SC - Charleston County Planning: CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Issues discussed this meeting include:

CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

www.charlestoncounty.org

CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Lonnie Hamilton, III Public Services Building

Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, planning, boards and commissions, services, Public Works, and public works

4045 Bridge View Drive, North Charleston, SC

AGENDA MARCH 9, 2020

2:00 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER INTRODUCTIONS

II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Tagged Interests: compliance and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

III. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2020 WORKSHOP AND MEETING MINUTES

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST: a. ZREZ-01-20-00111: Request to rezone TMS 311-00-00-025 and 311-00-00-097 from

Tagged Interests: development, zoning, and Development

Residential (R-4) to Planned Development, PD-174, Murray Creek for a residential subdivision and micro farm. APPLICANT: Levi Grantham, LLC

Tagged Interests: agriculture, development, subdivision, and Development

VI. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST: a. ZREZ-02-20-00112: Request to rezone a 0.34-acre portion of TMS 301-00-00-038 from the

Tagged Interests: development, zoning, and Development

Industrial (I) Zoning District to Planned Development Zoning District (PD-175) Bees Ferry Road Sign, for placement of a digital billboard.

Tagged Interests: development, industrial, zoning, Public Transit, advertising, signage, Development, ferry, and FERRY

VII. DIRECTOR S REPORT

VIII. CHAIR S REMARKS

IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 2020

X. ADJOURNMENT

CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2020

ATTENDEES Planning Commission: Kip Bowman, Sussan Chavis, Laura Dukes-Beck, Vice Chair Cindy Floyd, Warwick Jones, David Kent, Adam MacConnell, and

Chair Eric Meyer. Pete Paulatos was absent.
Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

County staff: Joel Evans, Director of Planning/Zoning; Andrea Melocik, Deputy Director of Planning/Zoning; Dan Frazier, Planner II; Niki Grimball,

Planner II; Ryan Petersen, Planner III; Josh Downey, Code Enforcement Officer; Emily Pigott, Planner I; Sally Brooks, Planner III; Anna Kimelblatt, Administrative Support Coordinator I; Edgar Sada; and Robin Lewis.
Tagged Interests: planning, zoning, and codes enforcement

Members of the public: Lin Hamlin, Osgood Hamlin III, Phillip Jefferson, Pam Skinner, John Zlogar, Will Rogan, Ryan Buck, Charles Freeman, Zavia

Collins, Myra Richardson, Martha Brown, Virginia Horry, Alonzo Horry, Antisha Graddick, Samuel Robinson, Earl Johnson, Carlton Fludd, Erica Grate-Simmons, Shawnda Asby, Isaiah Horry Sr., Stephanie Fludd- Smalls, Gwen Robinson, William German, and Valerie Edwards.

CALL TO ORDER Chair Meyer called to order the meeting of the Charleston County Planning Commission in Council Chambers at the Lonnie Hamilton, III,

Public Services Building, 4045 Bridge View Drive at approximately 2:05 p.m.
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, planning, boards and commissions, services, Public Works, and public works

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFOMRATION ACT INTRODUCTIONS Chair Meyer announced that the meeting was noticed in compliance with the South Carolina

Freedom of Information Act. He stated the purpose of the Planning Commission and introduced its members. Mr. Evans introduced County staff.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, compliance, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES On the motion of Laura Dukes-Beck, seconded by Warwick Jones, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the January

13, 2020 meeting minutes.
Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZLDR AMENDMENT REQUESTS: ACP-12- 19-00116 ZLDR-12-19-00119: Chair Meyer introduced the first item on the agenda. Ms.

Grimball delivered the staff report, explaining that the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended first to allow for staff to recommend approval for the ZLDR amendment. Chair Meyer then asked for questions and discussion from the Planning Commission. There were initially no questions or comments from Planning Commission members.
Tagged Interests: planning, strategic, boards and commissions, and zoning

The applicant, Adam Steen, spoke in favor of the amendment. There was no public comment in opposition. Commissioner MacConnell noted that he was wary

of setting a precedent that would allow for applicants to ask for forgiveness rather than permission with respect to rezoning. Mr. Evans stated that staff operates on a case by case basis with respect to their recommendations, and that he did not think they would be setting such a precedent. Commissioner Floyd asked if these properties were within the Parkers Ferry Overlay Zoning District, to which Mr. Evans replied that they were. Ms. Melocik noted that these properties are zoned Residential in the overlay, and that staff had not realized the business had already been encroaching into neighboring parcels when the overlay district was drafted. Commissioner
Tagged Interests: business, zoning, Public Transit, property, ferry, and FERRY

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

February 10, 2020

Bowman noted the generational qualities of the property and the farming community benefits that had long been provided by the Steen business.

Tagged Interests: business, agriculture, and property

Chair Meyer called for a vote on ACP-12-19-00116. On the motion from Commissioner Bowman, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission

voted, 7-1 with one absent (Commissioner Paulatos), to approve the motion. Commissioner Floyd voted in opposition. Commissioner Kent abstained from voting
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and voting

Chair Meyer then called for a vote on ZLDR-12-19-00119. On the motion from Commissioner Bowman, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning

Commission voted, 7-1 with one absent (Commissioner Paulatos), to approve the motion. Commissioner Floyd voted in opposition.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and zoning

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: ZREZ-12-19-00110: Chair Meyer called for the next item on the agenda. Ms. Grimball delivered the presentation and noted

that because the request is not consistent with the Future Land Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends disapproval. Chair Meyer asked for questions or comments from Planning Commission members; there was no initial input from Planning Commission members.
Tagged Interests: planning, strategic, boards and commissions, development, and Development

The applicant, Ryan Buck, spoke in favor of the application. He stated his family has owned the business for over 20 years and that it has long

served the Johns Island community. He said that demand had increased and therefore he was looking to expand the business.
Tagged Interests: business

John Zlogar of the Johns Island Task Force spoke in opposition of the application, noting that the parcel was outside of the Urban Growth Boundary

and that its current zoning as Agricultural Residential does not conform to Rural Commercial requirements. He voiced the support of the Johns Island Task Force for staff s recommendation of disapproval.
Tagged Interests: planning, rural, agriculture, zoning, property, commercial, and growth

Commissioner Floyd asked staff if the parcel was included in the proposed Main Road Overlay Zoning District, and if the future overlay would allow

for self-storage. Ms. Grimball displayed the Main Road OZD map on the screen, and Ms. Melocik explained that self-storage would be an allowed use when the new overlay goes into effect as the parcel would be within the Rural Commercial node, provided there are no changes to the overlay during the adoption process. Commissioner Floyd then proposed that the applicant defer until the new overlay is approved, as this would likely allow the proposed use without rezoning.
Tagged Interests: rural, zoning, property, and commercial

Commissioner Chavis asked if the proposed overlay zoning district would alter the Urban Growth Boundary, to which Ms. Melocik replied that it would

not. Commissioner Chavis then asked if a traffic study comparing residential and self-storage trip activity had been completed. Will Rogan, Cypress Engineering, stated that Appendix G in the PD documents contained a traffic memo with trip generation estimates.
Tagged Interests: planning, zoning, traffic, and growth

Commissioner Jones stated that he was inclined to support the staff recommendation and that he felt the applicant should defer until the new overlay

was established. He asked staff if their recommendation would change after the implementation of the new overlay, to which Ms. Melocik replied that it would change to approval as this would be an allowed use by right in the Rural Commercial node.
Tagged Interests: rural and commercial

Mr. Buck asked about the time frame regarding the implementation of the new overlay. Mr. Evans provided an estimate of late summer/early fall. Mr.

Buck then noted that it would be

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

February 10, 2020

very challenging to do anything else with this parcel as it can only be accessed by driving through the parcel where their business currently

operates.
Tagged Interests: business and property

Commissioner MacConnell requested clarification on why the applicant submitted a PD rather than a straight rezoning request. Commissioner Bowman

offered the explanation that the PD allows for specific uses and prevents undesirable uses that may have been allowed through a straight rezoning to Community Commercial.
Tagged Interests: zoning and commercial

The applicant requested to defer his application, and therefore, the Planning Commission did not vote on the request.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

DIRECTOR S REPORT Mr. Evans delivered the director s report for the month of January. He mentioned that Charleston County staff was working with Mt.

Pleasant Planning staff to facilitate the review of Mt. Pleasant Overlay Zoning District and zoning for the settlement communities.
Tagged Interests: planning, zoning, and settlement

CHAIR S REMARKS Chair Meyer announced the schedule for site visit tours for Planning Commission members to review the Main Road/Maybank Highway

Overlay Zoning District with planning staff.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and zoning

Chair Meyer then read the Rules and Procedures section regarding Planning Commission elections for Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Kent nominated

Eric Meyer for Chair. This nomination was seconded by Commissioner Chavis, and the Commission unanimously voted to elect Eric Meyer as the Chair for the 2020 term. Commissioner Kent nominated Cindy Floyd for Vice Chair. This nomination was seconded by Commissioner Chavis, and the Commission unanimously voted to elect Cindy Floyd as the Vice Chair for the 2020 term.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, voting, election, and procedure

ADJOURNMENT Chair Meyer adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.

Anna Kimelblatt Recording for the Planning Department

Tagged Interests: planning

Ratified by the Charleston County Planning Commission this 9th day of March, 2020.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Eric Meyer Chair

Attest:

Joel Evans, PLA, AICP, Director Zoning Planning Department

Tagged Interests: planning and zoning

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

February 10, 2020

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCLAIMER:

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

UNRATIFIED MEETING MINUTES

This document is a draft of the minutes of the most recent

meeting of the Charleston County Planning Commission.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

The members of the Planning Commission have neither

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

reviewed nor approved this document; therefore, these

minutes shall only become official meeting minutes after

adoption by the Planning Commission at a public meeting

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

of the Commission.

Tagged Interests: boards and commissions

CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

WORKSHOP MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2020

ATTENDEES Planning Commission: Kip Bowman, Sussan Chavis, Laura Dukes-Beck, Vice Chair Cindy Floyd, Warwick Jones, David Kent, Adam MacConnell, and

Chair Eric Meyer. Pete Paulatos was absent.
Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

County staff: Joel Evans, Director of Planning/Zoning; Andrea Melocik, Deputy Director of Planning/Zoning; Dan Frazier, Planner II; Niki Grimball,

Planner II; Ryan Petersen, Planner III; Josh Downey, Code Enforcement Officer; Emily Pigott, Planner I; Sally Brooks, Planner III; Anna Kimelblatt, Administrative Support Coordinator I; Edgar Sada; and Robin Lewis.
Tagged Interests: planning, zoning, and codes enforcement

Members of the public: Lin Hamlin, Osgood Hamlin III, Phillip Jefferson, Pam Skinner, John Zlogar, Will Rogan, Ryan Buck, Charles Freeman, Zavia

Collins, Myra Richardson, Martha Brown, Virginia Horry, Alonzo Horry, Antisha Graddick, Samuel Robinson, Earl Johnson, Carlton Fludd, Erica Grate-Simmons, Shawnda Asby, Isaiah Horry Sr., Stephanie Fludd-Smalls, Gwen Robinson, William German, and Valerie Edwards.

CALL TO ORDER Chair Meyer called to order the workshop of the Charleston County Planning Commission in Council Chambers at the Lonnie Hamilton, III,

Public Services Building, 4045 Bridge View Drive at 2:40 p.m.
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, planning, boards and commissions, services, Public Works, and public works

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFOMRATION ACT INTRODUCTIONS Chair Meyer announced that the meeting was noticed in compliance with the South Carolina

Freedom of Information Act.
Tagged Interests: compliance and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

PRESENTATION: CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PLAN FOR HAMLIN ROAD Ms. Grimball read the description provided by the applicant, as follows: A

residential subdivision being designed on Hamlin Road in Charleston County under the Planned Development ordinance of the County, consisting of the following properties totaling approximately 14.26 acres:TMS 577-00-00-025 (4.25 acres), TMS 577-00-00-024 (5.12 acres), TMS 577-00-00-021 (0.81 acres), and TMS 577-00-00-022 (4.08 acres). The PD proposes to create 42 new Lots (3 units/acre), HOA open space, stormwater infrastructure and installation of utilities to service the new development. Lots will be accessed by a new private right-of-way roadway on one side Hamlin Road and a private ingress/egress easement on the other. The surrounding community is strongly in support of this project due to the water sewer utility installations required to serve the property.
Tagged Interests: ordinance, sewer, streets, utility, development, Utility, subdivision, water, Development, property, easement, and stormwater

The applicant, Chris Young, spoke about the project. He noted that this section of Hamlin Road does not have water or sewer. He began the project

over two years ago, but could not obtain a letter of coordination from Mt. Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) until recently, which spurred his revival of the project. According to the applicant, approximately 30-35 people from the community attended multiple meetings with him and MPW in support of the development. He stated that the developers would pay the impact fees for community
Tagged Interests: impact fee, sewer, streets, utility, development, Utility, water, and Development

Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 10, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

members who would be tying into the newly built water and sewer lines. He demonstrated on maps where the infrastructure would be.

Tagged Interests: sewer, utility, Utility, and water

He also explained that in order for the project to be financially beneficial for the developer, a certain number of lots would be required, which is

why the lots are smaller than the required 12,500 square foot parcels in S-3 Zoning District. The developers supplemented the smaller lot size with larger buffers. The developers stated that the entire Hamlin Road community would benefit from the installation of water and sewer infrastructure.
Tagged Interests: sewer, utility, Utility, zoning, water, and property

Commissioner Chavis asked for clarification of the applicant s maps, which he provided. Commissioner Jones asked if MPW was providing both water and

sewer. The applicant explained that MPW will not pay to run sewer, so the developers are paying for it as it is required in order for them to build this development. He then confirmed for Commissioner Jones that this was within the Urban Growth Boundary. The applicant and Commissioner Floyd discussed the average lot size (9,500 sq. feet) in comparison with the standard 12,500 square-foot lot size required by the S-3 Zoning District. The applicant confirmed for Mr. Evans that the properties are not contiguous with Mt. Pleasant and that annexation was not an option. Commissioner MacConnell asked if there would be other neighborhood amenities required, to which the applicant responded that there would not be as they left as much of the surrounding area as natural and wooded as possible.
Tagged Interests: planning, sewer, utility, development, Utility, zoning, water, Development, annexation, neighborhood, and growth

Chair Meyer then asked for public comment.

Erica Grate-Simmons (1516 Hamlin Road), Lin Hamlin (2471 Rifle Range Road), Phillip Jefferson (1577 Hamlin Road), Gwen Robinson (1650 Georgina

Street), Myra Richardson (2755 Earl Johnson Lane), Earl Johnson (2760 Earl Johnson Lane), William German (2713 Rifle Range Road), and George Freeman (1450 Bowman Road) all expressed concerns regarding the proposed development.
Tagged Interests: streets, development, and Development

Their collective concerns included the following:

a lack of communication between the applicant and the community failure of the applicant to update the community with regards to changes in the

Tagged Interests: communications and Communications

development plan failure of the applicant to make clear to the community that this infrastructure would

Tagged Interests: development and Development

be accompanied by 42 houses increased traffic a lack of a traffic plan during the construction period water/sewer infrastructure disrupting land or

grand trees increased taxes due to the new subdivision the disregard for minimum lot size requirements as stated in the ZLDR which members of the community would be required to tie into the new
Tagged Interests: construction, sewer, taxes, Taxes, utility, Utility, zoning, subdivision, water, trees, and traffic

infrastructure the potential impact the development would have on the integrity of the Hamlin

Tagged Interests: development and Development

Road community the inability of community members to afford the monthly payments to MPW

Tagged Interests: streets

The applicant, Chris Young, and the civil engineer for the project, Wofford Stribling, responded to the public s concerns.

Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 10, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Their responses included the following:

They stated that they did indeed hold community meetings they planned to hold additional community meetings in the future infrastructure would not

impact grand trees or Mr. Hamlin s farmland they increased stormwater management techniques to account for the smaller lot
Tagged Interests: trees and stormwater

sizes only people directly adjacent to the infrastructure would be required to hook up to

it this was an allowed use by right they firmly believed they were benefitting the Hamlin Road community.

Tagged Interests: streets

Mr. German and Ms. Robinson directed additional questions at the applicant, including whether or not a tax impact assessment had been completed and

when the last time the developers had spoken with the community had been. Mr. Evans redirected the conversation to Planning Commission members and reiterated the purpose of the workshop, reminding the public that this application would not be voted on at the present time.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, taxes, and Taxes

Commissioner Chavis stated her concern regarding the discrepancy regarding communication. She also stated that she was concerned about mandatory

connections, potential fines from MPW if people did not tie in, and that the community may not be able to afford the monthly bills, even if their impact fees are paid by the developer.
Tagged Interests: impact fee, communications, and Communications

Commissioner Dukes-Beck asked the applicant for the history of how they acquired the property. The applicant explained it had been heir s property,

and they purchased it for 2.3 million from ninety members of the DeVeaux family. The applicant assured Planning Commission and the public that they planned to host another community meeting.
Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, purchasing, property, and history

Chair Meyer requested that the applicant improve his graphics and maps prior to the next Planning Commission meeting at which the request is heard.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

George Freeman discussed the S-3 requirements for minimum lot size, stating that they are intended to maintain the character of the surrounding

community. He said he is concerned that the smaller lot sizes are not consistent with the existing character. Commissioner Dukes-Beck and Commissioner Bowman offered some ideas regarding ways that the developer could increase lot sizes to the minimum required.

Commissioner Chavis strongly advised the members of the community to meet with the developer and to continue to attend any public meetings related to

this matter.

ADJOURNMENT Chair Meyer adjourned the workshop at 3:51 p.m.

Anna Kimelblatt Recording for the Planning Department

Tagged Interests: planning

Ratified by the Charleston County Planning Commission this 9th day of March, 2020.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 10, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Eric Meyer Chair

Attest:

Joel Evans, PLA, AICP, Director Zoning Planning Department

Tagged Interests: planning and zoning

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCLAIMER:

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

UNRATIFIED WORKSHOP MINUTES

This document is a draft of the minutes of the most recent

workshop of the Charleston County Planning Commission.

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

The members of the Planning Commission have neither

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

reviewed nor approved this document; therefore, these

minutes shall only become official minutes after adoption

by the Planning Commission at a public meeting of the

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Commission.

Tagged Interests: boards and commissions

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

Tagged Interests: development, zoning, and Development

REQUEST:

ZREZ-01-20-00111

Case History Presentation PD Documents Application

Tagged Interests: history

Page 1 of 2

ZREZ-01-20-00111: Case History

Tagged Interests: history

Planning Commission: March 9, 2020 Public Hearing: April 2, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and hearing

Planning and Public Works Committee: April 16, 2020 First Reading: April 21, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning, Public Works, and public works

Second Reading: May 5, 2020 Third Reading: May 19, 2020

CASE INFORMATION

Applicant: Levi Grantham, LLC

Owner: Knapp A Partnership

Location: 1381, 1385, and 1389 River Road, Johns Island, SC 29455

Tagged Interests: streets and watershed

Parcel Identification: 311-00-00-025 311-00-00-097

Tagged Interests: property

Council District: 8 (Johnson)

Tagged Interests: council

Property Size: 11.861 acres (9.914 acres highland, 1.947 acres below Critical Line)

Tagged Interests: property

Application: The applicant is requesting to rezone TMS 311-00-00-025 and TMS 311-00-00-097 from R-4 to Planned Development (PD-174), Murray Creek, to

allow for a residential development consisting of Single- Family Dwellings, Common Open Space, and a Micro-Farm.
Tagged Interests: agriculture, development, zoning, and Development

Zoning History: TMS 311-00-00-025 was zoned RR-3 on the 1994 Tax Maps. Parcel 311-00-00-097 was created in 1998 from a subdivision of TMS

311-00-00-025. The subject properties were both zoned Low- Density Residential (RSL) in 2001, and were subsequently zoned Single-Family Residential (R-4) in 2006.
Tagged Interests: taxes, Taxes, zoning, subdivision, property, and history

Adjacent Zoning: Properties to the east are zoned R-4 and contain single-family dwellings. The property to the west is zoned R-4 and is currently

undeveloped. Properties to the south are within the City of Charleston and are zoned PUD and RR-1.
Tagged Interests: zoning and property

Overview of Requested PD Guidelines The applicant is requesting to rezone TMS 311-00-00-025 and TMS 311-00-00-097 from R-4 to Planned Development

(PD-174), Murray Creek, to allow for a residential development consisting of Single-Family Dwellings, Common Open Space, and a Micro-Farm. Specifically, PD-174 requests the following:
Tagged Interests: agriculture, development, zoning, and Development

Maximum of 39 lots for single-family dwellings and accessory structures; with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and 10 rear setbacks (R-4

allows for 39 SFRs (with highland acreage of 9.9 acres), 7,250 square foot lot size, and 15 rear setback);

All other dimensional standards in compliance with the R-4 standards of the ZLDR; Minimum 0.25-acre Micro Farm, allowed uses include: local

agricultural sales and or production;
Tagged Interests: sale, agriculture, zoning, and compliance

structures and facilities related to farming operations (raised garden beds, hoop houses, greenhouses, storage buildings, wash stations, and farm

stand);
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder and agriculture

Common areas, which could include one community, dock, pavilions, picnic areas, fire pits, and sitting areas; and

Tagged Interests: boating

Property Owner s Association to establish an ARB and maintain or manage the common area, facilities, and micro farm.

Tagged Interests: agriculture and property

Page 2 of 2

Municipalities Notified/Response: The City of North Charleston, Town of James Island, Town of Kiawah Island, Berkeley County, City of Charleston,

City of Folly Beach, City of Isle of Palms, Colleton County, Town of Awendaw, Town of Hollywood, Town of Lincolnville, Town of McClellanville, Town of Meggett, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Town of Ravenel, Town of Seabrook Island, and the Town of Summerville have all been noticed of this request.
Tagged Interests: beach

Public Input: No public input has been received for this request.

APPROVAL CRITERIA

According to Section 4.23.9(E)(9) of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance (ZLDR), applications for PD Development Plans may be

approved only if County Council determines that the following criteria are met:
Tagged Interests: regulation, ordinance, council, development, zoning, and Development

A. The PD Development Plan complies with the standards contained in this Article;

Tagged Interests: development and Development

Staff response: The PD complies with the standards contained in this Article.

B. The development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted

Tagged Interests: strategic, development, and Development

policy documents; and

Tagged Interests: policy

Staff response: The Future Land Use designation for this parcel is Urban/Suburban Mixed Use. A residential development of single-family dwellings is

consistent with the intent of this Future Land Use designation. In addition, the proposed development meets the density requirements for the R-4 Zoning District. However, the PD guidelines call for a reduction in the rear setback requirements, which is not in compliance with ZLDR Sec.4.26.B.1.a, which states: Each lot located on the perimeter of the planned development shall maintain the rear yard setback requirements and any buffer requirements of the adjacent zoning district. The rear yard setback of the R-4 zoning district is 15 ; the PD application proposes a rear yard setback of 10 .
Tagged Interests: development, zoning, Development, property, and compliance

C. The County and other agencies will be able to provide necessary public services, facilities,

Tagged Interests: services, Public Works, and public works

and programs to serve the development proposed, at the time the property is developed.

Tagged Interests: development, program, Development, and property

Staff Response: The County and other agencies will be able to provide services to the proposed development pursuant to the letters of coordination

submitted by the applicant.
Tagged Interests: development, services, and Development

Because the Planned Development application meets all of the criteria of Section 4.23.9 E (9),

Tagged Interests: development and Development

staff recommends approval with conditions.

Recommended Condition of Approval:

Revise the rear setback for single-family residential lots from 10 to 15 .

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: March 9, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning and boards and commissions

Notifications: 197 notification letters were sent to owners of property located within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject parcel and

individuals on the Johns Island Interested Parties Lists on 2/21/2020. Additionally, this request was noticed in the Post Courier on 2/21/2020.
Tagged Interests: property

Planning Commission March 9, 2020 Public Hearing April 2, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and hearing

Charleston County Planned Development Zoning

Tagged Interests: development, zoning, and Development

Map Amendment Request

ZREZ-01-20-00111

1381, 1385, and 1389 River Road, Johns Island, SC 29455

Tagged Interests: streets and watershed

Parcel I.D.: 311-00-00-025 311-00-00-097

Tagged Interests: property

Acreage: 11.861 acres

Owner: Knapp A Partnership

Applicant: Levi Grantham, LLC

Council District: 8- Johnson

Tagged Interests: council

TMS 311-00-00-025 was zoned RR-3 on the 1994 Tax Maps

Tagged Interests: taxes, Taxes, and zoning

Parcel 311-00-00-097 was created in 1998 from a subdivision of TMS 311-00-00-025

Tagged Interests: subdivision and property

The subject properties were both zoned Low-Density Residential (RSL) in 2001

Tagged Interests: zoning

Zoned Single-Family Residential (R-4) in 2006

Tagged Interests: zoning

Zoning History

Tagged Interests: zoning and history

Subject Property

Tagged Interests: property

Area Description

Penny s Creek borders the subject properties on the north. Properties to the east are zoned R-4 and contain Single-Family Dwellings. The property to

the west is zoned R-4 and is currently undeveloped.
Tagged Interests: zoning and property

Properties to the south are within the City of Charleston and are zoned PUD and RR-1.

Tagged Interests: zoning

City of Charleston Zoning

Tagged Interests: zoning

.

Subject parcels

Tagged Interests: property

Conservation District C

Tagged Interests: Conservation

Rural Residential District RR-1

Tagged Interests: rural

Single Family Residential SR-1

Aerial View to the North

Aerial View to the South

Future Land Use Designation

Site Photos

2- Existing house at rear of TMS-025

1- Existing mobile home on TMS-097

Site Photos

3- Existing dock on TMS-097

Tagged Interests: boating

4- Existing access from River Road

Tagged Interests: streets and watershed

PD-174 Requested Guidelines The applicant is requesting to rezone TMS 311-00-00-025 and TMS 311-00-00-097 from R-4 to Planned Development (PD-174),

Murray Creek, to allow for a residential development consisting of Single-Family Dwellings, Common Open Space, and a Micro-Farm. Specifically, PD-174 requests the following:
Tagged Interests: agriculture, development, zoning, and Development

Maximum of 39 lots for single-family dwellings and accessory structures; with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and 10 rear setbacks (R-4

allows for 39 SFRs (with highland acreage of 9.9 acres), 7,250 square foot lot size, and 15 rear setback); All other dimensional standards in compliance with the R-4 standards of the ZLDR; Minimum 0.25-acre Micro Farm, allowed uses include: local agricultural sales and or production; structures and facilities related to farming operations (raised garden beds, hoop houses, greenhouses, storage buildings, wash stations, and farm stand); Common areas, which could include one community, dock, pavilions, picnic areas, fire pits, and sitting areas; and. Property Owner s Association to establish an ARB and maintain or manage the common area, facilities, and micro farm.
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, sale, agriculture, zoning, boating, property, and compliance

Approval Criteria Section 4.23.9(E)(9) According to Section 4.23.9(E)(9) of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance (ZLDR),

applications for PD Development Plans may be approved only if County Council determines that the following criteria are met:
Tagged Interests: regulation, ordinance, council, development, zoning, and Development

A. The PD Development Plan complies with the standards contained in this Article;

Tagged Interests: development and Development

Staff response: The PD complies with the standards contained in this Article.

B. The development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted policy documents; and

Tagged Interests: strategic, development, Development, and policy

Staff response: The Future Land Use designation for this parcel is Urban/Suburban Mixed Use. A residential development of single-family dwellings is

consistent with the intent of this Future Land Use designation. In addition, the proposed development meets the density requirements for the R-4 Zoning District. However, the PD guidelines call for a reduction in the rear setback requirements, which is not in compliance with ZLDR Sec.4.26.B.1.a, which states: Each lot located on the perimeter of the planned development shall maintain the rear yard setback requirements and any buffer requirements of the adjacent zoning district. The rear yard setback of the R-4 zoning district is 15 ; the PD application proposes a rear yard setback of 10 .
Tagged Interests: development, zoning, Development, property, and compliance

Approval Criteria Section 4.23.9(E)(9) According to Section 4.23.9(E)(9) of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance (ZLDR),

applications for PD Development Plans may be approved only if County Council determines that the following criteria are met:
Tagged Interests: regulation, ordinance, council, development, zoning, and Development

C. The County and other agencies will be able to provide necessary public services, facilities, and programs to serve the development proposed, at

the time the property is developed.
Tagged Interests: development, services, program, Development, Public Works, public works, and property

Staff Response: The County and other agencies will be able to provide services to the proposed development pursuant to the letters of coordination

submitted by the applicant.
Tagged Interests: development, services, and Development

The Planned Development application meets all of the criteria of Section 4.23.9 E (9)

Tagged Interests: development and Development

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

Recommendation

Condition: Revise the rear setback for single-family residential lots from 10 to 15

Notifications

February 21, 2019

197 notifications were sent to owners of property located within 300 feet of the

Tagged Interests: property

boundaries of the subject parcel and

Tagged Interests: property

individuals on the Johns Island

Interested Parties Lists.

Ad ran in the Post Courier.

Charleston County Planned Development Zoning

Tagged Interests: development, zoning, and Development

Map Amendment Request

Planning Commission March 9, 2020 Public Hearing April 2, 2020

Tagged Interests: planning, boards and commissions, and hearing

MURRAY CREEK

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES JOHNS ISLAND CHARLESTON COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA

Tagged Interests: development and Development

TMS 311-00-00-025 311-00-00-097

DATE: JANUARY 24, 2020 (REVISED 04 FEB 20)

APPLICANT: LEVI GRANTHAM, LLC 572 SAVANNAH HIGHWAY CHARLESTON, SC 29407

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS + CIVIL ENGINEERS: SEAMON WHITESIDE (SW+)

Tagged Interests: buildings and grounds

501 WANDO PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 MOUNT PLEASANT, SC 29464 (843) 884-1667

Tagged Interests: streets and parks

CONTACT: WILLIAM T. EUBANKS, FASLA CREATIVE DIRECTOR, SW+ beubanks@seamonwhiteside.com

1

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW

1.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES This proposed Planned Development (PD) is comprised of an approximately 11.861-acre parcel of land (the Site) on River

Road in Charleston County to be known as Murray Creek. The PD is also referred to in this PD as the Community or the Project and is comprised of lands as depicted on the surveys included in the Appendix. Development surrounding the Community is a mix of rural and residential uses. The project will have a maximum of 3.9 units per highland acre
Tagged Interests: rural, streets, development, watershed, Development, and property

A Conceptual Master Plan (the Conceptual Plan ) is included as part of this PD on Page 17. The Conceptual Master Plan provides a general depiction of

the Land Use Areas. The final site layout will be determined by preliminary and final plats approved in accordance with the Land Development Regulations. The Planned Development is being proposed to meet the target density of R-4 while affording the opportunity for common open space and physical and visual access to the waterway. It is also an objective of this PD to provide residents with access to food grown on-site at the Micro Farm. This community is intended to provide a development that would not be possible under the strict application of the standards of this Ordinance that were designated primarily for development on individual lots by providing a density compatible with R-4 zoning but with the addition of dedicated open space and a Micro Farm. This is made possible by providing lots that are smaller than the current requirements of R-4. This planning approach provides access to nature through dedicated open space, with passive amenities, and access to locally grown produce through the Micro Farm. This planning approach also takes advantage of the waterfront setting by allowing access to the water by all residents. This community also provides a development pattern that is in harmony with the applicable goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The community will include common open space,
Tagged Interests: planning, regulation, ordinance, grocery, strategic, agriculture, utility, development, Utility, zoning, water, and Development

2

and passive recreation areas. This planning approach also results in a more economical networks of utilities and streets. This creative approach to

the use of land and related physical facilities also results in better development and design and a development pattern that incorporates adequate public safety measures in its design and compliments the developed properties in the vicinity and the natural features of the site.
Tagged Interests: planning, streets, utility, development, Utility, public safety, parks, Development, and recreation

The objective of this PD is to establish a community with a maximum of 39 residential units, as defined in Section 3.1.1, which is a density of 3.9

units per highland acre and a minimum of 0.25 acres of Commercial Use (the Micro Farm), as defined in 3.1.2. A minimum of 25 (approximately 2.97 acres) of the Site shall be reserved as Protected Open Areas, as defined in Section 3.1.3.
Tagged Interests: agriculture and commercial

1.2 INTENT AND RESULTS The Community is intended to be redeveloped as a high-quality mixed-use development offering residential housing products

varying in lot sizes and unit sizes with a commercial area consisting of a Micro Farm, as defined herein, which is intended to serve the Community. Prototypical Building Types are shown for illustrative purposes only on Page 16. The Community meets the intent and results of Article 4.23.4 of the ZLDR as follows:
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, agriculture, development, zoning, Development, commercial, and housing

A. A maximum choice in the types of environment available to the public by allowing a development that would not be possible under the strict

application of the standards of this Ordinance that were designated primarily for development on individual lots. The PD allows modifications in lot sizes and setbacks in order to provide useable community open space that will increase interaction and a sense of community. Also, a commercial use (the Micro Farm) allows sustainable local agriculture on the site, which is in keeping with the historic land uses of Johns Island. A commercial use would not be allowed within R-4.
Tagged Interests: ordinance, agriculture, development, historic, Conservation, environment, Development, and commercial

B. A greater freedom in selecting the means to provide access, light, open space and design amenities. The PD, by providing community open space and

access (both visual and physical) to the waterfront creates a more intentional community than would be possible under R-4 zoning while still meeting the overall density of R-4.
Tagged Interests: zoning

C. Quality design and environmentally sensitive development by allowing development to take advantage of special site characteristics, locations and

land use arrangements. The project site abuts marshes and creeks. Under conventional R-4, typically only lots fronting the critical line would have water access and water views. By clustering the lots the entire community shares that water access. This further protects the marsh from possible encroachments over time. It also allows the design to be more responsive to higher quality Grand Trees.
Tagged Interests: utility, development, Utility, water, trees, Development, and encroachment

D. A development pattern in harmony with the applicable goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this site as

being single family detached residential. This PD is consistent with that development pattern.
Tagged Interests: strategic, development, and Development

E. The permanent preservation of common open space, recreation areas and facilities. The project, by clustering lots, can set aside permanent open

space for the enjoyment and betterment of the community.
Tagged Interests: parks, preservation, and recreation

3

F. An efficient use of the land resulting in more economical networks of utilities, streets, schools, public grounds and buildings, and other

facilities. The clustering of lots affords more efficient layout of streets and utilities as well as easy access to open space areas.
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder, streets, utility, Utility, and education

G. A creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities that results in better development and design and the construction of

amenities. The PD, by allowing smaller lots and less restrictive setbacks, takes a more creative approach to site design that meets density targets consistent with R-4 while affording the opportunity for public open space, water access, and sustainable agriculture.
Tagged Interests: construction, grocery, agriculture, utility, development, Utility, water, and Development

H. A development pattern that incorporates adequate public safety and transportation-related measures in its design and compliments the developed

properties in the vicinity and the natural features of the site. The PD provides for safe pedestrian circulation as well as appropriate vehicular access, including emergency access. The project is consistent with other recent projects in the area in density and scale and takes advantage of the natural features of the site, including existing Grand Trees and access to the waterfront.
Tagged Interests: development, public safety, transportation, emergency, trees, Development, and Pedestrian

The development guidelines set forth in this PD are established pursuant to CHAPTER 4 BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, ARTICLE 4.23 PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

ZONING DISTRICT of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance (ZLDR) of Charleston County, last updated December 27, 2018 (the Zoning Ordinance ), governing Planned Developments. To the extent that any of the guidelines, terms, conditions, or regulations of this PD conflict with any of the guidelines, terms, conditions, or regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Development Regulations, the guidelines, terms, conditions, or regulations of this PD shall control development of the Site. Issues not addressed in this PD shall comply with the R-4 Zoning District requirements in effect at the time of subsequent development application submittal
Tagged Interests: regulation, ordinance, development, zoning, and Development

1.3 SITE INFORMATION

The Site is currently shown on Charleston County Tax Map Nos. 311-00-00-025 and 311-00-00- 097. The land included in the Site will be rezoned as a

Planned Development (PD) in accordance with the guidelines set forth in these Planned Development Guidelines. Land use is broken down as follows:
Tagged Interests: taxes, Taxes, development, zoning, and Development

Total Site: 11.861 AC Highland Area: 09.914 AC Land Below Critical Line: 01.947 AC

Micro-Farm: 00.250 AC Open Space: 02.970 AC

Tagged Interests: agriculture

Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Structures (such as carports, detached garages, sheds, etc.) are allowed if all setback and building height

requirements are met. In this case, the lot is not required to meet a 1.5-time minimum lot size requirement.
Tagged Interests: Homebuilder

4

SECTION 2 LAND USE AREAS

2.1 ALLOWED LAND USES The following are approved land uses within the Community: