|
Planning Commission - Apr 28, 2008 |
Minutes McClellanville Planning Commission April 28, 2008 (adopted as revised May 19. 2008) The McClellanville Planning Commission met on the above-noted date for its regular monthly meeting. Notice of the meeting was advertised in the Charleston Post and Courier and the Town newsletter. Present at the meeting were: Kathy Livingston, Oliver Thames and Hayden Geer. Absent were: Chair, Ginny Prevost and Ted Dawson. Also present were Kathryn Basha, Zoning Administrator and planning consultant for the Town, Malcolm Baldwin and Errol Hattaway. Commission Vice-Chair, K. Livingston, who presided in the Chair's absence, called the meeting to order at 7:09 pm. It was decided to defer consideration of the minutes for the March 17, 2008 Commission meeting until all Commission members had an opportunity to thoroughly review them. Old Business: Pinola Planned Development: K. Livingston explained that the advertisement for the public hearing on Pinola Planned Development originally scheduled for this evening had not been published by the Post and Courier and therefore the formal public hearing was re-advertised and will be held May 5, 2008. Ms. Livingston further explained to the audience that the Commission would take additional comment on the proposed development at this time, but that the official public hearing would be held the following week. No action therefore would be taken by the Commission at this time. Ms. Basha suggested that Mr. Hattaway review the minutes of the March 17, 2008 meeting to see if they accurately reflect the concerns he raised at that meeting. Mr. Baldwin, representative for owners of the two parcels constituting Pinola PDD, explained the revised concept plan dated 4/9/08. The revised plan is simplified to show two land use areas, one commercial and one residential, separated by an open space and drainage area. The specific issues of concern, such as exact alignment of the road, will be addressed once final engineer can be done with approval of the property zoning. The design however will follow the standards laid out on the concept plan and in the Ordinance. Ms. Livingston pointed out that the Commission had received an email from Ms. Prevost relative to this new concept plan, which made sense now that they could physically see the revisions. Ms. Basha provided Mr. Baldwin with a copy of Ms. Prevost's comments (attached). Ms. Livingston explained that Ms. Basha would prepare a staff report on the revised concept plan, addressing the public and Ms. Prevost's concerns in advance of the public hearing on May 5, 2008. Mr. Hattaway asked exactly what was being amended, but was referring to the proposed amendment to the planned development regulations rather than Pinola. Amendment to the PD regulations Section 5.6.3.2: This amendment was sent to Town Council for a public hearing in March, where it was referred back to the Commission for further discussion. Ms. Basha had been advised by Frances Cantwell, the Town Attorney, that action should have been taken by the Commission within thirty days of the item being referred. Ms. Livingston then opened discussion on an amendment to the PD regulations Section 5.6.3.2. Ms. Basha gave an overview of the regulation and its purpose in relationship to how this would affect the application of planned developments on land annexed along the highway in the future. Ms. Basha explained that the current Ordinance limits the amount of commercial land that can be included within a planned development unless it is on land that was within the Town AND zoned Highway Commercial in 2004. Ms. Geer said that what she likes about the planned development concept is that it allows mixed use. She feels that increasing the proportion of commercial land allowed in a planned development just for one project was inappropriate. Mr. Baldwin explained why an opportunity to have planned commercial developments along the highway would be more attractive to developers, and more in keeping with the goals for the Highway Commercial area, than the County's General Commercial zoning. His concern was that if developers do NOT have an opportunity to do a mixed use development unless it is predominantly residential (particularly if it is on a shallow lot with abundant frontage on Highway 17) they will seek the County's general commercial zoning designation instead. The Planned Development allows for there to be some checks and balances. Mr. Thames pointed out that without the planned development, the only alternative would be to request 100% commercial from the County or the Town and the Town could not respond to those proposals by requiring mixed use. Ms. Geer feels that if this provision will deter development, that is not necessarily a negative. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that an another alternative would be that the property owner would just ask to split zone such properties, but that the County's general commercial allows much more intense and dense nonresidential development. Ms. Basha pointed out that in those cases the highway might land up being developed with strip commercial, which is the antithesis of what the Highway Commercial district study strived to achieve. Mr. Thames made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Town Council. The motion was seconded by K. Livingston and passed (2-1, Geer opposed,-2, Prevost and Dawson absent). Update on County's Comprehensive Plan process: Ms. Basha informed members of the Commission that she had asked the County planning staff for a summary of its last comprehensive plan meeting and had been referred to the County website. Ms. Basha distributed a print out from the website listing upcoming meetings (one being May 19th which is the same evening as the next Planning Commission meeting) and summary agendas. She stated that she would continue to follow these updates and distribute them to the Commission as they became available. Updated Work Plan for 2008: Ms. Basha reported that she had not had an opportunity to update the work plan as revised at the March meeting, but would distribute the updated version as soon as that was completed. New Business: The Commission considered a plat proposing creation of two additional lots from TMS 764-11-00-001 on Mercantile Road owned by S. Barber and K. Flax. The Commission voted (3-0-2) to approve the plat as submitted subject to DHEC approval of well/septic sites. Ms. Basha informed the Commission that, there being no issues to warrant a delay in the real estate closing, she had administratively approved (after discussion with G. Prevost) a new lot at the intersection of Kitt Hall and Romain Roads out of TMS 744-00-00-030, estate of Frances Graham. Ms. Basha summarized the results of the recently completed historic survey for the Commission and explained that any changes in the National Register district (as recommended by the consultants) would be studied by the Architectural Review Board and taken through a public review process before such recommendation were carried forward to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Planning Commission considered naming of a private access easement which intersects with N. Pinckney Street as requested by the County 911 Addressing Coordinator. There being no objections, the Commission approved the name of Edie Lane. There being no further business for discussion, K. Livingston adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn S. Basha, Zoning Administrator Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2008 Meeting (adopted as revised May 19, 2008) |