Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I welcome you to this September meeting of the North Charleston Planning Commission. I'm Sharon Reid, the chair of the Planning Commission, and I've already mentioned the sign-in sheets if you wish to speak during the public hearings. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the meeting and to call this meeting to order. Uh the first item is consideration of the minutes from the August 11th meeting. Are there any corrections to the minutes as published? Hearing none, we'll take a voice vote. All who approve the minutes as published, please designate with I.

I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. And the minutes from the August meeting are approved as published. Uh the Yep. Uh, next item on the agenda is uh, introduction of new planning commission members. Uh, we have uh, Mr. James Crawford and uh, Mr. Matthew Sharf here. Uh, this is their first meeting of planning commission and they will be with us uh, for the next four years

at least. at least uh to be reappointed as uh so um at that point I appreciate your service and look forward to getting started. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to both of you. Thank you. Look forward to working with you.

All right. We have before us uh recommendation to council proposed reser reszoning 6714 and 6688 Dorchester Road. You'll hear the staff report. So this is uh proposed reselling the properties address is 6714 6688 road Charleston County TMS number 406 0000004 from E2 general business to R2 multifamily residential. Uh these are located in council district one. You can see the subject properties here highlighted in blue. The properties are currently uh wooded vacant lots. Uh as stated the current zoning is B2 general business properties to the north and south are B2 as well cross M1 to the east comprehensive plan. The subject property is designated as employment center within the mixed use corridor of Chester Road. Employment Center areas generally benefit from proximity to one another with ease of access to supportive services and residential areas to relieve congestion. The proposed R2 zoning is consistent with both the corridor and neighborhood development designations which promote a cohesive integration of residential and commercial uses in close proximity.

This is the subject property. Uh the parcels are currently wooded and vacant, undeveloped at this time. Adjacent properties. The surrounding areas comprised of varying businesses along Dorchester Road and a mix of residential uses. The surrounding area has a mix of apartments, town homes, and across Dorchester Road is the Lake Ashley Manufacturing Home Community. Staff's recommendation is approval. The mixeduse corridor designation supports a combination of multifamily, commercial, office, retail, and light industrial uses. Given the subject property's location along a major transportation corridor, the proximity of other residential uses in the support from the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed reszoning of the property from general business to R2 multifamily residential.

All right. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff?

Hearing none. Is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. Come. Charlie Salmonson. I'm a local guy. Been here for all my life and my family used to have office on rivers for 35 years. So, if you have any questions, I'm here. Are you related to Kate Sams? It's my daughter. I remember him. I remember him well. Don't you? Yes.

Okay. Um, this is a duly advertised public hearing. So if there are those who wish to make comments, your comments need to be limited to three minutes, but we welcome your comments. And no one signed in to speak, but if you wish to come forward, you can do so now. The public hearing is now closed and we will entertain a motion.

I move that we accept staff's recommendation. It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of this reszoning request. Is there discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. Motion on the floor is approval. Mr. Monte I, Mr. Belly, I uh Mr. Sharp, Mr. Dan, I Mr. Crawford, I

That motion carries. This item will be forwarded to the mayor and council with an opportunity for public input at the public safety committee of city council on October 16th. Okay. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is reszoning requests 401 O'Hare Avenue and un unressed property.

All right. The proposed reszoning of the property addressed as 400 O'Hare, Charleston County TMS 47016 000063. And the unadressed property bearing Charleston County TMS 47016003 from R1 single family residential to R2 multifamily residential council district one. The existing uh property is uh a single family home and a wooded vacant lot. See the properties here highlighted in blue on the map. As stated earlier, the properties are currently zoned R1 single family residential. Surrounding properties are R2 multifamily residential to north, south, east, and then there's B2 west uh both directly adjacent across the railroad and then across the side west. The subject properties are designated as traditional neighborhood development within the mixeduse corridor school avenue. The designation of traditional neighborhood development is applied to areas of the city to provide for andor sustain higher density neighborhoods within with smaller lots and a mix of housing types. Comprehensive plan supports the R2 zoning for development of higher density on small lots especially in close proximity and mixed use corridors. here in Manchester Avenue. These are the subject properties here. Uh they are located area between Spru Avenue corridor and former Navy base. They are currently developed with a single family

home and a wooded vacant lot. Adjacent properties uh surrounding are primarily residential in nature. There's a mix of residential uses in the area, including single family homes, town homes, duplexes, and small apartment buildings. Staff is recommending approval given the subject property's location, the proximity of other residential uses and support from the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resoning of the property from R1 single family residential to multifamily residential. Okay. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff?

Hearing none, we'll hear from the applicant.

My name is John Rice and uh here thank you all for reviewing this for your support and um here to answer any questions. Do any of the commissioners have questions for from for the applicant? Thank you, sir. This is a duly advertised public hearing. So, if there is anyone present who wishes to make comments, three minute comments, you're welcome to come forward now. All right, hearing none. This public hearing is closed and we will entertain a motion. Is there a motion regarding approval or disapproval of this resoning request?

Motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we grant approval, recommend approval of this resoning request. Is there discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. Motion on the floor is a recommendation of approval. Mr. Monte I. Um, Mr. Bellamy. I um Mr. Sharf. Hi. Mr. Duham. I Mr. Crawford. Hi.

Miss Reed. I. Uh, that motion carries. Uh this item will be forwarded to the mayor and council at the next opportunity for public input at the public safety committee of city council on October 16th. Okay. Thank you. The next agenda item is request for reszoning North Red Avenue. Give staff report.

Sorry, excuse me. Proposed reszoning of the property addressed at 5632 North Wright Avenue, Charleston County number 473, 60032 V1 limited business to general business uh located within council district 10. Uh currently the property will be family home. The current zoning is B1 seen here highlighted in blue and light blue is the B1 zoning. All the surrounding zoning is B2, south, east, and west as well as zoning. The comprehensive plan, the subject property is designated as traditional neighborhood development within the mixeduse corridor of North Grant Avenue. The mixed use corridor supports a mixture of commercial and residential uses which may be combined within a parcel and or staffed within the structure. It is established to sustain a mixture of commercial residential land uses located within close proximity to one another. See that by the patch where the mixed use corridor is on. Here's the subject property. You can see the existing single family home as well as the accessory dwelling units in the rear. The adjacent properties are comprised of varying businesses along north red. Staff's recommendation is approval given that the subject properties location, the proximity of other commercial business uses and support of the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resing of the property from B1 business to B2 general business.

Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff on the staff report at the top? That was just an error right about R1 and every place else it apologize for. No problem. No problem. I just wondered if there was a part of it that was staying. Okay, I think that was minor. I apologize.

No problem. No problem. Are there any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? John Rex. You have any questions up here? Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant? Hearing none, this too is an advertised public hearing. So if you wish to come forward, you have three minutes to make your comments. Seeing no movement, this the floor is now closed and we will entertain a motion. Staff

recommendation for approval. Is there a second? Second that motion. It's been moved and seconded that we request that we accept staff's recommendation and recommend approval of this request to city council. Is there discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. Motion on the floor is a recommendation of approval. Uh Mr. Monte I Mr. Bellamy I Mr. Sharf I Mr. D I Mr. Crawford I Miss Reed

I uh that motion carries for recommendation of approval. This item will be forwarded to the mayor and council with the next opportunity for public input at the public safety committee of city council on October 16th.

Okay. Thank you. The next agenda item is Rivers Avenue request for reszoning Rivers Avenue. You'll hear the staff report. The proposed request is a reselling of portion of the property addressed at 4952 Avenue, Charleston County 4721600214 general business to R15 residential council district 6. This uh see the property highlighted here in blue. The area in the green hatch is actually the portion of the property that will be sold. Currently, it's used for commercial business, single family home, as well as empty lots. So, as I stated before, uh the property is zone B2. They're requested to be zone to bar one, which is directly adjacent. Just the portion highlighted in the green hatch. The frontage along Rivers Avenue remain surrounding zoning north is general business one south east west is CRD M1. The subject properties are designated as mixed use within the mixeduse corridor of Brooks Avenue. Mixed use areas generally benefit from proximity to one another providing ease of access to supportive services and residential areas to relieve congestion. Mixed use corridor land use designation is intended to promote development of mixed

uses that will enhance access to wider range of services for nearby neighborhoods. supports a mixture of commercial and residential uses which may be combined with the parcel and or stacked within the structure. The comprehensive plan recommends that uses should be designed to be compact incorporating a system of open space including sidewalks that provide access to parks, recreation, open space areas and commercial services. back here on the future use map. Subject property street views. The subject parcels are currently developed with a commercial business single family home surrounding areas comprised of varying businesses along avenue with predominantly residential uses along Key Mountain Avenue. Staff's recommendation is denial. The mixeduse quarter designation is a combination of multifamily, commercial, office, retail, and light industrial uses. Staff believes that the existing split zoning of B20 business R1 single family residential is appropriate for this area. Accordingly, staff is recommending denial of the proposed reszoning of the property from B2 general business to R1 single family residential.

Right. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? I have a question for Seth. Yes. So, is the request for denial because with it currently being general business and single family being across the street behind me, is the goal for it to become mixed use just to have green space?

The intent of the recommendation is that we feel that the B2 designation on that portion is a more appropriate use for development. uh it might at this time might not be um developed to its highest and best use but by reducing the amount of B2 zoning it will make it harder in the future to develop those properties for those types

the goal is basically for future reszoning. Yeah, it's it's to maintain a more of a develop parcel per se that would be appropriate for uh the Rivers Avenue corridor which is going to be in the future redeveloped with our the low country rapid transit the bus line. Um you know this is going you need to have parcels of certain size for development to occur properly. there's adequate res sing single family residential zoning within the neighborhood that's adjacent to that and this it doesn't make sense from a planning and zoning standpoint.

I would also add that um R1 uses are currently allowed in B2. All right, any other questions from commissioners? Again, this is an advertised public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. Before we do that, uh, is the applicant here? You wish to come forward?

The architecture firm working on this project with the client. Uh, so we were just trying to we were hoping to reszone just that little bit to get a couple more single family homes. You know, the VA hospital just opened up right the street. the transit will have a stop right there and with Roker Hospital opening up soon, we felt like more single family homes would better serve what's coming to the community. Um, with that being said, that part of B2 that's being left, we have full intention of designing a building similar, I guess, something you'd see over on like Houston Northcut or something like a long I don't want to say metal building because I know that's like, you know, that's not a bad that's a bad word, but you know, like a long metal nice building that's going to house we're thinking like a coffee shop on one end and then doctor's offices that can support those hospitals coming in. the coffee shop could also support the neighborhood and surrounding that's coming. Uh with a study that my firm did, just a basic study. If with the reasonzoning of that little piece of that parcel to R1, it still leaves enough room to do that building up front and have enough parking to and green space with all the trees and stuff to, you know, maintain all of that. Okay. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant?

I do. Um with um with the proposal you guys are trying to uh push forward the entrance to the uh residential, would it be in the neighborhood or would they be facing Rivers Avenue?

The they would be off of Fuller Street. So the residences would enter from Rivers onto Fuller Street and then pull into their driveways. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to make comments regarding this request? Seeing no movement, this public hearing is now closed and we will entertain a motion.

I move that we accept staff's recommendation. It's been moved and seconded that we deny this request or recommend denial to city council of this request. Is there discussion? I have one more question for staff. Um, in an ideal world, what would be what would be the best use for like what would you rather see placed here instead of single family or apartment?

With B2 zoning and we would anticipate, you know, the potential for a legitimate mixeduse building potentially with commercial first floor above. Uh, as you start doing that parking aspect that comes into play uh needs to be addressed and by reducing the B2 uh footprint it makes it harder to meet those requirements on site.

Okay. I was I was from reading the packet I was believing that purpose was for residential on top. Okay, that answers all my questions. It's the size of that parcel of land that they're trying to cover. It's the both parcels combined are just under two acres.

And the part that they want to change as as far as maybe square foot is maybe lot size. You guys have a size of what that lot would be. It's 95 acres is what just under an acre that they would be selling. So in acres 43,560 ft. Our minimum lot size for our 1,000 square feet. You know, meet the minimum lot width. You can get a couple of lots off of that. A couple additional lots on top of what they already

Is there other discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. Uh the motion on the floor is for a recommendation of denial of the proposed reasoning. Mr. Monty I for denial. Mr. Bellamy. Hi. Mr. Sheriff. Hi. Uh Mr. Dan. Hi. Mr. Crawford. Hi. M Reed. I.

Uh motion for recommendation of denial carries. Uh, and this item will be forwarded to the mayor and council with the next opportunity for public input at the public safety committee of city council on October 16th. All right. Thank you. Our next agenda item is proposed subdivision variance. This is a subdivision variance request uh request from chapter 18 article 4 section 18-40 paragraph A of the subdivision regulations of the city of North Charleston regarding for the property's address is 492 Rivers Avenue 4994 Rivers Avenue Charleston County TMS numbers 726002 2.6 variance is as I just read is for lot with properties address 492 4994 Rivers Avenue. These are the properties we were just discussing here along Fuller Street offers avenue to general business subject property. The applicants proposing to subdivide the lot into 12 single family residential lots and 11 of those would be nonconforming to our one single family res. Um here the preliminary plan depicts the subdivision lots with a width averaging 30 ft. This plat also shows the residual lots with frontage on Rivers Avenue acres which remain

here would not be that full area because of our retention that area. Um, the average lot size of single family residential in the Ferndale neighborhood averages 46.11 ft and 4.9 ft long street and 63.28 ft along Forest Street. Staff's recommendation of the request is denial. Subject properties are currently splitzoned V2 general business and R1 single family residential. The variance if granted would be contingent upon the reszoning of the portion of the parcels from B2 general business to R1 single family residential. These parcels as they are zoned support the development of the parcels to zoning. The parcels also currently support commercial usesvenue to grants the variance. Staff recommends denial of the request of subdivision variance. Please note, should the commission wish to approve the subdivision variance, it must be contingent upon the city council of the proposed reszoning of partial discussed items of finished discuss.

Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? So, approval of this would the contention upon approval of council.

Yes. And correct. Your recommendation is a recommendation. So council still could potentially approve the the resoning of that portion to R1 from the B2. However, we would ask that if you choose to grant this variance that it is contingent upon that happening because doesn't make sense to otherwise. Yeah. So, they submitted an application for a variance from the R1 standards, right?

So, for that portion that's B2, they would have to submit a different variance for that. So, something has to happen first. Good. Thank you. And also are we not required to follow uh to grant a variance? It must meet all five of the um criteria. Correct. And from what I'm looking at it does not correct. Yes. especially in terms of the uh comprehensive plan,

right? There um applicants or varants are supposed to be granted for parcels of unique hardship that being developed or something similar. Are there other questions? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion.

Is there a second? I second that motion. It's been moved and seconded that we deny the requested subdivision variance and and make that recommendation to council. Are you ready for discussion?

Hearing none. Ready to vote. Is there something? Is she permitted to speak? Just for the record. Oh, yes. Did you want to call that one public hearing? I actually forgot about that. I It's the same thing I said earlier. There's nothing changed. Okay. But they do. But if you want to if you want to come, you have that right now. No, it's the same that I said earlier. Like we're just we're just trying to get single family homes in there. You know, we do a lot of North Charleston. So single family homes that are affordable that neighborhood is just, you know, a good thing.

Thank you. And I do apologize for overlook. All right. Are we ready to vote? Is that where we were? Okay. The the motion on the floor is a uh vote of denial, not a recommendation. It would be a denial of the variance. Uh Mr. Monte, I Mr. Bellamy. Hi. Mr. Sharf. Hi. Mr. Dan I Mr. Crawford I and Miss Reed I uh that motion carries unanimously and the variance is denied.

All right. Um please take note of the actions taken by council regarding our recommendations at its August meetings. Do any of the commissioners have comments before we prepare to adjourn? Anything you need to tell us?

You have anything? Did you know I did get a card um regarding the training that from the association I believe is

uh they have slightly updated their minor modification uh their recommendation for the training to have it be fully approved by EMC. There were some outside agencies that could provide some of that and that you know just kind of got by just doing it and submitting. Um what we're going to do in the department is uh do a better job of sharing those training opportunities with our members u making sure that they meet as requirements. um try to get you as many free training opportunities. Everybody is required to do minimum of three hours of continuing education. Uh the new members uh should have gotten the link to the six hours worth of training that just has to be completed within the first year of uh being appointed last year. After that, uh it's and as you work through those free webinars and you get your certificates, please send it to us so that we can keep track of that uh so that we're staying on top of our requirements uh as well. So, um thank you, Miss Reed, for bringing that up. I apologize. Uh I know that has uh done a great job sharing uh those opportunities. The the postcard came to my home.

If you're registered, remember? Well, I've been to so many of their Yeah, you're probably on a mailing list somewhere. We got like five postcards. Yeah. In the mail to the office. So, um, but yes, we will we'll definitely do a better job of getting those out to everyone so that you have an opportunity to pick and choose things that you might be interested in. Um, did we print off the um, what we'd also like to do is provide some uh, lighting for you.

Uh, we're going to try to pick articles that are relevant to things that are happening within the city uh, and provide you with some opportunities to learn a little bit about the things that we are doing. Um, so we're going to providing within the packets an article uh monthly for you guys to see. Remember now we just got through with that kind reading that whole comprehensive plan. Oh yeah. And and what we're going to be this is fun fun reading.

This is going to be much more interesting. I promise uh you know land use laws, zoning uh rewrites, all the all the wonderful and joyful things that we're going to be doing in the next couple of years. accessory dwelling units,

bus rapid transit lines. We have a few is a UDO. Uh it's a unified development ordinance and we're barreling headlong into that process. So, uh, you all are informed about what our goals are as as the city and, uh, you know, as planning staff and, uh, the better you will be able to make your recommendations to council to, you know, make the right decisions for the people of the city. So, uh, we're just trying to provide you with additional input and information so that your background is more grounded within, uh, goals, objectives, let's say.

Would you all pre prefer to receive just like a link to articles or would you like it more in the printed in the packets? No, please. Yeah, I'm fine with just a link. Y'all prefer to print it? No, just a link. Yeah, just send me the link so I don't have to. Okay, excellent. I think that probably be easier because I'm not sure you can print from New York Times and stuff or whatotion. Oh, okay. Is there anything else to come before this group before we adjourn? Then we stand adjourned.