|
Planning Commission - May 5, 2008 |
Minutes McClellanville Planning Commission May 5, 2008 (adopted as revised 5.19.08) The McClellanville Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above-noted date to hear additional comments on the proposed planned development "Pinola". Notice of the meeting was advertised in the Charleston Post and Courier and the Town newsletter. Present at the meeting were: Ginny Prevost, Kathy Livingston, Ted Dawson and Hayden Geer. Oliver Thames was absent. Also present were Kathryn Basha (Zoning Administrator and planning consultant for the Town), Mary Duke (Town Administrator), Robert Gannon and Rutledge Leland (Town Council) and residents/property owners: Malcolm Baldwin, Sheryl Browne, Cheves Leland, Errol Hattaway, Kenneth Hattaway, Debbie Hattaway, Robert and Donna Weaver. Commission Chair, Ginny Prevost, called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm by stating the purpose of this public hearing and inviting comments from those in attendance. Commission members requested clarification as to which concept plan was being considered. Malcolm Baldwin distributed the concept plan dated 5/5/08 and gave a presentation on the revisions made to address the most recent concerns noted by members of the public and the Planning Commission. Primary changes made are reflected in the notes on the plan as follows: 1. The buffer along Highway 17 has been brought into conformance with that required by the HCD district with an average minimum buffer depth of 50', no less than 30' in depth at any point with the exception of the existing structure. 2. All street trees to be provided along the proposed access road shall be a minimum of 3 inches DBH. 3. A 30 foot buffer will be provided at the rear of the commercial area to supplement the open space along the drainage ponds so that this section of the development will be usable open space and an amenity. Ms. Geer asked for clarification as to whether the retention pond area was being proposed as the only open space to meet the open space requirement. 4. There is still a proposal to provide a 15' buffer where the residential lots will abut other residential development. 5. The maximum lot coverage of 25% per lot will be maintained for the entire development regardless of individual lot sizes platted when subdivided to match the highway commercial district. 6. The maximum house size has been dropped to 2,000 sf of heated floor area. 7. The ministorage use (if developed) will have to be setback a minimum of 150 feet from Highway 17 Cheves Leland asked whether the proposed maximum residential density was different than that currently allowed. Mr. Baldwin explained that the by-right density allowed under the residential zoning would be 9 dwelling units, that if the development were zoned HCD in its entirety, the maximum number of units permitted would be 18 units. The owners are proposing 11 residential units (maximum assuming DHEC approves well and septic sites). The number of units developed would never exceed the maximum approved on the concept plan. Cheves Leland brought up the issue of linkage between this development and other highway commercial development without the necessity of using vehicles to enter and travel along highway 17. Mr. Baldwin explained that although having cross access easements and linkages for pedestrian and cyclists would be ideal, one of the biggest concerns of residents abutting the proposed development has been restricting access to Alert Road. It is hoped that other cross access easements can be established closer to the highway in the future. Robert Weaver asked whether SCDOT had reviewed the plan yet and whether deceleration lanes will be required for the proposed access road going north on highway 17. It was noted that SCDOT will be asked to look at the development once the actual density can be engineered, but that the intersection of the proposed access road with Highway 17 is within the controlled speed area along the Highway. This issue will be reviewed with the encroachment permit request. Mr. Baldwin also explained the engineer constraints of the road alignment and the goal of having it line up with the existing median break, working around the existing large trees fronting the property. Ms. Prevost noted that one goal of the Highway Commercial district is to minimize the number of highway curb cuts or entranceways. The discussion about the usability of the open space area was continued. G. Prevost noted that there is a movement amongst some jurisdictions not to include retention ponds or preserved wetland areas as "required" open space, because they are already required. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that most of the jurisdictions doing that allow much higher intensity development than permitted by McClellanville's Ordinance. It was asked whether (Ms. Basha will research) whether the retention pond at Pinckney Street Docks subdivision counted towards its open space requirement. H. Geer asked for clarification as to what the open space area in Pinola would be look like and be used for. It was agreed that the reduction in the maximum house size to 2,000 square feet addresses previous concerns about the development of affordable "starter" homes. Mr. Baldwin explained that the initial concept was to have smaller lots so that something a little larger, but along the same lines as, "Katrina cottages" could be built. Cheves Leland asked why it would be single-family homes rather than attached or multifamily units. Mr. Baldwin clarified that the concept plan and zoning would not prohibit someone from developing single-family attached or multifamily units from being developed. It was asked that the concept plan be clarified to note that each individual lot will still have to meet open space and landscaped area requirements even though the lots are smaller to allow for affordable housing. Mr. Weaver asked whether all lots would be served by individual septic tanks. He had thought that a central area was being put aside for a shared septic system. Ginny Prevost asked for clarification about whether the words "lot" and "tract" were being used interchangeably. She also asked whether the note that all tracts can be subdivided into 20,000 square foot lots applies to both residential and commercial. Mr. Baldwin stated that that has been the proposal since the project was initiated. The purpose of having smaller commercial lots is so there can be more of an enclave of commercial uses. He then explained how these lots will compare in size to those in the village commercial area. G. Prevost noted that the one outstanding issue that will have to be addressed at the time of subdivision plan, and cannot be addressed this evening, is the actual emergency access facility. Mr. Baldwin will work with the Awendaw Fire Department to come up with an adequate turn-around facility for emergency vehicles so that the access road does not exceed 800 feet in length. Ms. Browne asked about the possibility of having a pump in the retention pond for fire fighting purposes. Drainage for the development will be addressed both with engineering of the subdivision and by cleaning of the existing ditch system that crosses the property. Mr. Baldwin and the Commission agreed that if DOT or the County can clear and maintain the existing ditch that drains Highway 17 before the subdivision is fully engineered, actual drainage patterns can be more efficiently addressed. G. Prevost stated that this issue should be discussed with Town Council that evening. Mr. Baldwin stated that it is rather easy to research the existing easements for that drainage ditch which will allow whoever to clean out the ditch. Mary Duke then reported that she had already contacted SCDOT to find out whether it is responsible for the ditch maintenance or the County. Mr. Baldwin said that he had found the easements on all the lots affected except one. Nonetheless there needs to be a commitment from either DOT or the County that this will be cleaned out, particularly before the developer engineers drainage for the development. Ms. Prevost asked whether there was a note about walls and fences and if they would be behind or in front of the buffer areas. Ms. Basha pointed out the note and that these structures and their design would be reviewed by the Design Review Board if proposed. Ms. Prevost stated that she is particularly concerned that if something in the commercial area is particularly large and obtrusive, that it not be visible from the highway. It was also noted that any lighting would be subject to ordinance standards. Errol Hattaway asked for further clarification about the maximum number of lots that could be created under the "blob" plan that was on the table. Mr. Baldwin explained, with the Commission's acknowledgment, that the maximum number of lots (11) listed on the approved concept plan would regulate the density regardless of the number of septic sites that were available. Debbie Hattaway stated that it is very difficult to hear in the meeting room and that leads to some confusion about the project. Ms. Prevost stated that the Commission would not make a recommendation this evening and would finish its discussion at the May 19th Planning Commission meeting. H. Geer made a statement about the process that, in the future, all planned developments should provide illustrations similar to that included in the Highway Commercial District plan (regardless of what is required). She stated that it would be much more helpful for a developer to highlight how site design criteria in the Ordinance will be met and provide a more concrete idea of what will be developed. Her biggest concern is the precedent that may be set by a development that is unclear in design when approved. Ms. Basha asked whether there was a motion on the table to recommend the development at this time. Ms. Geer stated that as much as she felt that it should be acted upon she might not be able to vote in favor of the development until she had time to digest this evening's discussion. The Commission then voted on a motion (3-1-1) by Ted Dawson, seconded by Kathy Livingston, that Town Council hold a second reading on the development tonight. Mayor Rutledge noted that since Council had already held its public hearing on the project in March, a second reading would essentially approve the development that evening. Ms. Basha then pointed out that the ordinance for the Pinola zoning amendment would have to be revised one more time by the Town Attorney to reference the most recent concept plan and other attachments. Ted Dawson then moved that (as stated by Ms. Basha) the zoning of the property as a planned development subject to the concept development plan and all attached documents be recommended, with an understanding that the final development will be granted in the future as part of a subdivision plan based on DHEC approval of septic sites, tree surveys and drainage plans. Therefore, Council will not take action until its June meeting when the final ordinance has been prepared by the Town Attorney. One additional item of business was brought to the table for Commission's consideration. Ms. Basha asked the Commission to delegate authority for administrative approve subdivision of a utility lot for TW Grahams septic field from a larger tract currently owned by Amelia Marlowe fronting on Mercantile Road. It was clarified that this is not the same lot as the corner lot owned by Robert Lumpkin. Mr. Dawson asked to see the lot and its relative proximity to the restaurant lot. It is anticipated that the final plat for the utility lot will be completed before the next Commission meeting, and administrative approval will ensure that closing is not delayed. A motion by H. Geer, seconded by T. Dawson, to grant this authority was passed (4-0-1, O. Thames absent). The meeting was adjourned at 7:06. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn S. Basha, Zoning Administrator Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2008 Meeting, adopted as revised 5/19/08 |