sorry. Um I mentioned the um Southern Community Task Force. The that report mentioned a number of um challenges within the communities and ways that they wanted to try to address them. Some of those, like I said, are addressed within this Everlet district, namely say sidewalks, flexibility of housing types to um address some affordability concerns, as well as um our last bullet point up there, the the idea of the town and the county adopting similar ordinances to make sure that we're all on the same page with development standards in these areas. That's a lot of what brings us here tonight. Um the overlay district that that we'll be presenting is based very heavily on what the county put together. They they spent two two years or more about two years working on this meeting after meeting after meeting with the community members. Community members basically drove this this effort. Um so the overlay district uh looks use regulations and conditions. Um, it's very comparable to our CC zoning, which is what we currently got recommended for the area um through our comp plan and and you know that um also ties in with the density standards that we've talked about recently with in this part of the town, part of the area um with the rural densities on the essentially the north side of 17, if you will, and the urban suburban densities on the south side except if you'll grant me that north south. Um there are also some kind of specific standards in here about fences and the way they treat signage and

pedestrian walkways that they just felt were important for maintaining the character of the community. So, you know, our our challenge is to see if if we're able to adopt a similar zoning a comparable zoning classification to then apply to um any properties that happen to annex into the town. Request annexation. Um what you've been provided is a redline copy of basically we took county draft, redlinined it, edited it. Um there are uh changes in there that reflect, you know, there are places where the county referenced county code sections. Well, that doesn't work for us. we, you know, fix those to reference town code sections. That sort of thing is the bulk of what you see in there in terms of um we've talked about this um with planning committee. They requested conversations about this and so there are a couple points that when we initially started to review this code kind of jumped out at us and wanted to make sure that we were on the right page. We knew what page we were on with that. Um first one of those was um accessory dwelling units um within the overlay district in the county. They do not have a cap on the size of accessory dwelling units within their 10 mile overlay district. Um upon conversation about that with the the community members and the staff, county staff and with then with our committee, planning committee, the council, you know, their their rationale for that was they've got much stricter lot coverage um allowances. They don't allow have a much smaller lot coverage area. So, they figured you didn't need the square footage requirement on the ADU because you can develop a smaller portion of the

lot in the first place. So they figured that was already kind of taken care of and it left it more up to the individual property owner how they wanted to split that up. So the committees understood that point and felt that that was that was adequate um coverage. So, we've kept the language about um getting rid or not having a specific maximum 80 square footage criteria and just let the lot coverage hand that um signage and street names. One thing that's a little um out of the ordinary way we do things, but anything wrong with it, it's just that they wanted given what they've seen a lot um within the community, they've seen some developments come in that are just totally, you know, out of character and the names of the streets don't seem to fit with the community, that sort of thing. They just had requested that any signage and street names that happen um to be requested within the be be coordinated with the 10 mile neighborhood association just to make sure that everybody it's kind of in keeping with the flavor of the community. Um we didn't really again just kind of left the language that they wanted in there on that one as well. Um a point that we differed a bit um well fair bit um was with workforce and affordable housing. Um the county code overall, not just in 10 mile but but everywhere um allows for bonus densities for doing if you're doing you know percentages of affordable housing units you have an allowed higher density to do

those units. and that seemed to be a bit more than we were able to um support at a planning committee level. So what um the way that the draft has been written, you have basically it just stays with that one to three or 3 one um density that we had previously discussed in this area. The the rural densities of one unit three acres or the urban suburban densities of one unit three units per acre. Yeah, get this backwards. Um, so but what we did allow, what we did maintain in the draft is that duplexes, triplexes, and quadlexes could be considered for workforce housing in this overlay district with a special exception just to allow some potential flexibility for those situations. Um, that is contained within draft. Just finishing up what I was the rural allowances that the county had forced. Okay, there we go. Um, again, within the county's district, uh, they had they have a process for special storm water requirements. That's not something that we have. And this is just We just basically referred back to town storm storm water ranks instead of trying to create a separate review process for the for the overlay district that wasn't in keeping with anything else. So we had referred back to town. Um one question so if you'll remember at the beginning the

um counties the historic district boundary for 10 miles was adopted by the county in 2022 and it took until 2025 to get their overlay district adopted. In that three-year time period, there were some annexations into the town. So what you have um the pink map is um the historic district and then the one that's more multicolored is the overlay zoning district. Um so there's some places some properties that had initially been considered part of the community historic community but then they annexed into the town so the county didn't include them in the county's overlay because they were already in the town. So um we talked about how to best address that and What the committee um directed us to do was basically to use the the historic district boundary but using the the land use patterns that are shown in the overlay district if that makes sense. We'll come back to this one in just a minute. I'm talk about the circles. So this is this is the map that we've included within the draft ordinance that includes for instance back up here of um up at the end of um Chandler Road. There's a couple properties in that vicinity that had annexed into the town in that interim. And within our district, what we're proposing is that they would be included because they're in the town and this is a district that would be for town properties. Um there are two other um well actually down here at the very bottom there are some properties the

bottommost oval um that were requested to be excluded from the county's overlay zoning district even though they had been part of the historic district. Um, and that we we left those out as well simply because they had gone to county council back in the fall and requested to be removed and they're in the county at this point anyway. So, we just kept that same request. But this is the boundary that we looking at. And the other two things I wanted to point out, they're just a little odd, not odd, but anomalies. Um you'll notice here along this north part of 17 in this in this area some of the properties are striped. Um those are actually contained within a separate county overlay district. That's their um 10 mile hub and it's our 10 mile hub on our comp plan. So we kept they have separate um designation already within the town and the county. We didn't mess with that. We just left those as they are. And here on the um these three small parcels here um were also included within their overlay district included within ours even though they were not in the historic district. This is where those are that's if you're driving 17 there's a wall with some yellow houses within it. That's property. So um That's it in a nutshell. Um, this is just kind of an overview of the points that I was talking about. If you have any questions, of course, that's here. Um,

before we open it to the public, just a couple questions. One is um the committee you referred to, tell us about the composition. Is it expected that that committee will who Who gave these guides? This was the planning committee of of town council. Sorry. Apologize. No, that was it was the town plan town council planning committee. Yes. And expectation possibly for a some sort of review board since this is a historic district. Would that be with what do we call it now? The HDPC or some other

that is kind of the next topic of conversation. once we get the um overlay district, you know, kind of in place. Um that is certainly um something to consider because the county does have a similar board that reviews projects within this area. Um, we've been talking among staff and with legal about trying how that could best work because what we're it's a little different scenario because we're talking most of this property right now is still in the county, right?

And so if we were to establish a historical commission for it, it would have no curfew anywhere to begin with. And so it's just a little a little bit of a we're trying to figure out um what would be the best path to recommend for obviously consideration by people who make those decisions.

Um the last question at least for me is with respect to the designation of historic overlay. Um has the state weighed in? Is this something that the state places criteria against the state historic preservation office? Is there any move of foot to make this a national register district like we have elsewhere? Phillips is already um I believe it's certainly something that they are considering but this has been their focus the community's focus over the past several years and I think I don't want to speak for them but what I've gathered is you know one thing at a time.

Sure. Okay. And so at this point it's a county level designation as a historic district.

And part of the reason I asked because I wasn't familiar with other county historic districts. I'm on their email distribution list for some of the announcements about reviews of those properties that are professed questions for Um I just have one question. I just wanted a little more information about what committee felt they we should do on the duplexes, triplexes and quads in the workforce if it's going to be workforce housing with special exception approval. So just elaborate on that a little bit because generally we sort of don't look really timely on the quads, you know, triplexes and duplexes and so how would that work for the workforce housing? I I mean we didn't get into a lot of details other than it was it was seen as an opportunity to support the the the interest in the efforts of the community to bring some of these in.

And um with the with the requirement for special exception they figured it was you know it was not just a gimme but it would have to be a will. I guess the question I have which would need to be more fleshed out would be who who approves or denies the special exception. It would be boards and appeals. Okay. So it would be oh it would be boz. Yeah. So okay because it would seem to me that again the community so the 10 mile in this case would have some reason to weigh in on that sort of

that's where the boza process so that it would be a typical boza special exception case where 10 mile people would have to come and oppose it if it was being proposed if that was their wish or support it it wouldn't go through like the historic district tying together the last thing you mentioned um I know it's a separate topic of conversation but I had been listening to the whole committee conversation I sat in

and one of the things that I think was touched on but I was thinking of more specifically was they have to have some oversight but you don't really want separate commission that doesn't really have a lot to do at this point. But what about if we allowed for the expansion of historic district commission because we took away the old village part of it, you know, the designation. If we were to expand that and let's say each settlement community that has an overlay, then in this case 10 mile could have two representatives on the historic district commission. And if matters that pertain to the 10 mile district came before that commission, they would have let's say a super vote like a two votes or a one vote where they don't have in other words the voting would be a little different. So they'd have we maybe would like sort of you know um weight it a little bit more.

Those are all the complicating things that need to kind of be right chewed upon and and we're trying to figure out legally and appropriately you know what I would just posit that that's that would be my suggestion that yeah because I don't see any reason why it couldn't work um because in the county the the oversight is a board that oversees everything right right so instead of having a broader board at least you'd want some of the people that are representative of the particular place that you're talking about point when I was hearing describe this you mentioned But then we've got all the Mount Pleasant community and then we've got

a lot of communities, right? Sometimes people's interests aren't one to one. Well, and it's, you know, it's you're right. I mean, you've got everybody wears a lot of different hats, too, you know. So, I mean, at least that might work until so many of properties are annexed in that it becomes or multiple historic districts. Yeah, exactly.

You don't really want to do the multiple historic districts when you don't really have anything in them to you know right now in the town. So right you know in other words the oversight commissions that don't have anything to do but so that could be an interim way to do it. Um but yeah that's my only concern is just you know if it goes before after that how I guess it would just have to be enough people from 10 mile to speak up at meetings you know in order of that they have some control over their community.

The only thing I would say to that is if I may as historically is somebody coming in to get some exception for something that's typically a hardship that's not financial driven. So you almost wonder why boza because well it's not really a boza thing. It's do they have the flexibility to do this based on the prior sheet that you had showing the different um opportunities for density or not? And if they do, they do. If they don't, they don't. But it shouldn't be a special exception. But wear that special exception hat for

uses that are designated that way in town code and county code. That's how they've got it in the counties code as well. Right. hardship though. But for a special exception, it's not a hardship test. It's not. Okay. Good point. Thank you. Okay. I'm not going anywhere. All right.

This is a public hearing. Um, now would be the time to speak on this matter if anyone cares to see none, we will close the public comment for this particular discussion amongst ourselves. I'll make a motion to approve. Second motion has been made and second to approve. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppos?

Good. Next is item 7B public hearing for 210. Thanks, Chair. So, over the past year, we have had three now resoning requests within this block. The two on May Lane and now on. And it's not a coincidence. It's actually a response to a policy change that happened in 2018. Basically, the ordinance said that if you're in the Boulevard overlay district and you are commercially zoned property, you have the ability to develop as a residential property or as a commercial property within your permitted uses. It was it was an ordinance that was geared toward um develop um market driven and development driven whatever the market was, you know, needing. That's how you could shift council decided that they would they would like to be more involved in that process especially with the commercial base maybe could potentially disappear. So now we're seeing these come in and that's why this is here before you that we can kind of on a case by case basis look at these and determine whether these are appropriate to go from commercial property to to residential. So, Clink Lane is is an interesting site. It's interesting street. It's it's pretty eclectic and I don't really know know how to convey that without actually taking you um to the street. Um so, this is our subject property. It's 49 ft of street frontage, which would make it non-conforming for R2, but that is very common on the street. This is a the rear

of a commercial office building. This is the rear facade of a vacant commercial space. And then you go to the other side of the street and you've got single family homes. Um this is the single family home that um it was platted back in 1950. And I don't you always think about clean lane and main lane. There should probably be some interconnectivity there. It was never anticipated. Uh since 1950, this lot was platted and this was built. Um it just wasn't happening. So, um single family homes across the street. So, it's it's interesting to see that level of of mixture just from one side of the street to the other. But now that you have that context, um the current zoning is AB1 and you can kind of see that clear line of that block of commercial zoning in this this residential. The request is for R2 zoning and the future land use would be community scale commercial not only for this block but further back on this this portion where we uh identified that residential block as well. So, it's helpful when we've been encountering these requests to go from commercial to residential to just take a second to look at what is the property actually being used for today. That that's uh been helpful. And this is our subject property and it's currently vacant. Um it's it is commercially zoned, but it's it's vacant. And you can see these these properties on main lane that that have been successfully reszoned. This this is a pretty solid residential block. And then you have the commercial. So um that just gives you an idea of where things are at today. Um

this this will kind of further determine where things are are trending. But uh that's really all that staff has. I have some supplementary information if you would like to get into that. Um if questions We'll have that ready. But glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. I guess you said it's a non-conforming property. So, uh, could anything without a variance or waiver be built on this to R2?

That's a good question. So, two things on that and I'll try to start with um so two things would be this is a non-conforming lot which would give it a reduction on setbacks 20% reduction Anything beyond that would require a variance from the board of zoning appeals. But this is actually an instance where decreasing your setbacks might not be helpful because now you have the AR building area ratio is kind of compounding this. And this is a 5,500 foot lot, but at bare minimum they would be allowed for 25 square 2500 square feet. And that could I I haven't seen any building plans, but that could likely um be accommodated here, but you you know that situation where the the B and then the setbacks kind of play against each other. The thing that um is interesting across the street, this property is identical to this one. And in 2023,

207

207, correct? it it's identical and it went for a variance in 2023 for reduction setbacks and a reduction in the impervious surface coverage. So that was an instance where variances were needed to develop this lot. It's possible that this could be could be done. It it'll be tight. Um it's it's 49 ft um would meet the minimum requirements for So it's definitely getting getting tight. This is a public hearing. So are the persons here that like to speak on this particular item?

Yeah. Please come right right up. You have two and a half by by policy. Come on up. You have two and a half minutes. And if you would state your name as well as your address for the public record. Sure. My name is John Rice uh and my address is 2147 Parkway Drive in Charleston and I'm the applicant for this. U here first and foremost to answer any questions y'all might have and also thank you for uh your consideration. Um you know I just point out that Meleane and Clink Lane Mr. Stone mentioned are very similar not great in ingress egress. Um and so what we're trying to do is build a single family residence uh that we think would be in line with you know the desires of residents on the street. traffic down and um and just the fabric of the neighborhood and so I appreciate yall's review and questions.

And by the way, sir, I misspoke. As the applicant, you have more time, but if we Mr. Stone has covered it. Okay. Any questions for the directly? Thank you. Now we'll move into the public hearing period. Anyone here speak?

Yes, please. State your name and your address for the public.

My name is Edward Oswald. I live at 158. I am the owner of the property. Uh, and we are under contract with Mr. Rice and his group. I also own the building next door. to plank and piece between 409 and half moon. So three lots there. Um we we bought the we bought 49 probably 10 years ago 10 years ago put a facelift on it and it was a rather dilapidated building used to be if any of you from here you might remember it was the radio station and it sits on 27 feet above sea level which is kind of amazing uh one of the highest points in Mount Pleasant that's why they chose to be the radio station put a tower Um, so I've been involved with that piece of property for a long time. I actually, my business partner and I bought 207 Clink Lane when Miss Richard Dean's cousin owned it and we bought it from him. Gosh, five or six years ago, sold it to a builder and this couple here now lives there. Um, so we're I'm in favor of the reszoning. Uh the current zoning does allow for residential but allows for residential mixed use situation. So we could do a residential unit but it would be on top of mixed use or commercial component which then you would have both the commercial traffic and the residential traffic. So what we're asking is is just to go to residential and eliminate that commercial side of it. Clink Lane has never been really conducive to commercial truthfully. Uh 409 does have a parking lot in the back which a lot of those tenants use it. It's very quiet. Um, but it's a right in right out off of Coleman and it's a oneway dead end street. It's not one way street, but it's a dead end street. So, it's it's it's not terribly conducive to commercial traffic. So,

that's what we're asking. And if you got any questions for me, thank you. I'm sorry. him raise his hand.

Hi, I'm Shante Braa. This is my husband, father. We live at 207 and across the street from the lot that we're hoping and we're in support of having a resial on. Um our lot is identical and as he said it would support um a home about 3,000 square feet and we hoping that the commercial traffic would now go away right now being used as a boat lot a rental boat lot and we are not loving the situation right now. We would love if that footprint would match the rest of the neighborhood and essentially seal the resial space on our street, you know, along with the other houses that have already been developed. Um, yes, we are in support of it here so that the boatyard traffic would stop and hopefully the commercial space next door also become home. That would be a wonderful.

Thanks for your comments. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public comment on item. Any additional questions for the staff? Yes. Motion to approve. Second. Um, I appreciate that you don't like the boatyard part or the boat parking, but from what I understand, the person who owns lot, the person who just spoke before the lot owns lot 409 and this one.

Um, it would be easy to aggregate lots and keep it commercial um and to do something developmentally with the commercial. My problem is When we did the main lane properties, I specifically said this is going to be a slippery slope and main lane is different. It has more residential properties on it, but to take a piece of this whole chunk of commercial, I see the next one happening and the next one happening. Um, so that that's the reason I'm concerned. And this is a non-conforming property. Um, Mr. Could anything other than a single family residence go if it's R2 or it would only be a single family?

It could be well not commercially viable but um R2 would support a space community recreation but nobody pursue that type of use. But I meant it could it's you could have a mixed use property. Oh if it remains if it remains if it remains remains be correct. It could um and it would be likely similar to one Elizabeth where the dentist office and then there is a residence above that would be permitted.

So I mean I I appreciate that you know you always end up with something where there's residential across the street and then we start chipping away at a big commercial block of property and then pretty soon the whole thing starts to become more and more resial and that's That's anathema to the comp plan where one of the goals is not to resone commercial properties as residential. It's specifically an action plan in the comp plan. So that's why you know I make special exceptions may lane seem to be a little different but that's why I have concerns about this.

The only thing I would say to to that is kind of while I don't necessarily disagree with what just from a life safety standpoint, fire trucks, additional commercial back there, even if it's commercial and residential, it just to me it presents a life safety issue to to cramp more in there. And as a single family residence, given the that it's it is across the street, but more or less the life safety aspect of it, it feels like it's a better use in this case residentially. Although I understand everything said, don't necessarily disagree with a lot of the logic in that I think it's a tough commercial space and I believe it's trending in the direction that Ireland predicts and I actually think that's a good thing for at least this particular property this street it is an eclectic kind of environment there We in addition to needing commercial space, we need residential space and I think those we have a motion made and second to approve. We'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. Item seven, street.

Thanks, chair. This is the conceptual plan and street game request for Cape Landing at Carolina Park. These these street names were approved by the county and this is the way they would like them situated. The applicant would like these names assigned to these specific streets. So, not much to it other than this is the last step before they pursue building permits. I'll move to approve. Second. Motion has been made. Second to approve the proposal street names proposed. All those in favor say I.

Any discussion regarding the Good evening. Um, so this came about just I'll give you a little bit of context first. Um, back in the 99 and the 2003 comp plans. Um, all of your public institutional properties were sort of referred to as existing. Um, we did not have a zoning a corresponding zoning district that come along in 2010. Um, and at that time there were no properties reszoned. Over the years we've had some NPW properties reszone. We've had a few school properties, but other than that, most of the properties that were recommended for public institutional maintain their zoning that they've had for 20, 30, 40 years with the code rewrite. Um, now I'm going to bring it in with another thing. During the code rewrite, it used to be that our um density standards were established in the comp plan. Um that was highly unusual. Nobody no other municipalities do that. Um and what that meant was if I had a zone, my property was zoned for residential, but the comp plan said public institutional um I couldn't build a house. And the comp plan is a guiding document. And so if if a if you have density in the comp plan, it's typically a recommendation or a range. But you're in most areas, you'll find that your density is established through a zoning ordinance. So we fixed that with the comp plan a update and the zoning code rewrite. So we fixed those things so that it was not confusing. It was it it matched sort of

best practices of where you should have your density. And it and it said that residential I for example R2 the density is three units an acre and that's what I can do I don't have to amend the comp plan when the zoning confers my zoning rights so we fixed that in the comp plan and we fixed it with the zoning code update we presented that um and uh the issue or the topic that has come up and was asked to be placed on the committee agenda last month was to discuss these two And uh really what they wanted to dig into is how many properties are designated for public institutional um that were never zoned public institutional. And so they recommended that we bring it to the commission for further um review. So I'm going to provide you with a little bit of information. So from the time that our comp plan came up with the future land use and public institutional we have 162 properties that are recommended for public institutional. 33 are actually zoned PI 12 are in the county 35 are designated and within a plan development and then 82 are zoned something other than those 82 come up to about 88 acres. So, I'm going to concentrate on those 82 properties that are zoned something other than PI or PV. And I've got a map here. A lot of them are really small. Some of them are small pump stations. And so, they don't even really show up, but you can see how kind of they're spread throughout the town. Um, we do have this map separately if you want to zoom in anywhere in a minute, but I did break them out according to their current use. And so, uh, a few of the anomalies, we have a post office, we have the airport that's always been zoned R1. Uh, just to

make a a clarification that the airport is covered under some other regulations that don't necessarily the R1 doesn't necessarily affect that. they you know you have other standards there and I know we have some agreements with the airport. So the airport is kind of an anomaly that sits out there. Um we have a lot of churches. Um total church property is almost 80 acres that are that are zoned and you can see over in the right hand column here what they are actually currently zoned. Most of them are R2 R1. We have a few that are AB. There's a few more churches and we have three funeral homes. We have two libraries. Those equal about three and a half acres. Um and then we have eight private properties, seven private properties. Um they're in white and they total almost 14 acres. You can see the one on Coleman is AB. We have a light industrial. Most of them are residential. Uh we have some uh Dominion and uh MPW properties. Um in the darker blue there um those equal about 10 and a half acres. And then the rest are the school properties. Um and those are mostly residential except for um Moltry on Coleman. That's AB1 which is appropriate for that area. But um school properties total about almost 103 acres. And then we have town properties. So the the property we're sitting on right now is is zoned residential. Um Alhamra Hall is zoned residential. So that just gives you an idea of there was never any initiative to reszone these properties. That would be a big undertaking. I don't since I've been here I've never known council to actively reszone property. I've seen them uh initiate overlay zonings like we heard tonight with the 10 mile overlay.

even when we redid the zoning ordinance or we we update the comp plans um they don't necessarily ever actively reszone property and so all these properties unless the property owner initiated it they all maintained their zoning and so the town has almost 40 acres that is not zoned public institutional that we own and so that's where we're at um they sit out there they've been sitting out there for many years I did want to talk about There's no bearing on the on the comp plan. The comp plan may recommend public institutional, but if my property is zoned R1 and I want to build a house, that zoning confers my right to build a house. Um, you would have to reszone the public institutional to have a public institutional use. Um, so just some of the permitted uses that are in the PI zoning. Um, you're probably pretty familiar with them. You can do a church, a college, um, day schools, preschools, you can cemearies. Um, for government facilities, you can do lay down and maintenance yards, you can hospital, medical campus. Um, so there's a lot of things that can be done under the PI zoning if somebody were to actively choose that zoning district. And, um, so that's kind of what I've got. I wanted to just kind of show you what we have sitting out there. Um, and I think committee really just wanted the commission to look at this and and discuss it and if you had any recommendations to send back to them. Um, that's what we'd like to do tonight.

Okay. First, you have a mistake there. It's not the Charleston County Airport. It's the Mount Pleasant Region airport. You have it listed as Charleston County Airport. Okay. Have Charleston County Airport. Okay. Yeah. I think that came from the county. I understand that. So, I have another question too. um right along Matthysse Road right near near the the funeral home on the other side of the funeral home right next to the kabad um they just bought I think it was like 14 or 15 acres does that fall into this in any way

who bought it thead the uh no I think the property that the Habad was looking at is was adjacent it's adjacent to the Habad was like you know, the bank built that property years ago. Yeah. No, it is not public institutional. I I I want to say it's maybe office professional or something. So, it doesn't really it doesn't really apply fit into this. No. Okay.

At least at a high level, my first thought is um wouldn't want to let sleeping dogs. Um but there must be to at least consider making a change in designation and I get the I get the more what's the right word crisp precise designation for use but if making clamoring to be public institutional

I think what I see as the potential issue is that the way it used to be for decades, you know, although it was unusual, as you said, um, in order to build something under R2 or R1, depending on what the property was, they have to go get approval to amend the current plan because of the land, right? Right now, any one of those churches could decide that it can do better by moving out of town and selling it property to a developer and it's under R1 or R2. That's that's a right.

So, that's that's the concern I have that they could have a portion of property sold or um or their whole property sold. You know, if there's a school that decides not to be I I don't think the Charleston County schools or things were worried about moving, you know, they're going to have service people in the town, but I'm more concerned about things like the churches, the um pardon me

right so I think that's the concern is that we lose what we are intending to have public institutional properties for the benefit of the whole community if not wasn't and that we could end up having development residential developments.

Well, and then there are a few instances where I think it may congregations res be a different zone though that wouldn't be R1 and R2. Wouldn't that be like a something? I think it's a different

like like a group home or temporary something I don't know what um so are there

something I'm sorry we're doing something similar with the National Park Service trying to create some ranger housing on Son's Island by repurposing referred to as lifeaving station and right now it's not used for anything. So what good is it? But it could be outfitted to think of essentially dorm space for all that sense. The problem is single family homes or other and it's going to be a developer who wants to make the most

I will say that, you know, our consultants for the zoning code was uh Tyson Smith. He's a very well-known land use attorney. He's been around a long time. And um I zoning confers property. So when you are zoned R1, for instance, if your house is owned R1 and um and we say, "Well, I'm sorry. The comp plan says PI, you can't build a house there." that can lead to some problems and he had concerns about that and I think it was probably pure luck that we were never really challenged on it. Um, you know, it's it can lead to some legal issues that perhaps you know I is it a tool to deny something? Sure. If I have a if I have two acres vacant zoned residential

by right, I can build residential, but the guiding document says I need to amend the comp plan and it's denied by town council and I can't develop my property as it's zoned R1. So, so if you deny the z the use of the property as it's zoned, that can lead to some serious problems. And that was the anticipation of what could come if we didn't Um, so you imagine a property has a zoning and you're not allowed to use it as it's zoned. It could be an issue.

And so that's why this was fixed with the code update. I mean, I would have to believe that most of the properties like the churches that we're looking at right here are not thinking they're going to be using this as residential property and you know, that's probably not a big concern for them. What I'm saying is yes, it's a potential risk having it the other way, although nothing seemed to have ever happened and maybe we were lucky, but it's also a huge risk here for an unintended consequence. You know, that's a big deal for this town. Well, it could be a big deal.

And so perhaps all of these properties so and and I think that's why the committee wanted you to discuss it. Should the committee the commission recommend we initiate reszoning all these properties to PI and I think That's what they wanted to hear from you about.

Well, let me just kind of throw something out there because I don't know how it would exactly work. So, that's for you guys to figure out. But instead of reszoning, I understand resoning is a long process. It's complicated and of course it then just raises the the it elevates the issue, you know, and makes it a big issue and it's public. What if we were is there any way we could use section 155 which is the LDRs to say that if a property is proposes to develop where its future land use is contrary to its zone, it would have to come for a waiver and and just meet those four criteria. So in other words, it would give us a reason to review these It wouldn't be a denial. It would be you have to go through to show that you know it's not going to affect your neighbors and you know that sort of thing. I mean it just seems to me that we do we do approve those things when the criteria are met.

Yeah. The LDRs are chapter 155 and this is all housed in chapter 156. So it's very different. Um if you wanted to if you wanted to Well, here I I get what you're what you're getting at. And what you're getting at more is I think the the route for chapter 156 and zoning would be the board of zoning. Um wait, what people come for us for land development? Chapter 155. This is zoning.

Yeah, but they would be developing on their land. Why is that not land development? Yeah, I kind of the same mindset as Michelle that, you know, I think right now we're talking about the underlying zoning and changes to underlying zoning probably 156. I haven't really thought about making a coming for a waiver underlying zoning proposed land. That'd be something I would really have to us as a legal department.

I would propose that you take that under adisement and really look into it because what we talked about in February was making some other changes to the LDRs to sort of tighten up issues that are inadvertent that you know we want to have some discretion to at least review things as opposed to having something just automatically get developed because it doesn't have to go before anybody you know it doesn't commission or council it just could happen. So it just seems to me that there might be a way to draft something that would so that we're not denying the use but we're saying you have to meet those four criteria to get a waiver. Just like you have a that is longer than it should be. And then you know that thing that we came across um it was in one of the settlement communities a few months ago where it was longer and they had to show there was either a connection or they had to get a waiver, you know. So I don't understand why this couldn't be the same. I

feel like the difference what you're describing is a development waiver. This is a use a use waiver and and so we don't have use variances here. Um and we don't have use waivers. I I think that's what you're describing, but it's not a development waiver. It's a use waiver. It's it's them. It's a waiver to allow them to use the as it is zoned. Right.

That is a use, not a development standard. I think I can see the distinction you're making, Michelle. And back to uses though. Um I don't know whether these data are even collect. Um, but isn't it possible that there are some instances where there is some modest residential use? I'm making this up, but maybe maybe associate director for Christ Church Episcopal Church and that's allowed now. So that would be considered an to the church.

Okay. That would be permitted under PI that you're proposing that be permitted under where the church is already existing. Okay.

Um what we have seen, let's see, a church is permitted in R1, right? But a school is a special exception. So what we've seen typically the impetus for for one of these properties to resone MPW a school is that they don't want to have to go back to the board zoning appeals to get a special exception every time they want to make a change. So they'll resone it to PI and they'll make their development changes. A church is a permitted use in R1 and and the parsonage or anything like that is is an ancillary use to that. So those are all permitted without any sort of waivers or reszoning.

Um and I I hear what you're saying, Miss Ireland, but I I I still think it gets back to that we're talking about the use of the property and not the development of the property. Um because because it sounds like you would only want to put that waiver requirement in place if a property was recommended for PI but zoned residential. Yeah. I mean, if it's Yeah. If if the zone if the zoning designation doesn't match the comp plan's future land use map, that's when whether it's PI or some other

any doesn't match the future land should have well I'm just I mean I haven't had more than five minutes to think this through but but ultimately I'm trying to be a creative thinker that's what I'm trained to be so to Michelle's point I think that is probably standard environment standards those kind of waiverss they're not related to the zoning of property itself So, is it your basic understanding that the only way to solve this problem is to reszone every one of these properties and to go through that process?

Well, what problem are you trying to solve? That's my question. What's the problem here? Well, that's what I'm asking. I It's the risk that Why is that a risk? Why is it a risk? Because what if and again, this may never happen, but it never happened for, you know, everybody can the old way. What happens if um a number of these churches decide they could get so much money for their property in Mount Pleasant that they just assume relocate to North Charleston, they're still going to keep their parishioners and they're going to use all that money for mission.

That's a fair point. But what I'll tell you is most of these churches with the exception of some that are kind of buried in communities like my church is um Palmettores uh are in visible areas where the highest and best use financially for them if the church gets wiped off the land is to stay commercial. It's commercial acreage is worth way more than residential acreage in a traditional you know density setting. It just is. So I would say that If it's very visible, it's probably not going to happen. But if it's packed, it's it's crammed in a neighborhood or something, it may happen to your point because it's they're just going to get more for their land for a commercial use than they would a res.

That's true. If it's a what a um but I guess my to back up and sh apologize for asking this because it went over my head. What what is the next what started this again? What help us understand from the like the moment of I think

well you know it it was a it was a topic of discussion in the code update because we we we called it a major change because we knew it was a major change because that's what council was used to. Um but it didn't really cause concern until I I think has been talks about maybe uh developing a piece of property that's zoned residential as residential when it's recommended for PI and I think that brought up the fact that this change was made

and although we've not had any proposals given to us and um you know I don't have anything you know to provide to you to point to it that's what brought up the concern and the chairman of our planning committee realized or or remembered that we had made this change in the code in the comp plan and asked that it be a topic of discussion. Um so I think to get back to your to your question of if there is a problem to be solved and the problem is perceived that any property zoned residential that's recommended for PI is going to develop as residential. The way to make it right is either one, change the comp plan to match what it's zoned,

which is not int what the town intends, or change the zoning, right? and and that is a that is an act of initiation that the town would need to take because um I don't know of any other way to see changing the zoning would be more more detrimental because we're basically saying we're taking the zoning away and giving something different where I was trying to suggest a way and to say if this happens we we need to at least sense but if we can't do that because versus develop.

Yeah, it's interesting. I I used to work in Indiana and you had use variances. So, you could go to the board of zoning appeals if I if I I'm sure they have it in other areas of South Carolina, but we don't have here. So, does South Carolina prohibit a South? They don't have it. Yeah. So, in other words, they prohibit it or they just don't have it. Like they in other words, it's not allowed.

And there's planning. Yeah. So, you just have variances of development standards. Um, which which I I think is probably a cleaner way to do it. If I want to change the use of my property instead of going to fields, I resone make it zoned what it should be for the use I want. Right. Um, you know, we can go back and I don't know that there's any rush with anything. we can go back and kind of mle over what you've talked about, you know,

individually, one one person on the commission. Um, I I understand the rationale and actually I think it's makes perfect sense and it's logical. What I'm most wary of is consequence. That's exactly for existing use of these properties that we really don't know much about. Frankly, the community is finding it pretty okay. And we don't want to toss that head of the preschool for one of these, you know, church-based uh nurseries out on the street because that person has been living in a modest apartment. You get the point, you know.

Do do you mean the consequence of reszoning all these properties? I see. How many total? But you got to take out the 400 for the airport. Yeah. I mean, I think it's more of a risk that people

Michelle brought up a good point. She she brought a good point where if somebody takes, you know, a church parcel that's 15 acres and gets it reszone or or not res but wants to that's R2, I guess, and wants to build residential on it by right. There's a kind of still a process for them to do that that they're going to have to go through where they're going to have some gatekeeping moment. It would come to you all, right? And then it would continue on down the path, right? But yeah, to do that it takes some heavy lifting to get that done and it's not a there are a lot of moments where there's some governance there. So I just

I'm not so concerned about the subdivision. I'm concerned about sale of a parcel and maybe some of these have separate parcels combined with I don't know if it's all one parcel or if they're you know there may be a church that is existing but the parking in some ancillary area are that they use they could sell one of them to become res but we did I feel like we have had a couple church properties around that we z the usage is different Well, um I I recall what you're talking about, Peter. Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall them coming in. I think it was recommended for CC in that area, but they also wanted to do some sort of garden or market, a community garden, which was allowed in CC. And so to have the church and a church is permitted in CC. So in order to have the church and the community garden, they chose CC. I think that was the recommendation. I can't recall but um but a church is permitted in CCR1. Um

I just think all the likelihood of all the churches disappearing taking the 450 acres ac Christ. Yeah. And you can see church. Yeah. The larger ones are And then you have the the funeral home

and I think No, that wasn't funeral home. A funeral home tried to come through a while back, but um Stir Properties on Mat that's got some acorage, but I think that's the um So, one of the properties acres. Yeah, that's the cemetery. So that's the cemetery 7.6 which is is that the what is that? What is the 7.6 also the cemetery or um there's I don't know the I thought that was the only one. It's a pretty big

Yeah. So I yeah I think your your big ones of course are the airport town has a lot of properties. Um I can't I'm assuming town's not you know selling property to develop residential. Let's hope um I'm not worried about that so much although maybe I should be. I don't know. Well you know um you talk about churches not selling the church and so forth. Although we had no control over it, you know, Sea Coast had all that property out in Carolina Park area and they sold it to the developer. We had no control over that. So,

you know, I mean, it is possible the church could decide to either close the church, remove the church and sell the property. Well, and the and was it the Baptist church that was going to be that part that was going to become a PV part of the Dunes West? Yeah. Yeah. Both of those were supposed to have expansions that didn't. So, it's possible that Life Park is expanding actually um adjacent to the proposal you all heard. So, they are having an expansion just not as as much as they anticipated.

I just I just feel like u there's a lot of great opportunities to affect change. I don't necessarily know if this is crying out to be affected. Um, it feels like it's a picking fight that's gonna really It's not a good look. I just kind of wish we let sleeping dogs back, you know, because it was working for 50 years. But now that it's done, I don't really know what to do about it. I know committee must have been concerned enough about it to send it to us.

Well, like I said, I we can talk about it internally and we can always bring it back or if you know the recommendation is to reszone properties if the recommendation I mean we're happy to I don't think any of us is making a recommendation to zone each of these properties PI. I just think that's a lot of potential problems. That seems pretty extreme. Yeah, we can look um we can look internally too at what you were talking about if there's another mechanism for zoning matching the comp plan, not just PI but but in general

um because you know that's the problem. We have this aspirational future land use map in the compliment and that's what the community as a whole after all these hearings and meetings and wants our town to be you know that's the development future and then you know it just seems to me that if if there are that many disconnects between what our future land use is and what the current zoning is not just for this but others I don't really know how much is not the same.

Um, you know, it just it's sort of like, well, then what good is the compliment? Like, you know, it tells people this is what we would like it to be, but it doesn't have to be this, you know. So, it just it's it's fundamentally it's sort of problem conceptually for me. I'm looking at the our comprehensive plan expert just as if she has some words of wisdom. Well, two two things. First, to play devil's advocate, we did just like maybe 20 minutes ago reszone something against the comp plan. So,

that's me playing, but also what if we started with just town as PI feel that government property seems reasonable to

I feel like right well unless they have property that they that they don't need anymore it's a test let's put the screws to the town I mean you think about you think about where Alhamra Hall and if it gets resoned to public institutional what could go there and are the people that live around there going to support that um you know lay down.

So I I think when you talk about you got to think about the actual PI zoning the people that live around some of these areas they they may be okay with the alternative that it's not going to be a church or alhamra hall but it's going to be R1 instead of PI. So I I think you're going to see I think there could be some push back. Well, then it comes back at that time again. I mean, if we resol for whatever reason, the town unloaded it, it would come back for reasoning by

not if it was PI and somebody wanted to use it as PI

once. I think about the value of property is never going to be developed. Well, we're happy to

to do whatever you like. So, we help you a lot, Michelle. My hair just got grayer about this whole issue. It makes me nervous now all these land uses and changes and the fact that things are not aligned, but Yeah. I think the important thing to remember too is comp plan's a guide. That's right. Um it's not perfect. Um conditions change, things change, and I think zoning code's not perfect either. We just did a lot of things and we keep redoing things. So that's not perfect either. Sure.

About that. Most of my background is strategic planning. So, you know, our strategy and our budgets and so forth, it's just that, you know, doesn't make it right.

I just hope we don't end up saying, "Oh, this is what we Okay, help a tiny bit." I don't know. Tell them I tried to think of something, but I guess didn't work. Thanks. Appreciate