June 17, 2015 - Town of Mount Pleasant

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 2015
MINUTES
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Roy Neal, Chair, Alys Campaigne, Ben Bryson, Howard Chapman,
Joseph Wren, Josh Malone, Tripp Cuttino
Bob Brimmer, Cheryll Woods-Flowers (both excused)
Christiane Farrell, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Shaina Salomon,
Eddie Bernard, Kelly Cousino, Lynnette Lynes
Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 3:33 pm.
1. Correspondence and general public statements
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the correspondence with the Commission and noted that
all correspondence was sent to the Commission.
Mr. Don Pike, 2625 Lohr Drive and president of the Linnen Place HOA expressed
concern with the Fulton subdivision. He stated that they were reassured that no
development would occur on that property because of the wetlands.
Mr. Marcus Rosenlehner, 1213 Shingleback Drive, expressed concern with the
Fulton subdivision and stated that they were told when they purchased the
property that development would not occur behind them because of the amount
of wetlands. He asked how far the wetlands extend. He suggested that there
should be a balance between new development and established neighborhoods
so that the impact is limited.
Ms. Karen Rosenlehner, 1213 Shingleback Drive, stated that the buffer is
proposed at 30 feet and they would be looking into houses behind them. She
expressed concern with the impact to quality of life and suggested that the
subdivision would cause increased noise.
Mr. Ken Nagel, 1205 Korbel Circle, asked if the wetlands have been delineated
and verified.
2. Requests
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of
Preliminary Plat for 46-62 Shem Drive, 10 detached single-family
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 2 of 7
residential lots to be located on an approximately 0.871 acre tract of land
zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, and UC-OD, Urban
Corridor Overlay District, comprised of six parcels located on Shem Drive
and described as follows: TMS #532-02-00-074, 532-02-00-075, 532-02-00076, 532-02-00-077, 532-02-00-078, and 532-02-00-079.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (see Attachments
1 and 2). He reviewed the drainage with the Commission and stated that a
study was conducted to ensure drainage was adequately addressed. He
stated that the easement behind the development would be reduced and they
have received notification from the property owner.
Mr. Neal asked about total build-out and if this was taken into account for
drainage. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that the total
build-out of the area was included in the study.
Ms. Campaigne asked if the bakery property is included in the study. Mr.
Mitchell answered that it does not flow into the pond and was therefore not
included in the study.
Mr. Chapman asked if the excavation of the pond has been completed. Mr.
Ryan Sands, Thomas & Hutton, answered in the negative and stated that it
would be completed during construction.
Mr. Chapman moved for approval including all staff comments. Ms.
Campaigne seconded the motion. All in favor.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST:
Request approval of
Preliminary Plat for Mathis Ferry Court, 8 detached single-family
residential lots zoned R-2, Low Density Residential District, to be located
on an approximately 3.17 acre tract of land comprised of two parcels
described as follows: TMS #514-12-00-025 and 514-12-00-026.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments with the Commission (see Attachments
1 and 2). He stated that items 1, 3, and 5 have been addressed by the
applicant.
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Neal asked about the private drainage system. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the
drainage system with the Commission. Mr. Neal asked about impacts to trees.
Mr. Mitchell answered that there are some trees within the drainage system,
but it would be a shallow swale and as-builts would be verified.
Mr. Chapman asked about the sign installed in the buffer and if it has been
removed. Mr. Mitchell answered that he is not sure.
Mr. Jason Munday, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, reviewed the project
with the Commission. He stated that the sign has been removed from the
buffer.
Mr. Neal asked about line of sight for Mathis Ferry Road and the buffers. Mr.
Munday answered that is a SCDOT-owned right-of-way and there should not
be a sight issue. Mr. Neal asked about if the buffer would be reestablished.
Mr. Munday answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Bob Miller, 1041 Mathis Ferry Road, stated that he requested the sign to
be installed and this was the first occasion that he is aware of that the sign
company has violated the sign ordinance. He apologized for the infraction and
stated that they would be contacting staff to determine how the violation
could be remedied.
Mr. Chapman moved for approval including staff comments. Mr. Bryson
seconded the motion. All in favor.
C. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Sketch Plan for
Vincent Drive Single-Family, four detached single-family residential lots
zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, and UC-OD, Urban
Corridor Overlay District, to be located on an approximately 0.346 acre
tract of land comprised of two parcels located on Vincent Drive and
described as follows: TMS #532-02-00-080 and 532-02-00-081
Ms. Salomon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (see Attachments
1 and 2).
Mr. Wren asked if the project is subject to review and approval by the Design
Review Board (DRB). Ms. Salomon answered in the affirmative.
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Zach Bearden clarified that the buildings would not require DRB approval.
Mr. Chapman asked about access and proximity to the intersection. Mr. Giles
Branch, Earthsource Engineering, answered that there is approximately 125
feet from the corner to the first lot.
Mr. Wren moved for approval including staff comments. Mr. Malone seconded
the motion. All in favor.
D. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Sketch Plan for
Fulton Phase 2, 38 detached single-family residential lots zoned PD-CD,
Planned Development – Conservation Design District, to be located on an
approximately 13.38 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 578-00-00053, and known as Tract 18, Boone Hall subdivision, as depicted on a plat
recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book B, Page 046.
Ms. Salomon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (see Attachments
1 and 2).
Mr. Neal asked the reason for a one-way street. Mr. Mitchell answered that
there are constraints because of the wetlands and the smaller right-of-way
would allow for larger amount of buildable area. He stated that this project
was approved as a Planned Development District and allows one-way streets.
Mr. Bernard reviewed landscape comments with the Commission (see
Attachments 1 and 2).
Mr. Chapman asked where the lots related to the on-street parking areas of
concern are located. Mr. Bernard indicated the location of the lots on the map
for the Commission.
Mr. Branch reviewed the request with the Commission.
Mr. Neal expressed concern with having parallel parking near the Billy Swails
Boulevard intersection and near the other access point. He also expressed
concern with having one-way streets. He suggested that the project is too
dense. He asked if buffers could be included between this development and
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 5 of 7
Linnen Place. Mr. Branch stated that the development is surrounded by
wetlands and installing buffers would be difficult. He stated that the parking
near the Billy Swails Boulevard access should not impact the intersection as
the intersection would be farther away from where the parking is located. Mr.
Neal suggested that the applicant reach out to the Linnen Place HOA to try to
resolve some issues.
Mr. Malone asked about Lot 11. Mr. Branch answered that the driveway
would be part of Lot 11.
Mr. Pagliarini asked about the recommendation for restudy of the one-way
sections and if there is something that would be required or could be
quantified. Mr. Mitchell answered that it would need to be reviewed in order
to better quantify those areas so there is no confusion on street routes and so
that they are safe. Mr. Pagliarini asked if these roads would be dedicated to
the Town. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked if a study
would be needed. Mr. Mitchell answered in the negative.
Mr. Chapman asked about the playground area and if it was located in a
wetland. Mr. Branch answered in the negative. Mr. Chapman asked if there
would be pedestrian access to Linnen Place. Mr. Branch answered that there
is an access easement that could be used for pedestrian access.
Mr. Wren asked where connectivity could be located. Mr. Branch answered
that there was a proposed connection near where the proposed playground is
located. He stated that pedestrian access could be provided.
Ms. Campaigne suggested that having on-street parking could be a traffic
calming mechanism. She asked if Lot 11 could be HOA space or some type of
neighborhood amenity. Mr. Branch answered that this could be considered.
Mr. Malone asked about access to the playground. Mr. Branch answered that
one reason for the one-way streets is to stay within one-half acre of fill so that
additional wetland permits would not be required. If possible, a trail would
connect the playground area.
Mr. Neal asked if there are time constraints regarding a decision on this
proposal. Mr. Pagliarini answered that it could be deferred, approved with
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 6 of 7
conditions, approved, or denied. He stated that a decision must be made
within 60 days or the project would automatically be deemed approved. Mr.
Neal asked if it was deferred and changes were made would it be considered a
material change. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative and stated that the
revisions would need to be reviewed as a new application.
Mr. Wren asked if the changes to the right-of-way would impact lot sizes. Mr.
Mitchell answered that it was possible and would be determined with the
configuration of the roadway.
Mr. Chapman stated that there are many issues with the project due to the
geometry and amount of wetlands. He suggested that the difficulty of the site
should not impact the Commission’s decision in ensuring there is a wellplanned development.
Mr. Chapman moved for denial of the request due to the number of roadway
issues, wetlands, and based on the proposed density of the project. He
suggested that there are too many issues that need to be resolved and the
number of lots should be reduced. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion.
Mr. Pagliarini clarified that the reason for denial is not based on any disputes
between the developer and surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Chapman
agreed.
Mr. Neal suggested that the applicant take the adjacent neighborhood
concerns into consideration when moving forward.
Mr. Cuttino asked where Phase 1 is located. Mr. Mitchell indicated the
location on the map for the Commission.
Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote, with
Ms. Campaigne, Mr. Bryson, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Wren, Mr. Malone, and Mr.
Neal in favor; Mr. Cuttino opposed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:33 pm.
Submitted by,
L. Lynes
Special Planning Commission
June 17, 2015
Page 7 of 7
SpPlanComsn06172015
ATTACHMENT 2
STAFF REPORT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) - 46 to 62 SHEM DRIVE
For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online.
AGENDA ITEM
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Preliminary Plat for 46-62 Shem Drive,
10 detached single-family residential lots to be located on an approximately 0.871 acre tract of land
zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, comprised
of six parcels located on Shem Drive and described in the Subject Parcel(s) section below.
Figure 01: Parcel Map showing Shem Drive’s location.
ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE
Body
Meeting Date
Action
Agenda Item #
Planning Commission
06.17.2015
(Special Meeting)
The Commission approved the
request, subject to staff comments, by
a vote of 7 to 0.
3a.
Planning &
Development
Committee of Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Town Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Staff Report – 46-62 Shem Drive
Page 1 of 3
REQUEST
The current proposal is to approve the Sketch Plan for Shem Drive 46-62 Shem Drive, ten (10) detached
single-family lots zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3) within the Urban Corridor Overlay District
(UC-OD) at the existing street corner of Shem Drive and Vincent Drive.
SUBJECT PARCEL(S)
Property Owner(s)
Real Estate Consultants, LLC
TMS Number
Approximate Acreage
532-02-00-074
0.16
532-02-00-075
0.161
532-02-00-076
0.046
532-02-00-077
0.16
532-02-00-078
0.16
532-02-00-079
0.184
Total Acreage
0.871 acres
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
George Reavis (C/O Reavis-Corner Developer)
Location
46-62 Shem Drive
Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map Designation
Urban Corridor
Current Zoning
Medium Density Residential (R-3) located in Urban Corridor Overlay
District (UC-OD)
ADJACENT USES & ZONING
North
Single Family Homes (R-3)
South
Duplexes on Shem Drive (R-3; UC-OD); Brookgreen Shopping Center (AB; UC-OD)
East
Single Family Homes (R-3)
West
Brookgreen Shopping Center (AB; UC-OD)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST
Variance
Variance to allow single-family lots to have access to a
01.26.2015 (Board of Zoning Appeals
public street and not provide rear (alley-fed) access.
Approved)
Sketch Plan
Sketch Plan approved with all staff comments.
02.18.2015 (Planning Commission
Approved)
Staff Report – 46-62 Shem Drive
Page 2 of 3
STAFF COMMENTS
1. The following Preliminary Plat Checklist items were not provided or need to be revised on the plan:
i. Acreage chart indicating total parcel area, area of new lots, street, ponds, open space,
recreation, and wetlands area, total acreage, etc.
[Note: This item was not provided and is a requirement that needs to be shown on the plat.]
ii. Owner name, property address if applicable.
[Note: This item was not shown on the provided plan sheet.]
SITE/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS [Provided by Chris Luly]
2. The sketch plan provided was not the sketch plan seen and approved by the Planning Commission.
The title of the project has changed from sketch plan to preliminary plat submittal along with the
designer of the sketch plan. The approved sketch plan, revised to reflect any conditions of
approval, is required as a Preliminary Plat Checklist item.
3. The Zoning Administrator has determined that landscape buffers between residential units in the
Urban Corridor are not required as code section 156.318(N)(5)(a) is specific to lot standards for
single family residences. Building setbacks still apply.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1. This project is located within a larger drainage system and is upstream from a community with a
history of stormwater management issues. During the Sketch Plan review, it was requested that a
comprehensive approach be used to demonstrate no impact and water quantity and quality
standards are met. As a result, the following facts are provided:
- The stormwater management is shared with the adjacent property owners (Ocean
Boulevard Properties). The contributing watershed to the existing pond is over 9 acres.
This project is less than 1 acre.
- The updated stormwater model analysis incorporates an increase in impervious surface of
13,000 sq feet. Existing detention is increased by expanding the pond approximately 20,000
cubic yards. The pond is proposed to be excavated deeper to manage flood water
elevation. This volume increase also creates enough attenuation of the peak runoff rates to
offset the additional impervious surface added to the basin.
- Individual lot grades were provided with the site plan showing all roof runoff and portion of
the driveway being conveyed to the rear system and managed through the pond.
- Water quality is met through a 24 hour drawdown release for 1 inch of runoff over the
project site. In addition to restricting the release of lower level more frequent storm
events, the pond is to be lined with a permanent grass cover that will provided additional
pollution filtering.
- The proposed development is encumbered with a 35 foot private easement dedicated to
Ocean Boulevard Properties for their runoff conveys and detention. The width is proposed
to be reduced to 25 feet. An amendment to the easement is to be provided prior to
construction authorization.
Staff Report – 46-62 Shem Drive
Page 3 of 3
STAFF REPORT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) – MATHIS FERRY COURT
For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online.
AGENDA ITEM
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Preliminary Plat for Mathis Ferry Court,
8 detached single-family residential lots zoned R-2, Low Density Residential District, to be located on
an approximately 3.17 tract of land comprised of two parcels described as follows:
1. an approximately 1.7 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 514-12-00-025, and known as a
portion of Lot 29 as depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book D,
Page 180;
2. an approximately 1.7 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 514-12-00-026, and known as a
portion of Lot 27 as depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book D,
Page 180.
ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE
Body
Meeting Date
Action
Agenda Item #
Planning Commission
06.17.2015
(Special Meeting)
The Commission approved the
request, subject to staff comments,
by a vote of 7 to 0.
3b.
Planning & Development
n/a
Committee of Council
n/a
n/a
Town Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Staff Report – Mathis Ferry Court Preliminary Plat
Page 1 of 3
REQUEST
The current proposal is to approve the Preliminary Plat for Mathis Ferry Court, 8 detached-single family
residential lots zoned R-2 to be located on an approximately 3.17 tract of land.
SUBJECT PARCEL(S)
Property Owner(s)
TMS Number
Approximate Acreage
Safari Corporation
514-12-00-025, 026
3.17 acres
Total Acreage
3.17 acres
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
Daniel Cruz (Seamon, Whiteside, & Associates)
Location
440 Mathis Ferry Road
Comprehensive
Plan Future Land
Use Map
Designation
Low Density Neighborhood
Current Zoning
Low Density Residential (R-2)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST
Rezoning
Rezoning approval from R-1 to R-2.
01.14.2015 (Planning Commission
Approved)
Sketch Plan
Sketch Plan approved with all staff comments.
03.18.2015 (Planning Commission
Approved)
STAFF COMMENTS
SITE/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS [Provided by Eddie Bernard]
1. The location of both proposed and retained trees around the pond will block maintenance access.
2. The Mathis Ferry Buffer ordinance notes should be copied onto the plans. This buffer has already
been partially cleared without permission but is regenerating. Vines are overtaking the resprouts
and efforts to eradicate and control the vines will need to occur over the course of subdivision
construction. As mitigation, for the buffer clearing 2- 2” caliper canopy trees, 3- 1.5” caliper
understory trees and 15-7 gal shrubs per 100 linear feet of buffer with a mix of vegetation types
already found on site shall be planted. A recent site visit showed loblolly pine, laurel, water and
live oaks, cherry laurel, yaupon holly, sparkleberry and mockernut hickory present in this area. The
contractor shall meet with Staff prior to starting any work in the buffer. The proposed sign shall
meet the standards for the Mathis Ferry Buffer. The proposed sign shall meet the standards for the
Mathis Ferry Buffer.
Staff Report – Mathis Ferry Court Preliminary Plat
Page 2 of 3
3. Silt fence should be placed on the construction side of the tree barricades and placed on the
northern side of the Mathis Ferry Road buffer to avoid further buffer impacts with the disturbance
hatch removed from the buffer. The existing drive apron within the buffer should be removed.
4. Sheet C8 appears to show the drivers sight line impacted by the Mathis Ferry buffer across the
street on the inside of the curve and if this requires any buffer impacts a survey and approval will
be needed.
5. The tree assessment is incomplete with only information being provided on removed trees and it is
unclear who performed the assessment. References to ‘Grand’ trees should be changed to
‘historic’. Tree 59 is not a historic tree being a non-live oak triple stem.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
6. Stormwater management plan meets Town requirements for water quality and quantity control.
7. SCDOT Encroachment permit is required for the intersection with Mathis Ferry Road. The sidewalk
connection and ADA standards shall be met pursuant to state review.
8. The drainage system proposed for the rear of lots 4, 5 and 6 is to be a publicly owned and designed
to meet Town minimum standards. The proposed system is to be upgraded to a minimum of 15
inch RCP with standard inlet grates.
9. Runoff toward the rear of Lot 8 is to be directed away from the adjacent downstream neighbor.
Additional inlets or grading is to be considered to ensure runoff is managed without adversely
impacting the neighbor.
10. The outfall pipe section proposed to convey stormwater from the pond to the system downstream
system traverses off-site property. This requires coordination with property not included within
the boundary of the subject property. The applicant provided a contractual agreement to dedicate
the easement and install the improvements upon closing. To ensure this development is able to
move forward with infrastructure, dedication of the easement for the outfall is to be completed
prior to authorization of construction.
11. A supplemental staff report addressing other engineering and site/landscape comments was
provided to the applicant.
Staff Report – Mathis Ferry Court Preliminary Plat
Page 3 of 3
STAFF REPORT (SKETCH PLAN) – VINCENT DRIVE SINGLE-FAMILY
For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online.
AGENDA ITEM
SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Sketch Plan for Vincent Drive Single-Family, four
detached single-family residential lots zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District, and UC-OD,
Urban Corridor Overlay District, to be located on an approximately 0.346 acre tract of land comprised
of two parcels located on Vincent Drive and described as follows:
Approximate Acreage
Address
TMS No.
(i)
0.173 acres
78 Vincent Drive
532-02-00-080
(ii)
0.173 acres
82 Vincent Drive
532-02-00-081
Figure 01: Parcel Map showing Vincent Drive Single-Family’s location.
ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE
Body
Meeting Date
Action
Agenda
Item #
Planning Commission
06.17.2015
(Special Meeting)
The Commission approved the request,
subject to staff comments, by a vote of 7 to 0.
3c.
Planning &
Development
Committee of Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Town Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Staff Report – Vincent Drive
Page 1 of 3
REQUEST
The current proposal is to approve the Sketch Plan for four (4) single-family residential units, zoned
Medium-Density Residential (R-3) in the Urban Corridor-Overlay District (UC-OD) on approximately
0.35 acres of land located near the corner of Shem Drive and Vincent Drive.
SUBJECT PARCEL(S)
Property Owner(s)
TMS Number
Approximate Acreage
100 Vincent, LLC
532-02-00-080, 081
0.35 acres
Total Acreage
0.35 acres
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
Giles Branch (Earthsource Engineering)
Property Location 78, 82 Vincent Drive
Comprehensive
Plan Future Land
Use Map
Designation
Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-OD)
Current Zoning
Medium Density Residential (R-3)
ADJACENT USES & ZONING
North
Vincent Drive Right-of-Way
South
Brookgreen Shopping Center
East
Vincent Drive Mixed-Use Townhouses
West
Medium Density Residential (R-3)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST
Variance
Board of Zoning Appeals approved variance from
(Board of Zoning Appeals
Zoning Code Section 156.318 (N)(5)(a)(2)(b) to allow
04.27.2015
Approved)
single-family lots to have direct access to a public street
and not provide rear (alley-fed) access.
Staff Report – Vincent Drive
Page 2 of 3
STAFF COMMENTS [Provided by Kevin Mitchell and Shaina Salomon]
1. Conforms to intended land use – The proposed land use, of single-family residential units, conforms
to the parcel’s current Medium-Density Residential (R-3) zoning. Project is located within the
Urban Overlay District which allows detached single family use.
2. Lot layout – Single-family residential lots do not have minimum lots sizes but are required to have
two off-street parking spaces.
3. Street/sidewalk design – Due to a variance granted during the April 27, 2015 BOZA meeting, the
single-family lots are allowed to have direct access to Vincent Drive instead of having to access the
lots from the rear (alley-fed). Also, 5’ concrete sidewalk is proposed within the Vincent Drive rightof-way, and will be aligned with the adjacent Vincent Drive Townhomes development. Because of
the potential for grade conflicts between the sidewalk and the future driveways, it is recommended
both the driveway and the sidewalk be designed and installed concurrently.
4. Open space – Open space is not required and there is none proposed. The UC-OD Ordinance only
encourages open space be incorporated into the design.
5. SW detention – There is no anticipation of an appreciable increase in impervious surface from its
current condition. Roof runoff is to be managed through grade design and connection with the
rear yard system, where possible.
6. Buffers/landscaping – The zoning administrator has determined that landscape buffers between
residential units in the Urban Corridor are not required as code section 156.318N5a is specific to lot
standards for single family residences. Building setbacks still apply.
7. Sketch Plan Checklist – The following items were not provided or need to be revised on the plan:
i.
Acreage chart indicating number of lots and acreage of lots, streets, ponds, open space or
recreation area, bufferyards, wetlands, total acreage, etc.
[Comment: The acreage chart and the drawing show Lot 1 having two different square-foot
areas.]
ii.
Existing and proposed easements, including pond.
[Comment: Provide the widths of the easements.]
iii.
Significant topographic and physical features, including the location of significant trees, and
the location of watercourses within the tract.
[Comment: Land contours are not shown on the provided plans.]
SITE/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS [Provided by Chris Luly]
8. This sketch plan was reviewed in context of the Urban Corridor requirements for single family
residential units. What has been provided in this submittal is satisfactory from a site and landscape
perspective. All development within the Urban Corridor is subject to some form of examination by
the Design Review Board.
Staff Report – Vincent Drive
Page 3 of 3
STAFF REPORT (SKETCH PLAN) – FULTON (PHASE 2)
For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online.
AGENDA ITEM
SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of Sketch Plan for Fulton Phase 2, 38 detached
single-family residential lots zoned PD-CD, Planned Development – Conservation Design District, to be
located on an approximately 13.38 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 578-00-00-053, and
known as Tract 18, Boone Hall subdivision, as depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County
RMC Office in Book B, Page 046.
Figure 01: Parcel Map showing Fulton (Phase 2)’s location.
ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE
Body
Meeting
Date
Action
Agenda
Item #
Planning Commission
06.17.2015
(Special
Meeting)
The Commission denied the request by a vote of 6 to 1
(with two members absent), citing concerns with the
configuration of some of the on-street parking, street
design/traffic flow, and access to the playground.
3d.
Planning & Development
Committee of Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Town Council
n/a
n/a
n/a
Staff Report – Fulton Phase 2 Sketch Plan
Page 1 of 5
REQUEST
The current proposal is to approve the Sketch Plan for 38 single-family residential units zoned in the
Fulton PD-CD on approximately 13.39 acres of land.
SUBJECT PARCEL(S)
Property Owner(s)
TMS Number
Approximate Acreage
Old Georgetown, LLC
578-00-00-018, 053
13.39 acres
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
Giles Branch (Earthsource Engineering)
Property Location 2415-T Old Georgetown Road
Comprehensive
Plan Future Land
Use Map
Designation
Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District (SB-OD)
Current Zoning
Fulton Planned Development-Conservation District (PD-CD)
(FKA Old Georgetown Road Planned Development-Conservation District)
ADJACENT USES & ZONING
North
Unincorporated Charleston County- Single Family Homes on Frank Bonneau Road
South
Unincorporated Charleston County- Single Family Homes on Children Road
East
Unincorporated Charleston County- Vacant lot
West
Old Georgetown Road County- Single Family Homes and Boars Nest Restaurant
PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST
07.24.13 Annexation/PD-CD Zoning
Planning Commission moved for approval, including all
(Planning Commission
staff comments, for an approximately 10.41 acre parcel
Recommended Approval)
of land (Lot 8, Seashore Subdivision).
08.13.13
Annexation/PD-CD Zoning
(Town Council Approved)
09.10.13
Annexation/PD-CD Zoning
(Town Council Approved)
09.18.13
Sketch Plan:
Fulton Subdivision, Phase I
(Planning Commission Approved)
Staff Report – Fulton Phase 2 Sketch Plan
Town Council approved the First Reading for the
approximately 10.41 acre parcel of land (Lot 8,
Seashore Subdivision).
Town Council approved the Final Reading for the
approximately 10.41 acre parcel of land (Lot 8,
Seashore Subdivision).
Planning Commission approved including all staff
comments.
Page 2 of 5
11.20.13
03.19.14
11.19.14
12.09.14
01.13.15
01.26.15
02.18.15
03.10.15
04.14.15
Revised Sketch Plan:
Fulton Subdivision, Phase I
(Planning Commission Approved)
Preliminary Plat:
Fulton Subdivision, Phase I
(Planning Commission Approved)
Annexation/PD-CD Zoning & 1st
Planned Development
Amendment
(Planning Commission
Recommended Approval)
Annexation/PD-CD Zoning & 1st
Planned Development
Amendment
(Town Council Approved)
Annexation/PD-CD Zoning & 1st
Planned Development
Amendment
(Town Council Approved)
Appeal
(Board of Zoning Appeals Denied)
2nd Planned Development
Amendment
(Planning Commission
Recommended Approval)
2nd Planned Development
Amendment
(Town Council Approved)
2nd Planned Development
Amendment
(Town Council Approved)
Planning Commission approved including all staff
comments.
Planning Commission approved including all staff
comments with conditions. [Note: Reference History
section below for the conditional motion.]
Planning Commission moved for approval, including all
staff comments with conditions , for an approximately
13.38 acre parcel of land (Tract 18, Boone Hall
Subdivision) [Note: Reference History section below for
the 1st Planned Development Amendment’s description
and conditional motion.]
Town Council approved the First Reading for the
approximately 13.38 acre parcel of land (Tract 18,
Boone Hall Subdivision).
Town Council approved the Final Reading for the
approximately 13.38 acre parcel of land (Tract 18,
Boone Hall Subdivision).
BOZA denied the request based on state law that states
an ordinance cannot be questioned. [Note: Reference
History section below for the Appeal’s description]
Planning Commission moved for approval. [Note:
Reference History section below for the 2nd Planned
Amendment’s description.]
Town Council approved the First Reading of the 2nd
Planned Development Amendment.
Town Council approved the Final Reading of the 2nd
Planned Development Amendment.
HISTORY
During the March 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Preliminary Plat was approved with the
following conditional motion:
” Mr. Chapman moved for approval including all staff comments with the stipulation that the sidewalk
be extended along the pond and HOA property where it is currently omitted. Mr. Collins seconded the
motion. Mr. Chapman moved to amend his motion to include that the additional section of sidewalk is
stipulated and subject to staff approval barring no engineering prohibition to the construction of the
sidewalk. Mr. Collins seconded the amendment. Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. Motion
passed on a 6 to 2 vote, with Mr. Brimmer and Mr. Richardson opposed.”
Staff Report – Fulton Phase 2 Sketch Plan
Page 3 of 5
Initially proposed in the November 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting was the 1st Planned
Development Amendment that requested a modification to the minimum building setback
requirements. This request was approved with the following conditional motion:
“Ms. Richter-Lehrman moved for approval of the planned development amendment including staff
comments, noting that there will be a maximum of 68 lots and with the recommendation that there be
ongoing exploration of future connectivity to Hungryneck Boulevard and other potential roadways. Mr.
Collins seconded the motion. All in favor.”
The January 26, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals denied the appeal of the interpretation of a Zoning
Official regarding the required building setback from property lines adjacent to HOA areas.
Initially proposed in the February 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting was the 2nd Planned
Development Amendment that requested “to amend the PD to modify the setbacks, particularly
adjacent to HOA properties and to allow a zero yard setback. The request also include[d] a reduction in
front and side yard setbacks to two (2) feet.”
STAFF COMMENTS [Provided by Kevin Mitchell and Shaina Salomon]
1. Conforms to intended land use – The proposed land use, of single-family residential units, conforms
to the parcel’s Fulton Planned Development-Conservation District (PD-CD).
2. Lot layout – 38 lots are proposed to be subdivided off of Fulton Street with some lots adjacent to
the existing wetlands and proposed ponds. The single-family residential units meet the minimum
lot dimensions and lot area requirements under the Fulton Planned Development-Conservation
District (PD-CD).
3. Street/sidewalk design – A new street, Fulton Street, will initially connect with Fulton (Phase I) and
extend into the proposed development, creating a circular, one-way route within the parcel.
Sidewalk is also proposed to be on one side of the street within the development.
4. Open space – In accordance to the Fulton Planned Development-Conservation District, HOA open
spaces, as well as wetlands, are to be accounted for in the 25% open space requirement
calculations. The wetland areas are proposed to serve as passive park areas with nature trails and
additional amenity structures. Within this phase, 3.35 acres of open space (consisting of HOA lots
and wetlands) is being proposed.
5. SW detention – Stormwater is proposed to be managed by two onsite ponds and water quality
requirements are to be satisfied as well due to the increase of impervious service.
6. Buffers/landscaping – In accordance to the Fulton Planned Development-Conservation District,
buffers are not required unless proposed development is adjacent to Old Georgetown Road. The
proposed development is not adjacent to Old Georgetown Road; therefore, buffers are not a
requirement.
7. Sketch Plan Checklist – The following items were not provided or need to be revised on the plan:
i.
North Arrow.
[Note: This item was not shown on the provided plans.]
Staff Report – Fulton Phase 2 Sketch Plan
Page 4 of 5
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Tract boundaries.
[Note: Include the Fulton Street section, that is extending to connect to Fulton (Phase
I), in the proposed project boundary line.]
Acreage chart indicating number of lots and acreage of lots, streets, ponds, open
space or recreation area, bufferyards, wetlands, total acreage, etc.
[Note: Provide the separate acreage value for each item that was previously listed
and any other items applicable to the proposed project. ]
Zoning classifications and use district regulations within the project boundaries.
[Note: This item was not shown on the provided plans.]
Existing and proposed easements, including ponds.
[Note: Ensure all proposed public and private easements are shown, especially the
drainage easements.]
Statement of method of sanitary sewerage disposal.
[Note: This item was not show on the provided plans.]
Project parcel TMS number.
[Note: This item was not shown on the provided plans.]
Significant topographic and physical features, including the location of significant
trees, and the location of watercourses within the tract.
[Note: The pond contours, tree assessment, and tree survey were not shown on the
provided plans.]
8. Lots 1 thru 4 are depicted to be in “Charleston County” area.
[Note: This label needs to be removed from the plans.]
SITE/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS [Provided by Eddie Bernard]
9. Each lot is to have 2 on-site parking spaces, however lots 25, 30, 7 and 31 have on street parking
and/or trees inhibiting the ability for driveways to the lots.
10. No tree assessment has been provided and apparently there are several trees with labels covered
up by the ponds. Tree protection zones shall be required for all protected trees. The tree fronting
lot 36 does not appear to be a good candidate for retention given all the impacts around it.
11. The lot 11 boundary should be clarified as to whether it includes just the assess lane or the parking
also.
12. One road crossing for the sidewalk between lot 13 and 14 could be eliminated if the crossing
portions were aligned with the front of lot 13 and the sidewalk along the long side of lot 38. A
portion of the sidewalk above the on street parking at the 0.03 HOA lot across from lot 14 is in the
wetlands. A receiving portion of sidewalk and ramp should be provided fronting lot 32.
13. A north arrow is missing from the plan.
14. The on street spaces fronting lot 22-25 are partially on private property without a proposed
easement. It is unclear what the dimensions of the on-street spaces, but the PD allows for 8’
widths. Space dimensions should be provided. Unless other standards allow, 18’ is not adequate
back up space for perpendicular parking spaces. Typically at least 23’ is needed. The parking
should be surrounded with curbing. The angled spaces beside lot 36 will block the sidewalk access
if anyone parks there. It may be best to swap sides of the road with the nearby perpendicular
spaces.
Staff Report – Fulton Phase 2 Sketch Plan
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 2
Special Meeting
17 June 2015
3. Requests
a. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST:
Request approval of Preliminary Plat
for 46-62 Shem Drive, 10 detached
single-family residential lots to be
located on an approximately 0.871 acre
tract of land zoned R-3, Medium
Density Residential District, and UCOD, Urban Corridor Overlay District,
comprised of six parcels located on
Shem Drive.
3. Requests
b. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST:
Request approval of Preliminary
Plat for Mathis Ferry Court, 8
detached single-family residential
lots zoned R-2, Low Density
Residential District, to be located
on an approximately 3.17 acre tract
of land comprised of two parcels.
3. Requests
c. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST:
Request approval of Sketch Plan for
Vincent Drive Single-Family, four
detached single-family residential lots
zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential
District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor
Overlay District, to be located on an
approximately 0.346 acre tract of land
comprised of two parcels located on
Vincent Drive.
3. Requests
d. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST:
Request approval of Sketch Plan for Fulton
Phase 2, 38 detached single-family
residential lots zoned PD-CD, Planned
Development – Conservation Design
District, to be located on an approximately
13.38 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS
No. 578-00-00-053, and known as Tract 18,
Boone Hall subdivision, as depicted on a plat
recorded by the Charleston County RMC
Office in Book B, Page 046.