Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, Mr. Stone, you ready for us? All right, we'll call the...

And I don't think there's a need for a roll call. We have a few folks missing, but we do have a quorum. With that, I'll ask for a motion to approve the agenda as it was posted. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor of approving the agenda say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you. And the same for approval of the minutes of the June meeting. Any recommendations for edits or additions, changes?

None. I'll move to approve. I'll second.

Motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we'll turn the time over to Mr. Stone with Planning Commission recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Planning Commission sent three recommendations on to Council in July. We had 2377 North Highway 17, that being annexed and zoned OP1 within the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. That was approved. The amendment to Gregory Ferry PD, the Workforce Housing Development, if you recall, they requested 80 to 150 AMI. The committee modified that to 80 to 120 AMI. That was approved for first reading. And we also had the 1465 Stuart Ingalls Boulevard. That was annexed and zoned AB1. That was approved for first reading. And then from our May meeting, we sent forward two recommendations, both 883 Longpoint Road and 2405 Old Georgetown Road. Both received annexation recommendations. and CC zoning within the town. So glad to answer any questions y'all might have about those recommendations.

Peter, any color on the decision to modify the criteria by which there would be eligibility for the affordable housing? Sure, sure. The reason I ask is because I want to try to inform ourselves about if we're confronted with this kind of topic again.

Sure. There was definitely an agreement that there's a pinch point with the 80% alone. 80 to 120 definitely was recognized as the standard common practice. 150, you start getting into that 170,000 household income, and that just appeared to be a little bit high for some. So 80 to 120, just falling back to that standard common practice, it will be discussed at committee coming up in August. so further discussions needed on how did this happen exactly and you know a lot of it is external factors that are outside of our control inflation things like that it really you know but the council wanted to defer it back to committee after giving it first ring approval just to discuss more what can we do as a town to better approach these workforce housing developments

Well, I'm glad to hear that because it strikes me that we, meaning the town, should be in a position to kind of standardize on some sort of formula. And I don't know, I'm still a little confused as to whether those standards are defined by... these other entities that I'm not really from the organization with which I don't really have familiarity or whether that's something that the town should define ourselves or some combination of the two. So it sounds like it's being studied.

It is. And you bring up a great point because, you know, HUD, AMI and those standards can be a blunt instrument it's it's very difficult to target our unique situation and it's it's not really unique to us but it feels compounded by just the housing prices and and the need for workforce but it's definitely being studied we're even looking at um charleston housing authority and and some of the standards they offer different standards from HUD and want to look at those and see if the committee responds to that.

Okay. Good. Thanks for those updates. Agenda item five is general correspondence. I looked, I guess, over the weekend. I didn't see anything at the time. Right. OK. All right. Now is the time for general public comment. So if any of you have comments to make before the commission of a general nature, now would be the time to do that. You have two and a half minutes. And if you would, please state your name as well as address for the record. Okay, seeing none, we will close the general public comment period and move on to our business agenda. 7A is a public hearing for 913 Bowman Road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to rezone 913 Bowman Road. It's on the corner of Bowman and Johnny Dodds Frontage. You may recall this is the East Cooper Family Pharmacy that closed in January and it was in operation and in business for 37 years preceding that. The property owner wants to make a shift away from pharmacy and medical towards expanding the uses and they are currently requesting AB1 which would allow the site to diversify their uses a little bit. The current zoning is OP2 and if you look just within this window 77% of the properties are zoned OP2 and that deserves probably merit some qualifications. And zoning maps do tell a story, so you might not find it as fascinating as I do, but it is pretty interesting. The context behind this is that in 1980, the town knew that East Cooper Regional Medical Center was going to take over this 10-acre parcel here. With that, and a hospital of that size and proportions, they knew that it would also require a supporting cast, outside consultants and supporting actors to keep going, the uses that they have there. So in the 80s, early 80s, the town began to zone these properties surrounding the hospital and the future side of the hospital to OP2 to give it kind of a placeholder zoning. One that earmarked these properties will be here to serve the greater hospital use, but also it eliminated competition. If you zone them just AB, you will then You know, you'd have commercial uses competing with your medical uses, and it wouldn't really serve the purpose. So that is why predominantly this area is zoned OP2. The comprehensive plan supports this shift toward AB1 with the community-scale commercial, and it's also right there on the edge of the redevelopment center. That's right here. And really, it's an opportunity to... maybe shift the needle back toward we've definitely saturated this area with medical uses and the hospital ended up moving in 2008 to their current location on Mathis Ferry. This is an opportunity to maybe shift that zoning back toward diversifying those uses and it actually happened here a couple years ago with this property, it was rezoned in C2 and there's a Starbucks there and you often see medical staff, nurses walking across the street to utilize that. So this area has more of a need than just medical and the comprehensive plan would support that 81. So that's all that staff has. Glad to answer any questions you might have.

Peter, just to remind me, please, are there... AB is a wider, provides wider latitude for different enterprises to locate. Is there something that could be done, how do I phrase this? would AB1 preclude OP2-like enterprises from citing themselves there? Does that make sense?

That's a great question. It would not. In fact, you would kind of look at this as AB would be inclusive of everything under it. Yeah, yeah. So... It would not prohibit or preclude a medical office if a user wanted to come in and utilize that space. They'd be able to do that, but it does allow for retail drive-thru. I don't know that you could get a drive-thru restaurant on this site just based on the size and the corner lot, but... it would open up the uses as well as providing for the standard medical office, anything like that.

Well, thanks for confirming. I thought that was the case. I just wanted to hear you say that. All right. Is the applicant here to present? Yes, sir. If you would, again, state your name and your address for the record.

I'm Steve Parker. And so myself and Travis, who are here, Travis Probst, we own the building. We've owned it since 2013. Okay. About half the property is my own business, which we intend to be there for. I don't know how long for perpetuity as far as I'm concerned. And then the pharmacy, when they decided to close down this last year, and I think a big part of it was Their employees left to go to some other pharmacies, including I think the one that opened up over by the Starbucks where the Starbucks is now. So the woman who had rented it for those 30, 40 years just couldn't keep it going. So we signed a new tenant. That tenant has a similar type business, although it's more specialized food products, non-perishable items. But when they came to get their business license, They were told they couldn't be in there, even though it was technically the same type of business as a pharmacy, and we didn't know this was overlaid that way. I see. Just because it had been so long, and those laws had changed at some point. We just weren't aware. But, yeah, look, we'd love to change it to AB. That tenant's ready to open their business as soon as we can get approval on this. Okay. And those are the details I have, unless you have questions. Good.

You have questions for the applicant? No. No. All right. Traps, you care? You said it well. All right, good. I don't know how well I said it, but that's it. Thanks for that. Okay, so this is a public hearing. So are there members of the community who would like to comment on this application? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing period for this particular application. Okay, discussion or maybe even a motion if you care. I'll second. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the proposal at 913 Bowman Road as applied for. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, gentlemen. Thank you. Absolutely. Next item is 7B. This is for 1437 and 1439 Venning Road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have two parcels located between the Mount Pleasant Water Works Operations Facility and Seaside Farm Estates. These are three existing single-family homes that are located here, and they are under the same common ownership. So the Decision that this one is currently within the town, but the decision is to annex and match that R1 zoning for all three lots. Currently in the county, these are zoned R4, which would create a net gain in units on the property, but with R1, it would remain the three single-family lots. and that is consistent with the future land use the conventional residential neighborhood r1 r2 would be appropriate and i believe if if proved this would probably be seen again just in a form of a sketch plan i believe the intent may be to maintain those three single family homes but clean up the property lines and make them more compliant okay that was the question i had too that's a

Puzzle shake a lot for sure. Okay. Questions for staff right now? Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. You probably heard our policies already.

Eric Bakey with Grantham Homes with 572 Savannah Highway. So we purchased this property. It's half in the county. And the larger parcel was in the town of Mount Pleasant. And we just want to clean up the lot lines and make three beautiful homes.

Okay. Good. Anything for the applicant while we have them?

No.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Again, this is a public hearing. Is there someone from the community or someone's plural who would like to speak on this particular proposal? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion of this particular proposal. Comments, questions, thoughts from the commission on 7B?

Well, I mean, I'll just mention that this is the least dense and the least intrusive use of the property. Largest lot size for residential. Right. And it's consistent with the neighboring property that they own. And so I think it's very simple. Yeah. I'm happy to move to approve.

I agree with Ms. Ireland. Any other concerns or discussion to be honest? Is there a second?

Second.

Second made by Mr. Smyth. Discussion? If not, we'll call the vote. All those in favor of the proposal for 1437 and 1439 Venning Road, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we'll go to 7C, proposal for 2310 Ruffin Road.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This is a half acre lot on the corner of West Palmetto Fort and Ruffin Road. There is an existing single family home located on the center of this property. Currently, this lot is zoned R1. They are requesting R3 zoning. And the future land use and the comprehensive plan would say that that is not consistent with the conventional residential neighborhood district that is typically reserved for R1, R2, which is currently zoned. And one thing I wanted to point out with this is that if you were just taking a look at this ZOOMED-IN VERSION, YOU COULD SEE THE DENSITY OF THE LOTS, THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS, AND MAY THINK THAT CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST FITTING. But Liberty Hill Farms was developed in 2016, Oyster Point 2012. Those were a part of cluster developments, and that's the type of development that allows you to really target and compress your residential area so that you can preserve property. other areas within that development maybe preserve the cultural resources within that development so for example liberty hill farms they they have 50 open space and provide public trails oyster points i think they're at 26 open space so and and then you look at the plat for this development it was planted in 1958 and has remained in that exact layout since that time so really there is a rhyme and a reason to why this isolated piece has maintained this this layout and the surrounding neighborhoods may have developed otherwise but As a whole, this is a conventional residential neighborhood, and the neighboring parcels were developed under separate zoning. That's all that staff has at this time. Glad to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. All right. Is the applicant here for this? No? Okay. Okay. Is there, this is a public hearing. Anybody care to speak on this particular topic? Might have an opportunity. Okay, seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion of this particular matter. Discussion or thoughts, questions?

i drove over there i've been there before but i drove over just to see the lot and see the area it's clearly it looks like it should be r1 property the liberty trail exits or enters right at the corner it's a beautiful trail area and keeping it r1 as opposed to going to R3 would be in keeping with the comp plan.

Okay.

And with the nature of all the surrounding properties in that strip. So I don't see any benefit to going to R3.

That was my sense too, Pam.

I agree with Ms. Ireland.

Okay. Thanks, Michelle.

Yeah, I agree too.

All right. So then we'll entertain a motion. Any other comments or discussion?

No, I would agree with all. I think it's, you know, it would be out of context.

Yeah. Yeah, I agree. And it would create a slippery slope as well. I agree. I'll move to deny. Okay. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded to deny the proposal for 2310 Ruffin Road. Any further discussion? If not, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of denying this request, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, item 7D, this is the fourth and last of our public hearings this evening. This is for 1182. That one was withdrawn. Whoops, I'm sorry, was it drawn? Yeah, I'm sorry. All right, we'll move on to the vested rights extension topic.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request for the second one-year extension of vested rights for Patriots Annex. This is the most recent master plan. The impact assessment does deal with the conceptual master plan, but most importantly, it deals with the trip generation table. And really, this is a two-way street that they have the vested rights to undertake this development within these parameters, but it also confirms to the town that they will not exceed these parameters. This is the framework in which they can operate within. If they choose to exceed this, then that would be a substantially new plan that would require new review. But at this time, this is the impact assessment that was approved in 2019, and they are requesting a second extension of that one-year right.

Mr. Stone, do we have any authority to deny it, or isn't it sort of automatic?

Yeah, it is. State code says that it should be approved unless there is some change to the ordinance, which staff has reviewed it and there has not been.

Okay. And Peter, David, if you would comment or educate us a little bit on what the policy and protocol is for extensions and the number that are allowed and that kind of thing, because this is a little, I think we've done one or two of these in the distant past, but I don't remember the parameters.

and thank you i wanted to stand here because this is the first uh go-round to this body after council passed an ordinance essentially delegating this responsibility to the planning commission prior to this staff took the position the state law says governing body staff took the position with legal advice that it essentially goes to the body that granted the granted the right to begin with. In this case, because it was a council right, it's coming to you as planning commission. So that is the context in which we are here. This is a matter of state law. And every time this goes before council, this is the question what is our flexibility what is our leeway I'll first say that state can't tell us that we have to do anything okay the however is if we don't do it the Punishment, I guess, for lack of a better term, meaning that it is as close to a mandate as there can be. Now, the reason why it's not an automatic staff approval is because there is a review process to, as Peter indicated, make certain that there are no changes in our ordinances that would prohibit this development and under state law there is a five one-year extensions are permitted so that is the that is the law in theory this could come back three more times okay um just i'll i'll also point to during covid There was some emergency extensions and the like. As I understand it, I believe we are out of that phase and we're just back to the standard state law five extensions. Okay.

So that was really my question. I didn't know how many opportunities the applicant would have to come back. I think you've answered that nicely for us.

We could see there's several. Yeah. Of course, the risk is to any holder of this right is that there will be a substantive change along the way.

Right. And I do have a question, just logically speaking. So this was first approved in 2019. Right. So the impact assessment talks about the daily trip generation estimates, you know, traffic, I would assume. What happens if, I mean, is there ever a time when this becomes stale because things have changed so much that this really isn't applicable anymore? It should be redone, or what are the rights to have it redone, or are there any?

I would say, ma'am, that is the very heart of a vested right.

It doesn't matter.

They don't have to, and it is a creation of state law allowing these. Again, if the town standards change sufficiently to disallow it, then that's possible that they may not get this. But this is... I'm not saying negative or positive, but this is the hand that's been dealt to municipalities in the state.

Yeah, I mean, that's the tension I feel between the vested right. I understand what that is versus when things go on for years and are sort of continually on hold for years. Circumstances change with traffic and other events around it that may really impact it. So that's where it's a struggle.

I'm sorry, Pam, but by extension, I think what Dave was telling us is that What would motivate this commission potentially to make a change or to deny the request would be some policy change. Some development standard change.

Yeah, that would. And again, that's very difficult. And that's the purpose of staff review is, again, otherwise it would simply be a staff approval matter that wouldn't have to come before a body. However, as I said, this is as close to it come as a mandate as one will find.

in state law so we made it if the town or the commission and ultimately uh town council made a change on surface areas that could be consumed by shopping centers that may have implications for this but that hasn't happened possibly yes sir okay this is what is the the underlying here what is the underlying

Yeah, waterfront gateway. Yeah.

So this all last year went through that whole process as far as, and it stayed waterfront gateway. Yeah.

Okay. Is the trip generation analysis, is that per like a town?

guideline or is that like an industry guideline it's our impact assessment ordinance transportation right so it's there we have an ordinance to that effect and um It is what we are, to my knowledge, the only municipality in the state where town council approves those impact assessments. It is a unique part of our system. And of course, this was approved in 2019. And so I would say that the findings that were made and voted on there still stand, regardless of what changes are around it.

Could there be at the town level, while we're talking about this, a change, an ordinance change, that they do have to redo an impact assessment? Or at least the trip generation estimates at certain intervals? Could that ever be hypothetically implemented? Because this has gone through several reiterations. Right. in the past six years, even just the conceptual plan.

I think Ms. Ireland asked a similar question, different question, same result. That gets to the very heart of vested rights. It allows constantly some delay or some ramp-up period, development period. One can take an independent view of whether that's a successful lobbying effort at the state level. It certainly appears so, but that is the state law. One which, you know, this is the world I live in. Municipal lawyers and, you know, councils, planning commissions, whoever's making these decisions across the state doesn't necessarily like it because it is an effective blunting of our planning efforts, such as they are.

My point was more to like the standards used to do that impact assessment. If those have changed in the last seven years, that's not like a change in the ordinance, but it's a change in like how common practice has evolved in seven years.

Our ordinance does not have specifics. If you read that ordinance, it's fairly generalized and it deals with severe impacts and addressing of impacts. And so there's been no, the practical issue for today, is there's been no change in that. And I would also say, even if there had been, I don't think it would defeat the State Vested Rights Act and extensions.

But for a new development with a new impact, it may be that transportation is using different standards now.

If they change their plan and said, we're going to build what might be a horse racing track that some of us might enjoy. you know they'd have to change that accordingly because of the use but but that has not changed

Any further questions for the staff?

I mean, I just don't understand why it's even on our, like if we're not supposed to do anything, like why it's here?

Yes, sir. Because state law requires the governing body to approve it. And again, state law is not saying you must say yes. However, there is a staff review in the event that there is a change that is for your consideration. Without that, i i i can only tell you what state law says as much or as little sense as that makes that is what it is staff can't do it because they're not an extension of the elected town council because state law requires a governing body and in this scenario council after years of me telling answering these same questions have decided that they would much rather have you deal with it.

We're the governing body.

Okay. Happily accept.

No, and I would say, not that any is more, but this body deals with development issues on an in-depth basis at meetings where these questions are asked. just one person's opinion. It is a forum that is well suited to answer those questions.

Thank you for that. Okay. If no further questions for staff or comment, I'll make a motion to approve the request for the one-year extension.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. I think we adjourn. Thanks, everybody.

you