MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, August 12, 2014 6:00 Pm

MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, August 12, 2014 6:00 p.m. – Council Chambers Municipal Complex - 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

MINUTES

Mayor Linda Page called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Council members present were Kenneth Glasson, Chris O’Neal, Elton Carrier, Chris Nickels, Mark Smith, Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, Paul Gawrych and Gary Santos. Chaplin Dewey led Council in prayer. Ken Glasson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Counsel David Pagliarini certified compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Mayor Page called for approval of the agenda. Ms. Stokes-Marshall so moved; motion seconded by Mr. O’Neal. Motion carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS, AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS A. A Public Hearing: A Public Hearing to receive input on a request to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of an approximately 1.48 acre tract of land described below from Medium Density Neighborhood to High Density Neighborhood. Such tract is comprised of two parcels of land described as follows: 1) an approximately 1.35 acre parcel of land known as Sea Island Court Mobile Home Park, located at 1327 Myrick Road, and identified by TMS No. 532-08-00-040; and 2) an approximately 0.13 acre parcel of land located at 1319 Myrick Road and identified by TMS No. 532-08-00-169.

Howard Gatch, 28 Lennox Street: Mr. Gatch said he is the potential developer and was present to answer any questions. Hearing no speakers, Mayor Page declared the public hearing closed.

Swearing In of Municipal Judges: Mayor Page administered the oath of office to Chief Judge David Michel; Judge Tom Hesse, and Judge Tanya Staubes.

Donation of Recreation items by the Family of Eddie Duffy: Mr. Santos said that they had lost a lot of the history of the Town’s Recreation Department that was housed in Alhambra Hall when Hurricane Hugo hit and caused damage there. Years ago, Mr. Santos said he had the pleasure of being coached by Eddie Duffy. Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

He met with Coach Duffy recently at his home and Mr. Santos saw pictures on his wall that are historic and go back to the ‘60s. Mr. Santos asked him if he would donate them to the Town. He said he would think about it. After he passed away, his son, Rocky, remembered Mr. Santos asking about the pictures so Rocky contacted him not long ago and offered to donate the pictures to the Town. He was surprised when he gave him the pictures, but Coach Duffy was meticulous about keeping rosters on everyone that he coached with remarks about how well they played and whether they were at practice, etc. He could give particulars on each game and details on the members of his teams which was amazing. Now it has all been donated to the Town and will give a history of how the program began for the younger people coming along. He said Council is honored today to have some of the family members present to honor Coach Eddie Duffy for all of his many years of service. He inspired the young children and showed them the correct way to do things. Mr. Gawrych shared some memories of Coach Duffy and noted that his father and Coach Duffy coached together for a very long time. Shannon Duffy said a few words about her late father who believed in athletics for kids not only to teach the importance of physical activity, but to teach the qualities of character, leadership and team building. She is glad that the Recreation Department has grown into such a big outfit and that this collection can be housed in their building. Longevity Awards: Ken Ayoub recognized Stacy Harrington for twenty years of service in the Recreation Department. Jody Peele, Public Services Director, recognized Tyrone Brown, Eric Sanders and Gerald Mazyck for twenty years of service in the Town’s Public Services Department. Mr. Santos moved to add Eddie Duffy’s name to the Wall of Honor at the Jones Center; motion seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JULY 8, 2014 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AND THE JULY 2014 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Mr. Nickels noted a transcription error near the end of the minutes having to do with the yays and nays in the motion referring to mayoral compensation. Mr. O’Neal moved to approve the minutes with the correction as stated; motion seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously.

Page 2 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS Jim Owens, 1197 Island View Drive: Mr. Owens had a few questions on the Shem Creek parking garage. He said he appreciated Ms. Farrell and her staff and David Pagliarini, who have been very helpful. He said he had a few questions: Did the developer get final approval? Did the project submittal meet the required number of parking spaces for the number of building units per the terms of the Parking License Agreement (PLA)? Does the project submittal include surface parking in order to meet the number of spaces required in the PLA? Is Council concerned that people who currently use surface parking will have to pay to park in the garage although they park down the respective right-of-way and along The Boulevard? What are the Town’s plans for future development adjacent to Shem Creek? With much discussion relating to the CRAB, what has become of preserving the character of Shem Creek that is contained in the guidance document developed by Mayors Hallman and Dodds? In order to learn from the past, how did this project get by the CRAB with regard to complementing the creek’s natural beauty and the health of its businesses, particularly the shrimping industry? He concluded by saying that Shem Creek is the heart and soul of Mount Pleasant residents and deserves to be well preserved. Diane Broom, 3208 Carmel Bay Drive: Ms. Broom thanked Council for allowing them to share their feelings about their hometown. She grew up in Mount Pleasant and she and her husband raised four kids here that all graduated from Moultrie and Wando High School. She is a local realtor and often asks buyers why they chose Mount Pleasant as their new home. They say they enjoyed their vacation here so much, they decided to move here. They love the location; close to the beaches and downtown. They love the small town feel, its charm, its beauty and its great schools. Visitors enjoy Shem Creek and chatting with people fishing. They enjoy watching dolphins playing in the creek and bird watching. Ms. Broom said they know development will come, but towering garages and office buildings should not be a focal point. They are blessed to live in a place known for its natural beauty and she charged the Council and the Mayor with guarding the Town and its landscape. James Scott, 506 Royall Avenue: Mr. Scott stated that he had read a Will Haynie Op Ed in the Moultrie News that morning about the deal the Town has with Tex Small’s Shem Creek office/parking garage. As he read it, he thought about the Council and Planning meetings he has attended over the last 10 months. He and his wife both work and travel a lot, but they got a babysitter and came to this meeting. They have been fighting for small changes to the Overlay District that directly affects the community where they live and are raising their children. They were Page 3 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 shocked and disappointed to learn that after ten months of work and involvement on their end, it took Town Council all of fifteen minutes to grant Tex Small a variance to increase the height of his building by ten feet along Shem Creek. Not only that, but to prevent spot zoning Council gave nearly a dozen properties this incredibly generous gift along the Town’s most iconic waterway, Shem Creek, its cultural heart. Furthermore, he recently read a letter to the editor by a Town Council member condescendingly calling folks like himself who have spoken out about these changes, naysayers. What kind of public servant denigrates his own constituents, his own neighbors, who only want to have a voice in shaping their community? Such pettiness is the antithesis of democracy and has no place in the public discourse of an excellent town like Mount Pleasant. Mr. Scott said he has seen all of the letters Council receives from pro-development groups; the Chamber of Commerce, Trident Realtors Association, Council of CEOs, etc. Few, if any of these groups are local, but they all share one thing in common; to them Mount Pleasant is a commodity. Our great schools and proximity to downtown and the beaches are a currency that they trade to make money. The cramped densities and increased heights are simply a tool to wring more dollars out of the community that we have all built, not them. As Will Haynie noted in his editorial, it is time to see where our elected leaders stand. Is it with the profiteers or with the residents? Martha Adams, 409 Royall Avenue: Ms. Adams stated that the plans for the Coleman Overlay District and the CRAB plans were made with the best of intentions. Great efforts were made to involve citizens in that process. Council was frustrated because not many showed up to participate. Apparently not many were aware of what was underway. She was sure the charrettes were exciting and that Bill Eubanks is good at what he does. What concerns her is the phrase being bandied about – urban density instead of suburban sprawl. It is stated as if creating urban density in our Town will prevent sprawl, but we already have sprawl. The only thing urban density might do is to postpone sprawl somewhat, but it cannot prevent it. It will definitely create more traffic. It would be great if people lived, played and worked within a small area so that cars would not be needed. But is that really happening? Does everyone who lives at The Boulevard walk to work or do they get in their cars and cross bridges and go to other places to work downtown or in North Charleston? Does anyone ride their bike to work or to shop? Another problem with the plan is that now that the citizens are finally aware of it, they are saying this is not what they want for their community. She believed that their opinions matter more than those of the developers who do not live here and people who live in other parts of the greater Charleston area. Ms. Adams concluded by saying, it is our Town; shouldn’t we determine how it grows? Page 4 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Millie Horton relinguished her speaking time to others. Jimmie Bagwell, 207 Williams St.: Mr. Bagwell said he has been to all of these meetings and believes they are headed in the right direction by reducing the setbacks, by increasing parking from 1 to 1.5 parking places in developments along Coleman Boulevard. He thought that the Planning Commission had come up with some very positive recommendations to reduce building heights from 75 feet to 60 feet and from 60 feet down to 55-50. He hoped that Council would adopt these at the meeting. Mr. Bagwell noted that most of the people present were there because they are not happy with what is taking place on Coleman Boulevard and the Shem Creek area and they are there to tell Council about it. He has heard that these citizens are just a small group of zealous people who are out to make trouble and they have been called naysayers, as Mr. Scott pointed out. But it is not a small group and people all over this area are concerned about Shem Creek, which is the cultural center of Mount Pleasant. This group wants Council to slow this down and take stock of what is happening. Nowhere on Coleman Boulevard should there be 75 foot tall buildings; he believed that sixty feet is too tall. They want a unique community, not what looks like every other town in the U. S. This is not a southern boomtown; this is Mount Pleasant, S. C., the greatest place in the world to live. They all hope that Town Council will preserve it for many years to come. Ann Edwards, 100 Venning Street: Ms. Edwards wanted to reaffirm what Jim Bagwell said. She noted that when thinking of the number of people that voted in the last election in Mount Pleasant, it was not overwhelming. She said that the citizens who came here tonight to speak helped to elect them and appreciate Town Council. The citizens want to talk with them and get together to work out a reasonable situation and feel that their elected officials have represented them. Town Council has made some wonderful changes, but she implored Council to slow down and listen to the residents. They do not expect Council to listen to everybody, but now is the time to come together as a community to work together, to make Mount Pleasant better and to keep what is very important. They cannot reinvent historic Mount Pleasant and they do not expect someone from Wichita, Kansas or the Chamber to understand the ambiance of Mount Pleasant. She asked that Council work with them because they do not want to be confrontational. She thanked Council for the time that they give to the citizens and asked that they slow down and work together with the community. Charles Dickinson, 1111 Simmons Street: Mr. Dickinson said that the developer is going to provide parking spaces and then they are going to rent those spaces. The money coming from the Town, almost $3M, is supposed to come back to the Town. He said that the City of Charleston has been waiting for money to Page 5 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 come back to them from Charleston Place for twenty years. It has been reported in the newspaper a number of times that their accounting never allows for any profit to show up, so Charleston Place has not even paid on the principal. He believed that would also happen here in Mount Pleasant. Cheryl Gregorie, 1551 Ben Sawyer Blvd: Ms. Gregorie read aloud what Will Haynie, (columnist) wrote in the Moultrie News today because he said it so well. He stated that this evening Mount Pleasant Town Council will vote on a monumental issue that will change the look and feel of the Town forever with the building heights allowed along Coleman Boulevard and at Shem Creek. Mr.Haynie stated in his column that the citizens lost trust in their elected officials because of the way it has been handled. Ms. Gregorie said that the residents are upset with the frequent changes to the rules and the fact that what they thought was a 45 foot building height at Shem Creek quickly became 55 feet. The rule changes will allow Mount Pleasant to look like south Florida, she concluded. Elaine Burholz relinguished her time to other speakers. Henry Siegling, 914 Cliffwood Drive: Mr. Siegling complained about traffic in The Groves; Cliffwood Drive specifically. He had called the MPPD to inquire about what could be done to have radar on Cliffwood Drive to slow people down. For three weeks, he never had a response from anyone. He emailed Mr. DeMoura, who always responds. He emailed Sgt. Kim Herring to put out the equipment that tracks speed. In a 46-hour period, 1,016 cars zoomed down Cliffwood Drive. He asked what it would take to have radar on Cliffwood Drive since he had not heard from anybody on that. He said that The Groves is changing. More houses are being renovated, new houses are being built, and there are more children than ever before. School will be starting soon which will make the situation worse. He concluded by asking, “How do we get a radar unit on Cliffwood Drive?’ Mayor Page deferred to Police Chief Carl Ritchie to respond. Chief Ritchie said that the police have been there, but they will increase their presence. If Mr. Siegling does not see them there, he should call the Chief. Tom Leonard, Executive Director of Trident CEO Council: Mr. Leonard said they have 24 lead officers/companies in the Tri-County region that employ more than 10K associates. Some members are John Darby, Tom Penny, Dick Elliott, Anita Zucker, David Dunlap and others. This Council stands for progress, quality economic development and growth. They bring jobs to this region. Jobs were the motivating issue in this state when they thought through this project. They also stand for accelerated infrastructure improvements that are properly planned and additional parking and road improvements on Coleman Boulevard. They stand for the active support of workforce development and improved education. They also Page 6 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 stand for enhancing the quality of life in the Tri-County region as Mount Pleasant has done with its parks and playgrounds. The Coleman Boulevard project was approved by Mount Pleasant Town Council and investments were in place to complete the project. Now Council may be reconsidering moving the project forward and this will negatively impact many economic commitments that have been in their plan. He urged Council to hit the ‘pause’ button on reversing their position on the Coleman Boulevard project. If investors cannot trust an area to stick with its economic development commitments, they will invest in other areas. He said that, judging by the applause, many folks like that but, he cautioned, that would negatively impact the region, Mount Pleasant in particular. Mount Pleasant will not be as robust and will not have the taxes for improved infrastructure, levels of service, schools, investing and quality of life desired, such as Waterfront Park, Shem Creek Park and new soccer fields. He concluded that this is a Council that stands for progress and he is asking that they pause and stay the course. Glyn Cowden, 737 Bloomfield: Mr. Cowden said that much taxpayer money and work has been put into the CRAB Report and he is all in for development and growth. They need more tax revenue and people are moving here, but they should leave Shem Creek alone. Forget that ugly, insulting, out of place office/parking garage. Rescind its authorization, he said. It will be cheaper to settle a possible lawsuit than to pay this developer almost $3M over the course of a few years. It is out of place, out of character, and an unappealing monstrosity that is much too high. It was recommended at the Planning Commission to lower the building heights from 75 feet down to 60 feet on The Boulevard. It was portrayed as a wonderful eclectic place with retail shops and restaurants where people can spend their money and create jobs. Mr. Cowden said that Johnnie Dodds and Highway 17 are the places for that. Most people coming here do not move into the Old Village, they move to Carolina Park on the north end. He said that the citizens elected this Council and they need to pause as everyone has said and do better. Julie Thomas, 1054 Anna Knapp Blvd.: Ms. Thomas lived in Mount Pleasant from 1984-1994 and recently moved back to Mount Pleasant. She helped rebuild after Hurricane Hugo. She had traveled in Europe, throughout the USA and the west coast. What brought her back here is the Spanish moss, the locally owned businesses and a sense of independence, yet tradition. When she drove on Coleman Boulevard after being away from Mount Pleasant for three years and saw The Boulevard, it was so out of character. She hears a lot about progress. She is a digital entrepreneur and does most of her work on-line. She said that people will not be looking for office space/retail in the next 20 years. They will be looking for tradition and continuity, she concluded. Page 7 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

John Dodds, 905 Rebels Camp: Mr. Dodds said his father was Mayor of Mount Pleasant from 1976-1984. The Town grew from a village of about 7K to 25K people in that time period. His father’s proudest and crowning achievement was the passage of the Land Use Plan. His father told him long ago that when the Mark Clark Expressway touches down in Mount Pleasant, this city is going to explode. Part of his explanation was that many people did not like going over the old Cooper River Bridge which was an impediment to growth in Mount Pleasant. It definitely was and he was absolutely right. The Town had a plan and if a company wanted to conduct business in Mount Pleasant, they had to abide by the plan. He said that he wants Council to abide by the master plan. If Council had abided by it, he did not think that all these people would be at this meeting complaining. Developers want to change things to build here, but Mount Pleasant will continue to flourish if they ‘stick to their guns’ and abide by the master plan. It is okay to say ‘no.’ Developers will still come and they will still develop. Michele Sinkler, 10 Saturday Road: Ms. Sinkler was present on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League (CCL). She said that she generally supports the Coleman Revitalization plan. The CCL submitted an op ed last week. Points on which they can agree are that the region is growing tremendously, many newcomers will choose Mount Pleasant because of the schools, beaches, etc. In the past, growth has been accommodated by sprawl. Mount Pleasant has devised a way to do something better. Sprawl hasn’t served the Town well. There is a sea of asphalt, traffic, clogged arterial roads, but there is a better way. She suggested that the CRAB study is a better way, but is not perfect. The principals are sound and growth can be accommodated by developing at sufficient densities and in patterns that will support local retail, residences and civic uses and that people can get there by walking and biking as well as by car. She said that the major principals are ones on which the community agrees, but the friction is that they have not done a great job with execution of the details. As Council deliberates changing the details, do it thoughtfully and work with your staff, the residents and the professionals. But do it in a way that does not compromise these principles. Nancy Fairless, 1111 Simmons Street: Ms. Fairless said she is not against responsible development in the right place. She sees Coleman Boulevard as an access to beaches and to Shem Creek and as an access to neighborhoods on both sides that are lovingly tended, prideful places to live. She sees Coleman as an access to interesting businesses that are unusual and personally owned. They do not need ‘Everytown USA’ up and down Coleman Boulevard. She also sees Coleman Boulevard as an egress from dangerous weather, an egress for those same wonderful neighborhoods, for shopping and dining at local restaurants and goods Page 8 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 and services that they all need. Ms. Fairless said she was specifically against the height and placement of the parking garage. She believed their money and energy could be much better served following the 2002 vision for Shem Creek with the fisheries and fishermen and the people that need the citizens behind them. She said Shem Creek is a glorious tourist place and she welcomes them. She adores it here, and concluded by asking Council to please not ruin it. Joanna Ghegan, 206 Live Oak Drive: Ms. Ghegan said she speaks for a lot of residents who are not against responsible growth/development nor are they against developers and real estate people. All they are asking in moving into this economic boom and out of the recession is that they take the time to stop and think and develop responsibly. They should not build a parking garage on such a beautiful piece of property on Shem Creek which draws people from far and wide. She recently met two new neighbors in the Old Village. They moved here to get out of Charlotte and New York City to be close to water and a quieter way of life. If development keeps up at this current pace, Mount Pleasant will just be another southern boom town. She said that over 4K people signed a petition asking Council not to build this parking garage on Shem Creek. There are far more suitable places to build it. Increasing density on Coleman will not prevent urban sprawl. She is all for preserving land and their way of life here. Ms. Ghegan said that the Town has promised $2.7M of tax dollars for this garage that citizens have said they do not want. She stressed that the number of parking spaces that are there now will be same number of parking spaces that will be in the parking garage. People will do what they do downtown and first look for a parking space on the street. If they do not find a parking space on the street, they decide they have to park in a parking garage. Just because a parking garage is built at Shem Creek does not mean that people will park in it. They will first try to find a parking space on the street. Barbara C. Smith, 410 Royall Avenue: Ms. Smith said that the last time she came to Council to speak was when Vince Graham was beginning the process to build I’on. She spoke in favor of it which was not a popular stand at that point. She came to Mount Pleasant in 1968. She was asking Council to look at what is happening to the older areas of town. She realizes that the Overlay District was done with good intentions, but after listening to Bill Eubanks presentation at the Planning Commission, she wondered how many of the citizens, from Shemwood all the way down to The Groves, had a part in this process. Mr. Eubanks stated there were several projects for Coleman already on the drawing boards, so he met with the owners and the developers to get their input. She did not hear anything about him meeting with residents that would be impacted at Fairmont, Simmons, Page 9 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

King, and Whilden Streets. Next will be Brookgreen and others down the street as developers build as much as possible. Why would the overlay not have a buffer to protect the adjoining streets? It appears that the lines were drawn from Coleman to the parallel streets without concern for the neighboring communities. This should not have happened. The quality of life for a large number of residents has been and forever will be affected. She asked that they lower building heights from Fairmont Street to The Groves where many residential areas exist. Zoning regulations are not set in stone and over the years, regulations have changed and will continue to change. It is not too late to fix this, she said. The citizens want to be heard. They too have invested their hard-earned money in the Old Village in Mount Pleasant. They love the fact that it is a community with schools, stores and churches. They were a biking community, but now with all of the traffic that comes down Royall, McCants, Simmons and King Streets, things are changing. Are citizens less important than the developers, the Chamber, the Board of Realtors, the Coastal Conservation League and The Post & Courier, Ms. Smith asked. Lewis Horton, 138 Live Oak Drive: Mr. Horton said he was present to support reductions in building heights on Coleman Boulevard and thought that The Boulevard was the wakeup call for a lot of people. He said that he and his wife are pretty good citizens; they read the newspaper, they vote in every election on the candidates and any proposals set forth. He lives only three blocks from the proposed garage and was caught unaware of it. Nothing he had ever read alerted him to the consequences of what Council was considering or the license agreement for almost $2.8M. He did not think that the proposed garage was the highest and best use of taxpayer money because he sees no return on it. He wondered if Council ever thought about taking that money and condemning the property to do something that would be for the good of the community similar to what was done on the other side of the creek. It is a wonderful development. He suggested something along the lines of Alhambra Hall or a Shem Creek maritime center. It could be a facility that would provide parking and depict the history of Shem Creek or a venue for families to have reunions, etc. He asked that Council consider those possible uses. John Darby, 1500 Threegates Road: Mr. Darby said he was born here in 1962 and has enjoyed every day of living in Mount Pleasant. He was sorry there was not more involvement with the CRAB project and obviously it created problems. Perhaps they can have those conversations again and get more input. He said 25 years ago, he was in this room as the developer of Brookgreen. It was one of the largest town meetings at that time. People he had known all of his life were very angry and opposed to what is there today. Council, in their wisdom, felt it was Page 10 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 important to become a Boulevard and approved the project. Not long after that I’on went through the same thing. In the past, today and into the future, it is human nature to be concerned about change. People need to have faith that their elected officials will make the right decisions and will have a long range view for Mount Pleasant. Mr. Darby said they were developers of The Boulevard, and a lot of lessons were learned. He said that Ann Edwards said to slow down and work together. He urged Council not to make a decision tonight and to slow down and work together. Mayor Page asked how long Mr. Darby’s family has owned the property where The Boulevard sits today. Mr. Darby replied that he was not sure, but guessed it was 70 years. Cecilia Franko, 734 Dragon Drive: Ms. Franko moved here in 1981 to go to graduate school at MUSC. She chose to live here and they raised their three daughters in Mount Pleasant. She said that she loves Mount Pleasant and every time she goes abroad or anywhere in this country, she feels blessed and privileged to live in Mount Pleasant. She would like to see responsible reasonable growth. She asked that they lower the building heights, the density and make safer, more integrated bike paths. She lives off the frontage road at Creekside and loves to ride her bike on the new bike path, but it just takes one errant driver to go over that painted line. She invited the Mayor and Town Council to put on their helmets and ride on all of these new bike paths to see if they cannot do better with them. She said that they live in a beautiful place and reasonable growth and being progressive is wonderful. But, in a nutshell, please keep Mount Pleasant, pleasant. Rusty Bennett, Sullivan’s Island: Mr. Bennett is a 40-year resident of Sullivan’s Island and was a member of CRAB and dutifully attended as a member. It was a beautiful example of participatory governance. It was inclusive, exhaustive and the end result was a consensus of their best efforts to define what the future of Coleman Boulevard would look like. What is telling is that there are a lot of emotions because of fear of change. He had not heard anyone speak in opposition to the CRAB who is a professional planner or expert. He agreed with Michele Sinkler and John Darby. It is always good to re-evaluate previous decisions and there is nothing wrong with doing that. There should be fact-based, expert infused and professionally guided decisions by urban planners; not emotionally-charged decisions made by fear of change individuals. Kathy Chakides-Gaffos, 1551 Ben Sawyer Blvd.: She stated that they are at a critical juncture regarding development of their beloved Mount Pleasant. Even though they are sometimes at opposite extremes, they all want what is best for the community. She believed they could work together to get all needs met. She said Page 11 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 that the Mayor and Council were elected to preserve and protect the most cherished areas of their town and to protect the quality of life they are blessed to enjoy. They realize that change is inevitable, but Council is charged with the responsibility to protect the will of the people. They respectfully request the lowering of height allowances, restricting the rush to development without projected traffic studies including a citizens’ panel for input. They believe there are more appropriate places for a parking garage and high density development than in the center of Town on Coleman Boulevard or adjacent to the iconic and revered Shem Creek. These are the very reasons people come to live here or to visit. They must not diminish the very characteristics that draw and keep people here. They can keep what is sacred and still provide for growth in other areas of town. Council is in this moment accountable for saving the grace and character of Mount Pleasant. Either choice will be remembered. Council cannot turn back the clock, but can proceed with caution. Joe Bustos, 649 King Street: Mr. Bustos said that some years ago as a member of Town Council they had a Shem Creek Overlay District established to protect Shem Creek. This Town Council and the Mayor voted unanimously to buy 40 acres of marsh to protect that area from being developed. One side of Shem Creek has protection; the other side does not. He asked that Council keep in mind what previous Councils and Mayors have done and the taxpayer money that they have spent. He asked that they respect and honor that by protecting Shem Creek. He said his father told him when he was very young here in Mount Pleasant, “Son, just because someone throws you the ball doesn’t mean you have to catch it.” Bill Eubanks, 501 Wando Park Blvd: Mr. Eubanks said that he made a presentation at the Planning Commission when they were considering adjustments to the building heights. He thought that the decision made that night was in error. He reminded that the 55 foot building height was in place long before the CRAB process took place. During the CRAB process they held onto the 55 feet, but added three specific sites that would have a maximum height of 75 feet with six stories. The Planning Commission is recommending that Council drop the 55 feet to 50 feet and stay at four stories and that they drop the 75 feet to 60 feet and drop down to five stories. The fact is that the number of stories cannot be done at those heights and will not allow architecture that is going to be interesting and of the quality that is desired on Coleman Boulevard. He urged this body to remain at the 55 foot height with four stories where it now exists and respect the work of the CRAB members. Also stick with the 75 foot height with six stories. If they feel a compromise is needed with a drop to five stories, go to 68 feet which will allow for

Page 12 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 good architecture and interesting buildings. He agreed with Mr. Dodds who said, ‘Stick to your guns and abide by the master plan.’ Anita Tankersley, 1297 Waterfront Drive: Ms. Tankersley said that she has lived in Mount Pleasant for over 50 years and loves this town. She did not want to be redundant, but reiterated the problems with people coming here, the traffic problems and asked that they slow down and not move so fast. Once something is done, it is hard to undo. There is a difference between contentment and complacency. Just because the residents are content does not mean that they are backward. She asked that they preserve the beauty, history and heritage of Mount Pleasant. She reminded Council that what they decide tonight will be their legacy for future generations. They do not want to be remembered for messing up a good place. Judy Dixon, 308 Center Street: Ms. Dixon is part owner of two small businesses headquartered in Mount Pleasant. She has been working as an architect in the area since the mid-1990s. She has two children who will be going into Moultrie Middle and Wando High Schools this year. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. She and her husband chose to live in the Old Village because of access to their jobs, impeccable schools, restaurants, services and beautiful recreation sites. They have enjoyed biking to work, school, their favorite restaurant, gym, the veterinarian, etc. They are happy to have the option of riding their bikes to do these things. It is refreshing not to be dependent on their car. She said she fully supports density over sprawl and urges leaving the current zoning and height allowances along Coleman Boulevard as they are. Adding density where there is already infrastructure makes sense. They, along with many other residents and business owners supported the CRAB-led plan in the past and support it today. They were not asleep at the wheel back then. They knew that the population would grow and they took steps to craft a master plan that would allow for that growth as well as improve the quality of the Town. As a member of the Chamber, she wholeheartedly agrees with the organization’s vision for responsible growth. As a resident and small business owner, she appreciates the vision the Town has to create a successful place to raise her family and run a business. She is proud to call Mount Pleasant home and knows that the best is yet to come. Harry Gregorie, owner of GDC on Coleman: Mr. Gregorie owns the GDC 3.2 acre site and grew up in the area. They have had their business on Coleman for 22 years. He loves Mount Pleasant. His first job as a kid was working on maintenance at Snee Farm in the 70’s. A few years ago, the Town needed to rent some parking spaces for the Farmers Market at Moultrie Middle School. Mr. Page 13 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Gregorie had a good year and donated the funds back to the Town. He said he had the privilege of serving on the CRAB. He believed it was an amazingly collaborative effort and very democratic. It was the right thing to do. It is not perfect, but probably no instrument is perfect. Decisions should be rooted in facts, statistics and sound judgment. He urged Council to abide by the height guidelines. It is important to have buildings that have the correct ratio of width and height that front Coleman. That was achieved and that ratio should remain. Before doing anything, Council should look at it more carefully and give it a fair shake. Zach Bearden, 918 McCants Drive: Mr. Bearden said that in addition to being a landscape architect, he is also a small business owner and father of two young sons. Two years ago, they moved to old Mount Pleasant specifically for the quality of life, the walkable streets, the parks and schools and close access to Coleman Boulevard. He was involved in extensive public meetings, charettes, etc. that would allow the Town to grow up, not out, and would mature in a responsible way that allows people to live, work and play along the Boulevard. Mr. Bearden said he currently serves as a board member of the S. C. Community Loan Fund, formerly, the Lowcountry Housing Trust. He is extremely concerned about the Planning Commissions’ recommendation to change the heights within the Coleman Overlay District and to reinstate the Design Review Board (DRB) with two additional seats. Workforce and affordable housing already face high barriers to entry for the development community. Infill opportunities targeting teachers, first responders, young professionals have to be provided by developers with a tool set that can provide this type of housing option. Workforce Housing is a tough sell as it is so they should not put up more barriers. He strongly disagrees with changes to the heights along the Coleman Boulevard Overlay District and elimination of a dual track DRB process. Both changes have significant impacts on the character of Coleman as a place for businesses and citizens to flourish and grow. Mr. Dodds had mentioned a master plan. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan actually supports dense housing along Coleman and Ben Sawyer Boulevards to encourage housing options for all stages of life. A few years ago, the Town went through a major branding overhaul to put out to the community that the Town is open for business. They adopted a phase, “Come on Over.” He is concerned that they are now sending a wrong message to the business community and potential residents. He asked Council to take into consideration how these changes will affect Coleman Boulevard, our Main Street and the Town as a whole. Jon Chalfie, 1704 James Bastrop Place: Mr. Chalfie referred to his Letter to the Editor that was posted on July 31. He noted that he is supportive of retaining the height limitations as they stand. His letter stated that there are a lot of options Page 14 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 that can be put along Coleman such as banks and restaurants, but we deserve something better. There is an opportunity to create a spot for the entire Lowcountry to come and visit for generations. While not perfect, The Boulevard is one of the coolest things that has been done in the past 15 years. He asked his 15-year-old son where he wanted to live when they considered moving a few years ago. He said he wanted to live on The Boulevard. He did not think that there had been enough focus on what future generations may want. He said that he loves Mount Pleasant and its heritage and thinks that Shem Creek is awesome. He wants The Boulevard to be a place that citizens go to and not just drive through. Willis Canty, 1067 Cliffwood Boulevard: Mr. Canty said he has a small business, Canty Technology, and they are outgrowing the space, but he is not looking to build. He said there are a lot of small businesses that want to move here. He wanted to speak about what they are trying to do with the vision for Coleman Boulevard and that is what he and other small tech companies are looking for. Several have employees that live in this great town but none work here. He hoped that Council will stay the course. Gray Taylor, 648 Pelzer Drive: Mr. Taylor owns an office building at 652 Coleman Boulevard and another piece of property on Mill Street as well. He lives here and he does walk down Coleman, walks to lunch and even rides his bike on Coleman. Successful communities change and evolve over time. The Town spent years on collaborative efforts to plan for the future. He and other business owners bought into this plan, trusted Town Council and liked the plan and invested millions of dollars into making that plan a reality. His office employs over 20 people on Coleman Boulevard. Were it not for the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization plan, his business would be on the Charleston peninsula, not here in Mount Pleasant and none of his 20 employees would even think of living here in Mount Pleasant. At the last Planning Commission meeting, they heard from business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and the Coastal Conservation League. They all spoke against lowering the current heights. Not a single planning professional spoke in favor of lowering the heights. The reason for this is that is does not push sprawl out into other areas of the Town. The Planning Commission meeting sounded like an auction. A series of numbers were being thrown about as if that would somehow solve the problem. As Mr. Eubanks pointed out, these numbers were discussed without benefit of understanding what they do to design, engineering and the cost of buildings. He asked that they keep the numbers that were decided upon during an intelligent well thought-out process. George Brewer, Bay Street: Mr. Brewer said they are all responsible for the development of Coleman Boulevard. They are here because they care and this is a Page 15 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 place where they have an investment. There are some issues, primarily with parking. If The Boulevard had been built to the recommended allowance using the same parking ratio, they would still have cars parking around The Boulevard. That is the problem. The problem is not associated with height if there was a responsible parking provision at that point. He said he is a partner at Moultrie Plaza and he recalled that when they wanted to add to it, there was great opposition like with many other projects. It took a year to be able to build out toward Coleman Boulevard. They had sufficient parking and had tenants, but the Town of Mount Pleasant delayed, perhaps because of change, but cooler heads prevailed and it was approved. He sat on the CRAB Committee and they came up with some studied conclusions. He urged Council to retain the limitations already in place. Mayor Page asked Mr. Brewer how long he had been invested in Moultrie Plaza. He replied around 35 years and a developer from Atlanta built it in the 60s. Dan Doyle,179 I’onsboro: Mr. Doyle is with the Beach Company and had extensive involvement and experience with the CRAB. He was speaking as a resident of the town. It is interesting to hear the comments. Everyone is very concerned about how the town grows. The bigger picture that needs to be addressed is that if they do not do something and address the pattern of growth they are undergoing right now is unsustainable. The CRAB study and the vision for Coleman Boulevard if something they set out to address. They put a mechanism in place to help with growth and the population increase. It was something that the planning staff was directly involved with and professionals came in and provided input. Whatever is decided, he believed in the vision for Coleman Boulevard and asked that they please do so with that same level of input, whether it is from planning staff, professional planning experts, the community, property owners and business owners. They cannot continue on this unsustainable path. That is why the plan was put into place. He asked that they give it consideration. The Mayor called for a 10-minute break at 7:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m.

PLANNING – New Business Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation to reduce the fifty- five foot building height allowance to fifty feet in the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard section of the Urban Corridor Overlay District with special consideration to design along the Shem Creek area. Ms. Farrell said that the first two items are recommendations for modifications to the building heights in the above area, the first item addresses 55 foot heights and the second addresses 75 foot heights. In May, Council directed Page 16 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 that the Planning Commission review and consider reducing the building heights. It was addressed in June and July. In July they made their recommendations to Town Council. Ms. Farrell had a brief presentation with a map showing the various building heights. Ms. Farrell stated that the maps show that the ordinance provides that the 75 foot boundaries can be expanded if properties are aggregated in a unified development. The current height allowance is 75 feet with six stories and 55 feet with four stories. A height of 40 feet is required where property abuts residential areas. The 75 and the 55 foot heights were measured to the eave and the 40 and 45 were measured to the ridge. The Planning Commission recommended reducing 75 foot areas to 60 feet with a maximum of five stories; reducing 55 feet to 50 feet and to maintain 4 stories. There was no change to 45 and 40 foot heights. They have not clarified if the height was measured to the eave or to the ridge. The recommendation uses the term ‘maximum’ which needs clarification. The Planning Commission recommended that additional language should be added to the Zoning Code that would call for special consideration to designs along the Shem Creek area and the style of the architecture. Ms. Farrell added that it would be advantageous to know, for the purposes of discussion, typical floor to floor heights. For retail – 16 feet; office space - 12.5 feet; residential - 10.5 feet. The samples shown do not include roof, parapets, or other architectural features. They are floor-to-floor measurements only. That becomes relevant when it pertains to how height is measured; whether it is to the eave or to the ridge. Ms. Farrell concluded that they can focus on the first recommendation (55 feet down to 50 feet) if desired and add a special consideration along Shem Creek. Mayor Page said she read the minutes of that very long meeting. Ultimately, the choices came about because of what could be built in these parameters, the architectural character of the buildings and what they are trying to accomplish with a decrease in the building heights. Ms. Farrell said they were also directed by Council to study and discuss the 75 foot height (next item on the agenda). In that discussion, they talked about lowering heights in other places on Coleman/Ben Sawyer. In general, it was a concern about the heights in the area and the mass of the buildings. As a result, a couple of different motions failed to pass. The final motion passed and resulted in the recommendations that are presented. Mayor Page asked when the 55 foot height allowances began. Was it with the disputed parking garage or were they in place when the CRAB Report was adopted in 2008. Ms. Farrell answered in 2006, before the CRAB report was adopted. Page 17 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mayor Page stated that since 2006, 55 foot heights were allowed, so this Council did not change that and it did not change because of the CRAB. Mr. Santos noted that people are talking more and more about retail, office and residential space. He said that most citizens agree that is what is desired, but they do not agree with the 75 foot heights. He pointed out that Shelmore Village has retail on the first floor, offices on the second floor and dwelling units on the third floor. The whole area has a bank, a school, a pharmacy, a grocery store, restaurants and multiple businesses that residents do not have to drive to reach. They can walk or bike and everything is very accessible. The building heights there are only 35 feet. He believed that they can achieve what everyone wants without going up to 55 or 75 feet. It was clearly proven at Shelmore Village. Building heights of 35 feet would fit nicely on Coleman Boulevard and he would like to see them reduced to that height. Mr. Santos placed his statement in the form of a motion. Mr. Nickels seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mayor Page said the motion is to change the allowable 55-foot heights down to 35 feet on Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Nickels wanted to make sure he completely understood the issue. He thought that when the original request was sent to the Planning Commission, it was to take a look at the 75 foot allowance on three properties. Ms. Farrell replied that was correct. Mr. Nickels said that Council did not ask them to talk about 55 foot heights. He noted that the Planning Commission made a combined motion that took the 75 foot height down to 60 feet and the 55 foot height down to 50 feet as a package deal, but we are addressing them separately. Ms. Farrell replied in the affirmative. Mr. Smith asked how many property owners does this consideration impact? Ms. Farrell replied 250 properties will go from 55 feet down to 35 feet. Mayor Page asked what could be accomplished at the 35 foot height. Ms. Farrell stated that it depends on if it is measured to the ridge height or to the eave height. Mr. Santos said the ridge is to the top of the roof. Ms. Farrell said that they can build flat roofs in order to accomplish three floors, but they cannot accomplish a mixed use with a three floor building. They need to think about longevity, flexibility and ability for the quality type of retail, office or residential buildings that the developers will be seeking.

Page 18 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mayor Page said that at 35 feet they could not accomplish anything but three levels of residential space or one level of retail space. They could have a two-story project with a pitched roof. Ms. Farrell noted that 35 feet is the building height throughout the town for houses. Mr. Nickels stated that from 2006 up until now, with the exception of The Boulevard, no one has taken advantage of the 55 foot height in the last 8 years around Shem Creek or Coleman Boulevard. Ms. Farrell said that Heritage Trust is about 42 feet in height measured to the eave. Juanita Greenberg’s Restaurant stayed under height with two stories. Mayor Page said that The Boulevard is 62 feet in height. Ms. Farrell said it is 60 feet to the highest point. Mr. Santos called for the vote to approve lowering heights in the indicated green areas from 55 feet down to 35 feet measured at the ridge of buildings. Mayor Page called for a roll call vote. The nay vote carried 8 – 1. Mr. Santos cast the one ‘yes’ vote. Mr. Gawrych moved to maintain the 55 foot building heights for the Coleman Boulevard Overlay District (green areas), motion seconded by Mr. Smith. Mayor Page called for a roll call vote. The ‘yes’ votes carried 7-2. Those voting ‘no’ were Mr. Santos and Mr. Nickels. Mr. Gawrych stated that following the theme of sticking with what they have, he noted that Shem Creek building heights are 45 feet with three stories beginning at Live Oak. Ms. Farrell stated they were originally at 40 feet. An amendment was done in 2008 that changed it to 45 feet, so up until the more recent modification, Live Oak to Shem Creek Overlay District was 45 feet with a maximum of three stories. Mr. Gawrych moved to return the properties that are currently 55 feet down to the 45 foot height from Live Oak to the Shem Creek Overlay District; motion seconded by Mr. Santos. Mr. Gawrych wanted to make it clear that if this motion is successful it will go to the Planning Commission since they are changing the ordinance and they will have a public hearing. It will then come back to Council. Mr. Nickels asked how many properties are affected. Ms. Farrell replied 10 properties that front on Coleman Boulevard. Mayor Page called for a roll call vote. The vote passed unanimously.

Page 19 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Consideration of Planning Commission recommendations as directed by Town Council regarding reducing the seventy-five foot building height allowance provided in the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard section of the Urban Corridor Overlay District: Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the three parcels that currently have a height limit of 75 feet be reduced to 60 feet with a maximum of 5 floors; that all properties that currently have 55 feet be changed to 50 feet with a maximum of 4 floors, and that there will be special consideration of the Shem Creek area. Mayor Page asked Ms. Farrell to explain the tiered effect where buildings are lower at the street and attain a height of 75 feet in the interior of the property. Ms. Farrell said there is an illustration in the CRAB Report showing how heights would be lower that abut residential areas. The buildings that are 75 feet in height lower to 55 feet and drop to 40 feet next to residential areas. Mr. Gawrych said he wanted to remove the clause pertaining to aggregate properties which states that properties adjacent to 75 foot high buildings can attain that height also. He is not a fan of what is called aggregation of properties. Mr. Gawrych moved to remove the principal of aggregation wording in the ordinance that applies to properties adjacent to 75 foot properties and change their height allowance to 55 feet. Motion seconded by Mr. Nickels. Mr. Gawrych said he was focused on the aggregate clause. He wanted to remove the opportunity for adjacent buildings to increase their height. It currently says that property next to 75 foot parcels can also have a 75 foot height. His motion is to remove that clause. He said Council would address the 75 foot height question separately. Mayor Page called for a roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nickels moved to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation for 75 foot height parcels to be reduced to 60 feet with a maximum of five floors; motion seconded by Mr. Santos. Mr. Smith asked if the motion is regarding the three properties. The creeping effect is going away and no longer an option. The vote will be directed specifically to two properties, is that correct? Ms. Farrell said that is correct. The Boulevard is developed so that leaves those two properties. Mr. Smith said they had heard from both property owners in writing to not negatively affect their property.

Page 20 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mayor Page said they had heard from all three property owners even though one is not affected as it is already developed. Mr. Santos asked if it is measured 60 feet to the eave or to the ridge and what would be the total height of the building. Ms. Farrell said they would typically have a parapet and they are usually about four feet tall. Mr. Santos asked the total height of the building including the parapet. Ms. Farrell stated it would depend on whether it is a parapet or a roof because the roof could be put on top of a parapet which is typically four feet. If it is 60 feet to the eave, plus four, it would measure 64 feet. The roof design could vary and the height would depend on the design of the roof. It probably would not be a pitched roof, but it could add around 14-20 feet. Mr. Santos said that means that a 60 foot tall building could end up being a 75 foot tall building. Ms. Farrell said it could if measured to the top. Mr. Santos said he is not sure that they are accomplishing anything if, at the end of the day, they would see a 75 foot tall building. Ms. Farrell noted that if measured to the eave, everyone would want to build a flat roof to get the same number of floors if the recommendation is for 5 floors and 60 feet. There would then be no variety in architectural styles. Mayor Page asked Mr. Santos if he would want to see all flat roofs. Mr. Santos said that he would not, but he did not want to see 75 foot buildings which would put them right back where they started from. If we specify 60 feet, but they can build up to 75 feet in height, it defeats the purpose, he believed. Mr. Nickels said that 75 feet is 25% larger and taller than The Boulevard and The Boulevard represents as tall as buildings should be in that section of Town, basically 60 feet. A lot of arguments have been put out there. One argument is the need to go up to avoid sprawl. He liked that idea as an academic notion, but he is not buying it in the real world. In reality, he is not sure that individuals or families moving to Mount Pleasant want a yard or garden. They are either going to move into North Mount Pleasant to have a yard/garden, or into a condo. He did not believe that the two go together. He thinks that of the two votes they have had, this is the huge one. Mr. Gawrych’s initial motion was critical and he was glad it passed. He thought this vote was equally as critical. They should try and do the right thing and respond to the citizens. He said that if you take citizens down to Coleman Boulevard and ask if anything should be bigger in this part of town, the resounding answer would probably be no. When folks are showing off Mount Page 21 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Pleasant, they visit the Waterfront Park, Patriots Point, Shem Creek and Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Santos asked what can be included in a building with a 60 foot total height. Ms. Farrell replied that it depends on how it is measured. The specification would say that it would be measured to the highest point on the building. Mr. Santos moved to amend the motion to say that building heights would be 60 feet measured to the highest point of the building; motion seconded by Mr. Nickels. Attorney Pagliarini clarified the motion and its amendment. He said the original motion was to measure 60 feet to the eave to determine the height. He said that Mr. Santos moved to amend the motion to say that the 60 feet would be measured to the highest point of the building. Council would vote on the amendment first. Finally, Council would vote on the original motion. Mayor Page called for the vote on Mr. Santos’ amendment to the motion. The nay vote carried 7-2. Those voting ‘yes’ were Mr. Santos and Mr. Nickels. Mayor Page called for a roll call vote on the original motion for five floors and a 62 foot building height measured to the eave. The nay vote carried 8-1. Mr. Nickels voted ‘yes.’ Mr. Gawrych said they were not in agreement with the motion that came from the Planning Commission and that is clear. He said that heights are dispersed up and down The Boulevard so there is no ‘tunnel’ issue. He has heard both good and bad comments. He noted that they already have sprawl and he wanted to adhere to the 75 foot height and make it work. Mr. Gawrych moved that the current 75 foot building heights will remain as they are, but any future 75 foot tall buildings will be moved to the interior of the piece of property. Buildings will be tiered down at the street to 55 feet so there will be no 75 foot tall buildings along the street. The front section along the street will be 55 feet in height like the rest. He said this would not be sent to the Planning Commission, but will be sent to the Planning Committee to work with the Planning staff to find something that works based on the number of floors and the style of the architecture, etc.; motion seconded by Ms. Stokes-Marshall. Mr. Santos wanted to make it clear for the record that he voted nay on the 60 foot height simply because the height was measured at the eave, which means the height could reach 75 feet as explained by the Planning Director. He wanted the height measured to 60 feet at the highest point of the building and that is why he voted against it. Page 22 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mr. Nickels said he appreciated the fact that there were a number of speakers and robust debate. He commended his colleagues who have spoken out. He said they have a diverse Planning Commission who found a way to make small but meaningful adjustments for the folks of this town. Five feet in one instance, and one floor in another instance, but basically this Council has decided that is not where it wants to go. Mayor Page said she appreciated the comments and she thanked the citizens that came out as well as the developers and builders. They are engaged citizens. This is how they make changes to make the community better. Mayor Page noted that The Boulevard was a first vision and a lot of people did not like it. She called for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor. The aye votes carried 7-2. The two nay votes were Mr. Santos and Mr. Carrier. First Reading: An Ordinance to amend various sections of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to Design Review Board Review. (Ord. No. 14049) Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the addition that for any projects already submitted, there would be an additional six months to receive final approval through staff review. The Planning Committee recommended approval with the addition that any projects submitted prior to final reading could continue with staff review but must receive final approval before 12/31/14. Any projects submitted after final reading would go before the DRB for consideration. The Planning Committee also requested that a provision be added to the ordinance that would allow minor projects to be reviewed and approved by staff. The proposed project is not to exceed $250K if the project is minor. Mr. Carrier moved to approve first reading of the ordinance; motion seconded by Ms. Stokes-Marshall. Mr. Carrier said the Planning Committee did not have an amount for minor and major projects. Attorney Pagliarini said that amount was discussed and is a number that staff felt comfortable with in determining what comprises a minor project. Mr. Carrier said he thought it was an appropriate amount. Mr. Smith noted that $250K does not go very far on a project in Mount Pleasant. He proposed that they move that amount up to $500K. A simple renovation to an existing building with no exterior work for a funeral home was $750K. He appreciated staff’s work on this and coming up with a solution to protect small businesses. He asked that they consider striking $250K and moving it up to $500K in the motion. Page 23 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Attorney Pagliarini said that from a procedural standpoint, they can do that, but that adjustment could be done at final reading to amend the ordinance as written. Mr. Nickels said that there is nothing to preclude this or another Council revisiting that dollar amount. Mr. Pagliarini concurred. Mr. Nickels said that the Zoning Administrator could consult with the Building Official, Lee Cave concerning this. Mr. Carrier asked if someone present could provide information on whether $250K is too high or too low. Jason Ward, 400 Surf Court: He believed that $250K is on the low side. He would go with the half million dollar range if it is exterior work. Mr. O’Neal said that two of his clients have in the past year replaced a roof and it was $300K on the two different buildings. If a roof is a minor change, it is $300K. When replacing a roof and stuccoing a building, he believed it will be more than $500K. Mr. Smith said that if businesses want to improve their facility to employ more people or expand their businesses, Council wants to protect those small businesses. Perhaps the dollar amount should be increased because things are not going down. He said that $250K or $500K is going to be a small number in future years. Perhaps square footage is merited and should be considered. Mayor Page said that the issue is not to pick winners and losers. It is not by category. She was comfortable with $250K and was ready to call for the vote. Jason Ward: Mr. Ward said he is a citizen developer and small business owner here in the town. They have a large project at Landmark Enterprises. They have a 65K square foot office building and a Marriott Hotel. They will create 350 direct/indirect jobs that are high paying jobs. He said he lives and works in this town. The DRB implementation is very scary and concerning to him. They have been working diligently with the town for 8-10 months on their two buildings. They have gone down this road and he believed staff did their job. Today they received a denial from Michael Roberts. Mr. Roberts is doing his job and Marriott backed off. They have a better project because of it. Their costs were increased by staffs’ design review upwards of half a million dollars between both buildings. It makes the project better for the Town, but his concern is with how the implementations are handled and approvals are received. What will happen when plans are submitted and the DRB has reviewed and accepted them, but on the 3rd floor of a big corporate office a larger window is wanted to take in the view of the beautiful bridge. Who is the authority on that window? Who will they be talking Page 24 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 with? He is concerned about the time involved. They want to finish the projects the way they started them and not have to explain decisions they made to new people. They are asking for consideration as it relates to changes. Mayor Page called for the vote on the motion on the floor. The vote carried 7 – 2. Messrs. Glasson and Smith voted ‘no.’ Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance to amend Sub-Paragraph (4) of Paragraph (A) of Section 156.420 of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to membership of the Design Review Board. (Ord. No. 14050) Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the number of members be increased from seven to nine with the two new seats being one at large member and one licensed general contractor. The Planning Committee recommended that the number of seats remain at seven and that the engineer seat be changed to allow the professional seat to be either an engineer or a licensed general contractor. Mr. O’Neal moved to approve the Planning Committee recommendations as stated; motion seconded by Mr. Gawrych. The vote carried 8 – 1 with Mr. Glasson voting ‘no.’. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of three parcels of land comprising approximately 2.92 acres, located on Weaver Circle and Hungryneck Boulevard. (Ord. No. 14029). Ms. Farrell explained that this item was deferred in June. The applicant has now withdrawn the request. First Reading: An Ordinance to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 Future Land Use Map pertaining to three parcels of land comprising approximately 2.92 acres, located on Weaver Circle and Hungryneck from Commercial to High Density Neighborhood. (Ord. No.14030) Ms. Farrell explained that this item was deferred in June. The applicant has now withdrawn the request. First Reading: An Ordinance to zone RTH, Townhouse for Sale Residential District, three parcels of land comprising approximately 2.92 acres, located on Weaver Circle and Hungryneck Boulevard. (Ord. No.14031) Ms. Farrell said that this item was deferred in June. The applicant has now withdrawn the request. Mr. O’Neal moved to accept withdrawal of items 5, 6 & 7; motion seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Motion carried unanimously.

Page 25 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of two parcels of land located at the northwest corner of Myrick Road and Rifle Range Road. (Ord. No. 14038) Ms. Farrell stated that this item was deferred until August at the June 10, 2014 meeting. The Annexation Committee recommended approval. Mr. Carrier so moved; motion seconded by Mr. O’Neal. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance to amend the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan 2009-2019 Future Land Use Map pertaining to two parcels of land comprising approximately 1.48 acres, located at 1327 and 1319 Myrick Road from Medium Density Neighborhood to High Density Neighborhood. (Ord. No. 14051) Ms. Farrell stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval 7 to 2. The Planning Committee recommended approval unanimously. The committee also added that when developed, the development should also include sidewalk improvements. Mr. Carrier moved to approve first reading of the ordinance; motion seconded by Ms. Stokes-Marshall. Mr. Santos said they continue to change the Comprehensive Plan to add density. That is a bad area as far as congestion is concerned. That whole area is a nightmare getting in and out. If they continue to change to add more density, it is detrimental to the community. He said he was not against changing the Comprehensive Plan and he was happy this was being changed, but he did not believe that high density is needed there. It it is not proper for that area due to the traffic and congestion already there. Mayor Page agreed with Mr. Santos 100%. Mr. Glasson said he agreed with Mr. Santos also. He said they took a lot of time to plan the density along Johnnie Dodds and where the Town will expand and to set up a plan for areas close to the bridge all the way out to Awendaw. Each time they adjust the density plan just a little, they increase the density in that area and they cannot afford to do that because they expand beyond the capacity of their projections. Ms. Farrell stated that even with the change to the Comprehensive Plan, it would afford higher density, but it would still be less than the number of mobile homes that are on the property. The total number of units would be 13. Mr. Nickels said there are 15 or 16 units there now and the change to the Comp Plan would have 13. If no change, there would be 8 units. Page 26 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mr. Carrier said they all agree about the Comp Plan, but this is the biggest eyesore in Mount Pleasant. He said he was all for this change, no matter about the Comp Plan. Mayor Page said she is very familiar with this property. They have had a long meeting tonight hearing from citizens that do not want more density. She said they had a speaker on the matter. Howard Lee Gatch, 28 Lennox Street: He said he is the potential developer of this property. He has it under contract with a contingency that could make it happen. The current owner is upside down on the property. Within the last week, with no one living there, the police have been called out to the property three times. It is a magnet for problems. It does not represent the community at all. He said he needed Council’s help to make this happen and he needs support. He wants to take out the 15 units there and put in 13. He will bring all the traffic in off of Myrick Road. It is a prime time to get in there and get rid of the eyesore and crime infested corner while there are no kids there. It will be redeveloped and cleaned up. He is not going to increase the density and he has good intentions, but he needs support from Town Council to make this happen. Mayor Page stated that if you vote for approval, you are voting for higher density by amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the ordinance. She called for a roll call vote. The no votes carried 7-2. Mr. O’Neal and Ms. Stokes-Marshall voted ‘aye.’ First Reading: An Ordinance to zone RTH, Townhouse for Sale Residential District, two tracts of land located at the northwest corner of Myrick Road and Rifle Range Road. (Ord. No. 14039) Ms. Farrell stated that this item was deferred until August at the June 10, 2014 meeting. The Planning Commission and Committee recommended approval. She stated that this has to do with the zoning of the property. With townhouse zoning, it can be accomplished either with medium or high density. It has the medium density designation which is what affords a maximum of eight units per acre. The last motion failed, so it would remain as medium density. Mr. O’Neal moved to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 14039; motion seconded by Mr. Glasson. Ms. Farrell said the result of this vote is the zoning and that the medium density could result in eight units maximum. Mr. Santos asked Ms. Farrell if they could build at a higher density. Ms. Farrell replied in the negative. She said that townhouses can be built either in a medium density which is six units/acre or high density which is nine units/acre. The last motion failed so the property remains medium density so it can Page 27 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 only have six units/acre and the acreage that they have would yield eight units total on that tract of land. Mayor Page said they are just addressing the zoning. The last vote addressed the density and it failed. Mr. Gawrych wanted to make sure that the gentleman was aware of what was about to happen because he may want to withdraw his application. Counsel Pagliarini said that his recommendation is to go through the motion as it stands; after that if the applicant would like to withdraw, he should notify staff accordingly and that could be dealt with at the next meeting. Mr. Santos asked Mr. Gatch if he understands that he has the opportunity to withdraw his application before final reading. He replied that he does and he appreciated that information. Mayor Page explained that they are going to vote on the motion that is on the floor. She called for a roll call vote to approve the zoning. The vote carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 0.07 acre vacant tract of land being a portion of what was formerly known as Howell Street, now known as Lyman Lane, such portion now identified by TMS No. 532-08-00-096 and shown on a plat recorded in plat book S-58 of the Charleston County RMC Office. (Ord. No.14052) Ms. Farrell received a request for deferral for Ordinance Nos. 14052 and 14053. The request is to defer up to 90 days. Mr. O’Neal moved to defer Ordinance Nos. 14052 and 14053 for up to 90 days; motion seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously. First Reading: An Ordinance to zone AB, Areawide Business District, and UC-OD, Urban Corridor Overlay District, an approximately 0.07 acre parcel of land located on the former Howell Street, near Chuck Dawley Boulevard now known as Lyman Lane and identified by TMS No. 532-08-00-096. (Ord. No. 14053) [This item deferred up to 90 days along with previous item.] First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 0.63 acre tract of land comprised of approximately 0.36 acres of high land and 0.27 acres of marsh, known as Lot 22, Block E, Raven’s Run subdivision, located at 1818 Omni Boulevard, and identified by TMS No. 561-01- 00-019 and recorded in Plat Book BP-163 of the Charleston County RMC Office. (Ord. No. 14054)

Page 28 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Ms. Farrell introduced the Ordinance and stated the Annexation Committee recommended approval. Mr. Carrier moved to approve first reading of the ordinance; motion seconded by Mr. O’Neal. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of a vacant parcel of land known as Lot 12, Darrell Creek Plantation, identified by TMS No. 596-08- 00-012, located on Commonwealth Road and shown on a plat recorded at Plat Book BT, Page 162 in the Charleston County RMC Office. (Ord. No. 14055) Ms. Farrell introduced the ordinance and stated that the Annexation Committee recommended approval. Mr. O’Neal moved to approve first reading of the ordinance; motion seconded by Mr. Smith. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 2.14 acre parcel of land known as Lot 27, Pepper Plantation, located on War Admiral Court, and identified by TMS No. 615-00-00-158. (Ord. No. 14056) Ms. Farrell introduced the ordinance. She stated that the Annexation Committee recommended approval. Ms. Stokes-Marshall moved to approve first reading of the Ordinance Nos. 14056 and 15057; motion seconded by Mr. Glasson. The vote carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance to zone PD-CD, Planned Development- Conservation Design District, an approximately 2.14 acre parcel of land known as Lot 27, Pepper Plantation, located on War Admiral Court, and identified by TMS No. 615-00-00-158. (Ord. No. 14057) [This ordinance approved with the previous item.] Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for an amendment to the Porcher Commercial Planned Development District Ordinance (Ord. No. 96039, as amended) pertaining to maximum lot coverage and maximum building coverage for a portion thereof. (Ord. No. 14048) Ms. Farrell introduced the ordinance. Mr. Glasson moved to approve first reading of the ordinance; motion seconded by Mr. O’Neal. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY.

Page 29 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

PLANNING – Old Business Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend various sections of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances for the purpose of reformatting the Use District Regulations with respect to Permitted, Conditional, and Special Exception uses, and also regulations pertaining to Lot Standards, from a list format to a tabular format to create a Use Table and Development Standards tables; to add, delete or revise Permitted, Conditional, or Special Exception Uses recognizing that the current Zoning Code contains outdated uses and conditions and does not adequately address certain uses that are more common today; to add delete, and revise various definitions; to update the Off-Street Parking Regulations for consistency with the tabular Use Table, to revise Parking Requirements, and to add a requirement for Bicycle Parking for Commercial and Multi-Family uses; to remove outdated references and provide for consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Code; and to amend various other sections of Chapter 156, Zoning Code, for consistency with the amendments noted above and to amend other Chapters of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances for the purpose of providing consistency with the proposed Zoning Code amendments, including amendments to Chapter 32, Departments, Boards, Committees, Commissions, and other entities; Chapter 150 Building Regulations; Chapter 154, Municipal Impact Fees; and Chapter 155, Land Development Regulations for the stated purpose of establishing a Use Table; to reformat the Use Districts sections of the existing Zoning Code to be more succinct and user-friendly and to reflect more modern uses, such as Entertainment and Recreational uses, that are not sufficiently addressed in the current Code and to remove outdated references (e.g. Town Building Official, instead of Town Building Inspector), and to provide consistent terminology throughout, and correct typographical or scrivener’s errors. (Ord. No. 14047) Ms. Farrell introduced the ordinance. Staff has proposed an amendment for consideration prior to final reading. The proposed amendment is to change the parking requirements for a hotel/ hospitality use from a range of 1.5 to 2 spaces to 1 to 2 spaces. This amendment can occur prior to final reading on the amended ordinance. Mr. Glasson moved for final reading with an amendment as stated by the Planning Director; motion seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Accommodations Tax Advisory Committee – Mark Smith Page 30 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mr. Smith reported that the Committee met Thursday, August 7, 2014 to receive presentations from applicants for the second grant period of the fiscal year. The Committee will report their recommendations to Council at the September meeting. Patriots Point provided an extensive presentation on the exciting new exhibits and future plans for the museum, followed by a special appearance by their mascot, Scrappy. The fourth quarter revenue payment for FY 13/14 was received totaling $408,188.73. Total revenue received for FY 13/14 was $984,883 - 4% higher than the previous fiscal year.

Annexation Committee – Mark Smith Mr. Smith reported that the Committee was informed that the annexation request for the three lots on Belle Point Drive had been withdrawn by the applicant. The Committee voted in favor of recommending annexation for property formerly known as a portion of Howell Street and for a residence in Raven’s Run subdivision, as well as single vacant lots in both Darrell Creek Plantation and Pepper Plantation.

Bids & Purchases Committee – Mark Smith Mr. Smith reported that the Committee received information from staff regarding the next steps to be taken toward design of the Rifle Range Road recreation property and for the second phase of the Memorial Waterfront Park. A public input meeting will be scheduled for the evening of August 27th to receive public comments and ideas regarding elements they would like to see in each of these two parks. The information will be compiled into a report and provided to the Committee. The Committee’s concurrence and additional suggestions will become the basis for the request for proposals sent to prospective design teams. The Committee received this as information with no action taken. In other business, the Committee approved award of several athletic equipment contracts by lot. For example Lot A is lacrosse and Lot B is baseball, softball, football, basketball, and volleyball. Lot A went to East Cooper Sporting Goods in the amount of $12,249 dollars. Lot B was awarded to T&T Sportsman’s Shop in the amount of $14,993.25 dollars. Lot C was not awarded and will be re- bid. Lot D was awarded to T&T Sportsman’s Shop in the amount of $34,328.56 dollars and Lot E was awarded to The Hoove, LLC in the amount of $116,496.75 dollars. Page 31 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

The Committee authorized staff to accomplish a critical procurement to acquire and implement replacement software and hardware in asset management and permitting and licensing with CityWorks and Woolpert Engineering. The negotiated contracts are estimated to be $456,000 dollars.

Economic Development Committee - Chris O’Neal (No meeting, no report)

Finance Committee – Chris O’Neal Mr. O’Neal reported that he had two action items: Item #1: Funding for Medal of Honor Bowl: The Committee held a discussion regarding the Accommodations Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendation to approve $25,000 dollars for the Medal of Honor Bowl in light of financial information provided to the Committee. The Finance Committee made no recommendation and moved to forward the funding recommendation from the Accommodations Tax Advisory Committee to Council for a funding determination. Mr. O’Neal so moved; motion seconded by Mr. Glasson. Motion carried unanimously. Item #2: Approval of CARTA FY 2015 Budget: The Committee received a presentation of the FY 2015 CARTA Budget from Jeffrey Burns, Interim Executive Director of CARTA. After hearing the presentation, the Committee is forwarding the CARTA Budget to Council for approval by Resolution pursuant to CARTA’s Enabling Act. Council will act on this by Resolution as listed under Council New Business, Item XI.A.1.

Fire Committee – Gary Santos (No meeting, no report)

Human Resources – Chris Nickels (No meeting, no report)

Patriots Point Development Authority – Mayor Linda Page (No meeting, no report)

Planning Committee – Thomasena Stokes-Marshall Ms. Stokes-Marshall reported that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of adoption of the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update. A Page 32 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Special Town Council meeting to review the document has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 26th.

Police, Legal & Judicial Committee – Eric DeMoura (No meeting, no report)

Public Services Committee – Chris Nickels Mr. Nickels reported that the Public Services Committee met on Monday, August 4th and he had one action item and a report. Action Item: Resolution to Approve Drainage Easement for Stormwater Improvement Project. Staff presented an update on the Edwards Park/Queen Street drainage system upgrade project that was designed to unite the existing stormwater infrastructure in the area and direct drainage towards the Edwards Park Pump Station. The project has been in the planning stage for several years and has been funded by Charleston County Transportation Sales Tax revenue, and is near the point where construction may begin. In order to proceed, staff needs a fifteen foot drainage easement that borders the rear property line of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. The property owners have already agreed to the drainage easement, based on conditions that ensure the Town seeks to maintain the health of a large Live Oak tree in the area of the proposed drainage easement. Approval of the easement can be done by passing a resolution. Committee moved to ask Council to adopt a resolution for the Town to approve the drainage easement for the stormwater project involving St. Paul’s Lutheran Church at 604 Pitt Street. Action on this item will be handled under New Business XI A. 2. Staff presented a brief overview and update on the Town’s five year stormwater management plan. The Town’s Water Quality Program was reviewed, noting that the program is updated every five years with water quality regulations and that changes to our five year action plan were recently drafted. When changes to the program are made this Fall they will need to be adopted by Town Council along with associated changes to the Town’s Code of Ordinances. Staff explained that while ordinances are one of the most important tools for stormwater management, the Town is seeking to move to more proactive practices that maintain our infrastructure, regulate land development, and ultimately ensure that the practices we put into place are working and protect our water quality. The last item of business was an update on the Town’s sanitation route changes that were implemented to extend the capability and capacity of our resources. Staff noted that three phases of the route shifts were completed in early July, impacting approximately 8,000 dwellings. The transition has been smooth and Page 33 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014 successful and has positioned the Town to meet the needs of our customers in both the near- and long-term.

Recreation Committee – Elton Carrier Mr. Carrier reported that the Committee approved one facility rental request. The Committee was presented the Senior Services Report prepared by Nick Bowman. The Committee discussed the need of a second Senior Center and provided information to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The Committee discussed raising some recreation fees and directed staff to review programs to identify areas of possibility. The Committee previewed a Senior Center fitness equipment orientation video. The Committee was updated on program participation. Mr. Carrier gave the July monthly report as follows: - Saturday, July 19 – The East Cooper Swim League Championship was held at the Park West Pool. There were 8 teams in the league to include MPRD, Creekside, Hamlin, Hobcaw Creek, Park West, Rivertown Country Club, Rivertown Wando and Wild Dunes. There were 477 swimmers who completed in the meet and approximately 550 spectators. - Monday, July 21-Sunday, July 27 – The Mount Pleasant Track Club (MPTC) had 33 athletes compete at the Junior Olympic Nationals in Humble, Texas. We had 7 All-Americans and our first National Champion. - Monday, July 21-Thursday, July 31 – The Mount Pleasant Elks Lodge #2867 received a grant to sponsor Tennis and Tutoring Camp at the Miriam Brown Community Center for boys and girls ages 9-12. The camp was free for participants and lunch was provided. The camp included one hour of tennis and one hour of reading with a volunteer. There were 17 participants from all three community centers. The goal of the camp was to promote physical fitness, healthy eating and to promote readying skills. - Wednesday, July 23-Sunday, July 27 – The Mount Pleasant Recreation Department Baseball 10U-12U teams competed in the Southeast Regionals in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida. Unfortunately, they did not advance to the national level. - For the month of July we did 1,041 swim lessons. - For the month of July, 1,213 youth and 992 adults participated in athletic leagues. - Senior Center current membership is 2,758. - Tennis Center membership is 918. Page 34 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Transportation Committee – Brad Morrison (No meeting, no report)

Waterworks Commission – Mark Smith (No meeting, no report)

Water Supply Committee – Mark Smith (No meeting, no report)

ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT – Eric DeMoura Mr. DeMoura announced vacancies on the Boards and Commissions: There is one vacancy on the Planning Commission and two Design Review Board vacancies – both At Large.

COUNCIL – New Business A Resolution: A Resolution authorizing and approving the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of CARTA. (R.14082) Mr. O’Neal so moved; motion seconded by Ms. Stokes-Marshall. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read the Resolution BY TITLE ONLY. This Resolution SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. A Resolution: A Resolution approving a right-of-way drainage easement to 0.046 acres of land owned by St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church. (R.14081) Mr. Nickels so moved; motion seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read the Resolution BY TITLE ONLY. This Resolution SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. Consideration of mandatory public comment period: Mr. Santos said that in conversations he has had, it seems that everyone agrees that the Public Comment period is good for what we do. He believed that if Council has this, then all Committees should have a Public Comment period. He would ask attorney Pagliarini to prepare an ordinance to have a public comment period in those meetings. Mr. Santos moved that all boards/commissions/committees have a public comment period in their meetings; motion seconded by Mr. O’Neal. Mayor Page thought that this should be at the discretion of the chair at the respective meetings. Page 35 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

Mr. Glasson said that they already promote openness and clarity. By adding this to the agenda, it insults Council and staff. We do have open and transparent meetings and I am comfortable with that, he said. Mr. Nickels said he appreciated the spirit of the motion that was made. The public comment period has presented some uneven exercises over that for the last couple of months which may have led to this request. If they decide to ask legal counsel to craft something, it should not come back directly to Council, but would like to have it vetted by a Committee of Council. Maybe they can take a look at neighboring jurisdictions and see what they do or if they have anything that can be massaged. Ms. Stokes-Marshall said she was curious as to what generated this. In 1998 when she was elected to council, one of the first actions that Council took was to establish a policy where you did not even have to be a resident, anyone had the right to address Council whether a resident or not, or whether or not an item was on the agenda. Since that policy went into play, she did not recall there ever being a time where anyone was denied the right to speak to Council or to any of the Committees. Mr. Santos said he was the one who wrote that ordinance in 1998 and he brought it to Council and he agrees. Ms. Stokes-Marshall begged to differ. She said that Mr. Santos was on Council at that time and it was the policy to not allow people to speak if an item was not on the agenda. Mr. Santos said to look at the minutes. He wrote the ordinance and brought it to the Council in 1998. And the first thing the newly elected members did was to vote on that ordinance. It is all in the minutes. She is right in that it only stipulated Council. It did not include any of the appointed committees or commissions. This will expand it. If Council is mandated to have a public comment period, certainly Committee and Commission should have that. It did happen at the Planning Commission, he said, because he saw it. He wants it to all be unified. People that go to the trouble to attend these meetings should be able to speak. But they are not allowed to speak at the Planning Commission. He said he was just trying to give the public a voice. He was asking that this go back to the PJL Committee for consideration for this to be vetted and discussed. Mayor Page called for the vote. The motion failed 5-4. Those voting ‘no’ were Mr. Carrier, Mr. Glasson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Stokes Marshall and Mayor Page. Those voting ‘yes’ were Mr. Gawrych, Mr. Nickels, Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Santos.

Page 36 of 37

Town Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 2014

OLD BUSINESS - Council Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances by repealing Chapter 77 relative to distracted driving relative to texting while driving. (Ord. No. 14044) Mr. O’Neal so moved; motion seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. O’Neal moved to go into executive session at 10:19 p.m. for consideration of Historical Commission Applications; motion seconded by Mr. Glasson. Motion carried unanimously. The regular meeting reconvened at 10:21 p.m. Mr. O’Neal moved to appoint Robert MacDonald to the Historical Commission; motion seconded by Mr. Nickels. Motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.

Submitted by:

Patty Wallis 081214

Page 37 of 37