TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC
**************************
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
Police, Judicial, and Legal Committee 9:00 a.m.
Annexation Committee 10:00 a.m.
Human Resources Committee 10:15 a.m.
Finance Committee 10:30 a.m.
Planning and Development Committee 12:00 p.m.
**************** The following Committees will not meet: Bids and Purchases Committee Economic Development Committee Fire Committee Public Services Committee Recreation Committee Transportation Committee Water Supply Committee
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
MEETING NOTICE
POLICE, JUDICIAL, & LEGAL COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A
Approval of Minutes from the October 1, 2012 meeting
POLICE
1. Update on consolidated 911 dispatch
JUDICIAL
No agenda items
LEGAL
1. Texting by vehicle operators 2. Update on shooting range ordinance
Adjourn
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
MEETING NOTICE
ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A
1. Approval of Minutes from the October 1, 2012 meeting 2. Request by Mount Pleasant Waterworks to annex an approximately 1.0 acre parcel of land known as C-D-E-F-C located at 1549 Old Landing Road, bearing TMS No.560-00-00-063. 3. Adjourn
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
MEETING NOTICE
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
10:15 a.m.
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A
1. Approval of Minutes from the October 1, 2012 meeting 2. Establish Christmas Holidays 3. Adjourn
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
2. Establish Christmas Holidays
Monday, December 24 and Tuesday, December 25 are proposed for the Committee’s consideration.
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
MEETING NOTICE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
10:30 a.m.
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A
1. Approval of Minutes from the September 4, 2012 meeting 2. Discussion of mayoral compensation 3. Formal establishment of a separate fund for infrastructure maintenance and repair 4. Amendment to Business License Ordinance 5. Adjourn
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
Compensation Survey for Mayor and Council Members
7/23/2012
Changed since January City Mayor Council Member survey? Charleston $162,815.90 $15,000.00 No Florence $18,266.04 $15,810.00 No Greenville $18,207.02 $11,236.16 No Mount Pleasant $24,000.00 $18,000.00 Myrtle Beach $20,000.00 $15,000.00 No North Charleston $148,905.00 $15,965.00 No Rock Hill $12,542 + $3,000 for expenses $8,000 + $1,800 for expenses No
SECTION 5‐7‐170. Salaries and expenses of Mayor and Councilmen determined by Council through Ordinance. The Council may determine the annual salary of its members by ordinance; provided, that an ordinance establishing or increasing such salaries shall not become effective until the commencement date of the terms of two or more members elected at the next general election following the adoption of the ordinance, at which time it will become effective for all members whether or not they were elected in such election. The Mayor and Council members may also receive payment for actual expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties within limitations prescribed by ordinance.
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
MEETING NOTICE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
12:00 p.m.
Municipal Complex Building A - Public Meeting Room 1 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A G E N D A
1. Approval of Minutes from the October 1, 2012 meeting 2. Review of Planning Commission recommendations from the October 24, 2012 meeting a. REVISED IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONCEPTUAL PLAN: Request approval of revised impact assessment and conceptual plan for Mount Pleasant Square, Phase Two, a mixed-use development to be located on approximately 5.27 acres of land near the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Ben Sawyer Boulevard and identified by TMS Nos. 532-11-00-146, 532-11-00- 151, and 532-11-00-170. b. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: Proposal to amend Chapter 156, Mount Pleasant Zoning Code, Section 156.054, pertaining to Impact Assessment review for a development project that involves a change in use or an expansion in use, such that an Impact Assessment will only be required for that portion of a proposed development project that results in a net increase of impact for the new use compared to the previous use.
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
c. REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN: Staff Overview of Draft Master Bike and Pedestrian Plan. 3. Staff update and discussion regarding the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District. 4. Staff update and discussion regarding Nonconformities in Old Mount Pleasant 5. Request to rezone from R-2, Low Density Residential District, to MF, Multifamily Residential District, an approximately 0.16 acre parcel of land located at 218 Venning Street and being a South Carolina Horizontal Property Regime bearing TMS Nos. 532-01-00- 075, 532-01-00-276, 532-01-00-277, and 532-01-00-278. (Previously Deferred) 6. Proposal to amend Section 150.001(I) removing the International Energy Efficiency Code, 2006 and replacing it with the International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, which is to be adopted by reference. 7. Discussion of freestanding signs 8. Adjourn
100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 tel (843) 884-8517 fax (843) 856-2180 www.tompsc.com
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2012 MINUTES
Present: Roy Neal, chair, Todd Richardson, Howard Chapman, Alice Richter-Lehrman, Phil Siegrist, Nick Collins Absent: Bob Brimmer, Henry Middleton, Cheryll Woods-Flowers (all excused)
Mr. Neal called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm 1. Approval of agenda
Mr. Richardson moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor.
2. Approval of minutes a. September 20 Meeting
Ms. Richter-Lehrman moved to approve the minutes with the correction of those present so that Mr. Neal is only listed once. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion. All in favor.
3. Correspondence and general public statements a. Update on Planning Commission recommendations.
Ms. Cousino reviewed the Town Council decisions.
Mr. Chapman asked about the deferral for Central Mount Pleasant. Ms. Farrell answered that Town Council asked the developer to coordinate certain items within the development agreement that are still being discussed and addressed. Mr. Chapman asked if the items the Planning Commission recommended were changed. Ms. Farrell answered that there was only a minor difference pertaining to the bike path and right of way width. She stated that the deferral pertained to contractual matters.
b. Update on October 4, 2012 Planning and Development Meet & Greet.
Ms. Cousino updated the Commission on the Meet and Greet.
Ms. Farrell noted that the Town received an award from the South Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association for the Urban Corridor Overlay District project. She stated that the awards are given every two years and given the size of the Town’s population, the Town competes with large municipalities and counties within South Carolina.
4. Requests a. REVISED IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONCEPTUAL PLAN: Request approval of revised impact assessment and conceptual plan for Mount Pleasant Square, Phase Two, a mixed-use development to be located on approximately 5.27 acres of land near the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Ben Sawyer Boulevard and identified by TMS Nos. 532-11-00-146, 532-11-00-151, and 532-11-00-170.
Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 2 of 7
Mount Pleasant Square is located near the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Ben Sawyer Boulevard and was originally approved in 1997. Phase One of this development is located on 8.30 acres of land and is built out at 102,696 square feet, which includes the existing Bi-Lo grocery store and adjacent retail buildings. Phase Two is currently comprised of 5.27 acres of undeveloped land. All parcels within Phases One and Two, 13.57 acres, are currently zoned AB, Areawide Business District. All parcels also fall within the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-CBS). Phase Two of this development received revised impact assessment and sketch plan approval in September 2005. That approval was for a 5.93 acre area and included 44 multi-family residential dwelling units and 58,242 square feet of commercial space. Phase Two received revised impact assessment and sketch plan approval again in April 2007. At that time, additional properties along Disher Drive were included in the development that were not included in the 2005 impact assessment and sketch plan. That approval was for a 6.05 acre area and included 287 multi-family residential dwelling units and 86,345 square feet of office and retail space. o At the time, a residential density of 20 units per acre was only permitted if 10% of the dwelling units qualified as workforce housing; 29 workforce housing units were proposed. o The 2007 approval is still vested and has not expired. The developer has submitted a new impact assessment and conceptual plan for Phase Two. The new impact assessment proposes a total of 254 multi-family residential dwelling units and 35,000 square feet of retail space on approximately 5.27 acres. This represents a reduction in acreage, as well as in residential and commercial density, since the previous approval. Since the number of dwelling units and the nonresidential square footage has been reduced since the 2007 approval, an updated traffic analysis was not required. No roadway improvements were required as a result of the 2007 impact assessment and traffic analysis, although it was recommended that the Mount Pleasant Square Drive access to Rifle Range Road provide a combined through/left-turn lane and a right-turn lane exiting the site. It was also recommended that Disher Drive be limited to right turns only; however, Disher Drive is no longer proposed to be part of the development. The UC-CBS allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre for mixed use developments, with no requirement for workforce housing; as such, no workforce housing has been proposed. Density has been calculated using the entire 13.57 acres, resulting in a density of 18.7 units per acre which is less than the maximum density permitted for the site. The existing Phase One detention pond will be enlarged in order to handle additional runoff from Phase Two. A total of 409 parking spaces will be provided for Phase Two. One space will be provided for each dwelling unit (the UC-CBS allows a range of 1 to 2 spaces per dwelling unit). Total parking exceeds what is required; however, since a parking structure will be provided there are no maximum parking limits. Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 3 of 7
The developer requests a waiver from sanitation impact fees since collection will be done by a private company. This waiver must be approved by Town Council. The impact assessment indicates that two structures must be removed from TMS Nos. 532-11-00-141 and -142; however, these parcels are not included in the Mount Pleasant Square development as currently proposed, so it is unclear why they need to be removed. Both parcels are located along Disher Drive, adjacent to Phase Two, and contain commercial buildings. These parcels were previously proposed to be part of the Mount Pleasant Square development. Conceptual Plan: The conceptual plan is subject to Design Review, so the plan may be modified in order to meet the Town’s design requirements as well as UC-CBS requirements. The following items should be further addressed during Design Review: o The future vehicular connection shown along southwestern property line needs to be installed at the time of construction in order for the buffer requirement along that property line to be eliminated. This area may be used for parking spaces until such time as it is used as a vehicular connection to the adjacent parcel. o Entrances to retail and residential units must be provided along the Rifle Range Road frontage, as well as along the New Parrish Way frontage. o Additional street trees are required along Mount Pleasant Square Drive. o There are several existing American elms located along the Rifle Range Road frontage. Since street trees are required along this frontage, the existing trees should be maintained if possible. o Dumpster should be relocated so that it is not visible from the street. o A crosswalk should be provided between Buildings C and D. Twelve significant or historic trees are proposed for relocation. Five of these trees were previously prepped for relocation. These trees appear to still be in good health; however, staff recommends that a local arborist monitor the trees prior to and during relocation, as well as for at least two years post-relocation. These trees should be moved between November and March. o Staff recommends installation of a drip irrigation system (both pre- and post- relocation). o Staff recommends that a soil test is performed in the areas where the trees will be moved in order to ensure that new prepared soils are similar to native soils (pH, etc.). o Tree relocation shall be subject to coordination with and approval by staff. Should any of the trees fail as a result of relocation, appropriate mitigation shall be determined by staff. Three relocated historic trees are shown in the median at the center of the development. The live oaks should be pushed closer to the ends of the median in order to limit canopy overlap. The canopy shown appears to be the same size as on the 2007 sketch plan, but is likely larger now. One 24-inch triple stem live oak is proposed for removal. The conceptual plan indicates that it is uprooted, in which case no replacements shall be required. With each of the previous impact assessment approvals, there was a condition that this development should demonstrate sensitivity to the character of Rifle Range Road. This Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 4 of 7
was to be achieved through setbacks, buffers, and other site considerations, such as limiting ground floor retail facing Rifle Range Road. The conceptual plan illustrates such a limitation on ground floor retail facing Rifle Range Road on Buildings A and C. Buildings A and B, in addition to the parking structure, are located adjacent to Riverwood Apartments and will be limited to 40 feet in height within 50 feet of the property line between the two developments. The maximum 55 feet would only be allowed towards the interior of the development. The two height zones are illustrated on the conceptual plan.
Ms. Cousino reviewed with the Commission a tree assessment provided by the applicant pertaining to relocation of the historic trees.
Mr. Richardson asked if tree number 5 is a water oak. Ms. Cousino answered that staff believes it to be a water oak, though the assessment identifies it as a laurel oak. She stated that the mitigation would be different depending on the type of tree and this could be verified if desired.
Mr. Stuart Whiteside, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that they have no issue with the staff comments and will work with the Town on the tree mitigation, particularly with the laurel or water oak.
Mr. Richardson asked about the northeast buffer and trees. Mr. Whiteside answered that this would be worked out during DRB approval process. Mr. Richardson asked if New Parrish Village has been contacted. Mr. Whiteside answered in the negative.
Mr. Chapman asked about the buffer between Riverwood Apartments. Mr. Whiteside answered that there would be a 10 foot Type C buffer with a fence. Ms. Cousino clarified the requirements for the buffer and stated that this is included on the plans.
Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that the traffic study was not revised and expressed concern with this as the traffic on Rifle Range Road has changed. She expressed concern with the walkability of the plan with it being located on Rifle Range Road and expressed concern with pedestrian safety. She stated that she did not understand what was meant by attracting environmentally safe businesses.
Ms. Cousino stated that the current development plan was approved in 2007 and is still valid. She stated that, in consideration of this and that the revision is a reduction of the development size, they were not required to update the traffic analysis.
Mr. Neal asked if the parking requirements for Phase 1 have been met. Ms. Cousino answered in the affirmative. Mr. Neal asked staff to review other apartment parking requirements with the Commission. Ms. Cousino provided parking ratios for three other apartment developments and stated that there could be shared parking considered for both phases of Mount Pleasant Square. Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 5 of 7
Mr. Chapman asked if there is a sidewalk the entire length of Rifle Range Road from Coleman Boulevard. Ms. Cousino answered that there is one from Ben Sawyer Boulevard to Six Mile Road.
Mr. Richardson moved for approval to include all staff comments with the revision that the monitoring period for relocation trees to be five years instead of two years. Mr. Chapman seconded the motion.
Mr. Richardson stated that it takes several years to ensure that the trees remain viable. He suggested that if it tree number 5 is determined to be a water oak, he would recommend removal.
Mr. Neal called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. b. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST: Request approval of preliminary plat for The Enclave at Gregorie Ferry, 18 detached single family residential lots zoned RPH, Patio House Residential District, located on Gregorie Ferry Road and identified by TMS No. 580-00-00-021.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed staff comments as follows: The sketch plan was approved for an 18 lot subdivision by the Planning Commission in July with staff comments to improve rear yard area high ground. The designer made the layout adjustment after receiving a decision of denial by the Planning Commission during the September meeting. Designer should consider adjusting the location of curb inlet (A2). There is a potential conflict with a future driveway accessing Lot 8. Hydraulic grade calculate check is requested for inlets at The Village at Carol Oaks. These two systems share the same detention area. The calculation is to ensure temporary flooding doesn’t occur as a result of the additional runoff from the referenced development. Include standard Town storm drain pipe installation that includes requirements for wrapping joints and video inspections. Recommend increasing pipe size from 12in to 15in for rear yard inlets. Town and state encroachment permits are required for the improvements to Gregorie Ferry Road.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the lot changes with the Commission. He also stated that the applicant is agreeable to all of the engineering comments as well.
Mr. Chapman asked about sidewalks and if they would be installed along Gregorie Ferry Road and on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Neal asked if all previous comments have been addressed. Mr. Mitchell answered in the affirmative. Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 6 of 7
Mr. Chapman moved for approval to include all of staff comments. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. All in favor. c. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend Chapter 156, Mount Pleasant Zoning Code, Section 156.054, pertaining to Impact Assessment review for a development project that involves a change in use or an expansion in use, such that an Impact Assessment will only be required for that portion of a proposed development project that results in a net increase of impact for the new use compared to the previous use.
Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: Zoning Code Section 156.054 does not address impact assessments as they relate to redevelopment projects. Since the impacts of existing developments have already been accounted for in Town plans, such as the Long Range Transportation Plan, it is appropriate to give some consideration to this when evaluating proposed redevelopment projects. Section 156.08 of the Code of Ordinances currently allows a credit for impact fees for redevelopment projects, such that the fee required to be paid is based on the net increase for the new use compared to the previous use. The proposed text amendment will require impact assessments for redevelopment projects only when the increase in both peak hour vehicle trips and building square footage meet the threshold requirements outlined in Section 156.054 (B) (1).
Mr. Neal closed the public hearing.
Mr. Richardson moved for approval with the inclusion of "the impacts assessed shall be predicated only upon the net increase of peak hour vehicle trips and building square footage”. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor. d. REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN: Staff Overview of Draft Master Bike and Pedestrian Plan.
Mr. Mitchell briefly reviewed the Bike and Pedestrian Plan with the Commission through a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Mitchell stated that this would be further reviewed next month.
Mr. Siegrist asked if it has been considered to have bikes licensed with a license fee. Mr. Mitchell answered that this was a previous requirement of the Town, but was done away with due to enforcement issues.
Mr. Neal suggested that a special meeting might be necessary.
Mr. Siegrist suggested that this should be considered as a means to increase road safety issues.
Planning Commission October 24, 2012 Page 7 of 7
Ms. Farrell suggested that there might not be time to appropriately review at the next regular meeting given the number of items already slated for the agenda.
Mr. Chapman suggested that the report was very comprehensive and commended staff for their work. Ms. Farrell stated that she has spoken with Mr. Bradford with Charleston Moves and would like to have further input as the plan moves forward.
Mr. Neal asked the Commission if a special meeting should be scheduled. The Commission suggested that a special meeting was not necessary. Ms. Farrell stated that this is still in the early stages.
Ms. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that she is also on the Charleston Moves Board of Directors. She stated that Charleston Moves is very concerned about bike safety and suggested that education on road safety should be included in the plan. She suggested that if there are accommodations for bicycles throughout the Town, there will be increased use. She suggested that there should be connectivity between neighborhoods for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mr. Richardson suggested that this should be sent to the Planning Committee for review.
Mr. Richardson moved to send the Bike and Pedestrian Plan to the Planning Committee for review. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor.
e. STREET NAME REQUEST: Request approval of street name for Parcel F, Seaside Farms.
Ms. Cousino reviewed staff comments as follows: The applicant requests Parkfront Drive, which has been approved by Charleston County.
Mr. Chapman moved to approve Park Front Drive as requested. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm.
Submitted by, L. Lynes PlanComsn10242012 http://www.tompsc.com/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=934
Planning Commission Application
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY 11:59 p.m. ON THE DEADLINE DATES. It is highly recommended that the property owner and/or their representative meet with staff prior to submitting an application.
Nature of Request & Fees Check all that apply:* Rezoning Sketch Plan Planned Development Amendment Preliminary Plat Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other Impact Assessment & Conceptual Plan
Fee Schedule: For areas greater than 100.01 acres the fee is $400 + $2 per additional acre. Please select the appropriate fee below and if over 100.01 acres please enter acreage amount over 100.01 acres in the quantity field below:* 0 - 5 Acres - $100 100.01 + acres Quantity (total acreage - 100)=
Requirements – All supplemental information must be scaled to 8 ½ x 11 sheets and submitted in a portable digital format (pdf) with this application and appropriate fee.
The following supplemental information is included with this application(please list):*
Subject Property / Properties Information TMS #:* Acreage / Sq. Feet:* Address:* Owner:*
Present Use of Property:* Request:*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (only fill out if Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested) Present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:
Description of Proposed Structure and Use of Property:
Applicant Information Name:* Address:*
Phone:* Email:*
1 of 2 9/27/2012 12:28 PM http://www.tompsc.com/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=934
Please attach supplemental information outlined above: DIA PHASE TWO Revised 9_26_12.pdf
I, the undersigned, serve as the owner or owner's representative and certify the information contained herein to be true and accurate. If an application is found to be incomplete, the primary contact will be notified and the application will be removed from the agenda. I further certify that the tract(s) or parcel(s) of land to which this approval request pertains: * is restricted is not restricted by any recorded covenant that is contrary to, conflicts with, or prohibits the activity for which approval is sought as provided in SC Code of Laws Section 6-29-1145, and the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances §155.084 and §156.048.
I agree that all terms and information are true to my knowledge:* I agree
Information of person completing electronic signature: Name:* Address (if different from above): Email (if different from Phone (if different from above): above):
* indicates required fields.
2 of 2 9/27/2012 12:28 PM
Revised DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
FOR
MOUNT PLEASANT SQUARE PHASE TWO MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
Date September 26, 2012
Planning Commission Submittal
DEVELOPER:
Dewberry Capital Corporation 1545 Peachtree Street, Suite 250 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404-888-7983
Designed BY:
Seamon, Whiteside & Associates, Inc. 501 Wando Park Blvd., Suite 200 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 884-1667
= TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Description of the Proposed Project ...... 1 II. Existing Conditions ...... 3 III. Impact Assessment A. Wastewater ...... 3 B. Water Supply ...... 4 C. Telephone and Power ...... 4 D. Solid Wastes...... 4 E. Transportation ...... 5 F. Drainage ...... 5 G. Recreation ...... 5 H. Education ...... 5 I. Police ...... 6 J. Fire Protection ...... 6 K. Environmental Resources ...... 6 L. Cultural and Archaeological Resources ...... 6 M. Fiscal Considerations ...... 6 N. Housing ...... 7 O. Mt. Pleasant Comprehensive Plan ...... 7 IV. Appendices 1. Charleston County Tax Map and Sketch Plan from 2005 Submittal 2. Charleston County Tax Map and Revised Sketch Plan from 2007 Submittal 3. Charleston County Tax Map and Revised 2012 Sketch Plan
= Development Impact Assessment for: MOUNT PLEASANT SQUARE PHASE TWO MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
On September 13, 2005, the Mt. Pleasant Town Council approved the Sketch Plan and Development Impact Assessment for Mt. Pleasant Square Phase Two. As indicated on the Sketch Plan included as Appendix No. 1, this 5.93-acre addition was to include 44 residential condominium units over 58,242 square feet of office and retail uses. Surface parking and carports were provided to allow for a total of 617 parking spaces in Phases One and Two which met ULI Shared Parking Guidelines for the overall project.
On April 10, 2007, the Mt. Pleasant Town Council approved the revised Sketch Plan and Development Impact Assessment for Mt. Pleasant Square Phase Two. As indicated on the Sketch Plan included as Appendix No. 2, this 6.05-acre addition was to include 287 residential units and 86,345 square feet of office and retail uses. Surface parking and two parking garages were provided to allow for a total of 994 parking spaces in Phases One and Two which met ULI Shared Parking Guidelines for the overall project.
Since the previous approval, Dewberry Capital Corporation (DCC) has elected not to include the parcels on Disher Drive in the development. DCC now proposes to develop 254 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space on 5.27 acres to supplement the existing 47,000 square foot Bi-Lo and 55,696 square feet of retail space. The revised Sketch Plan is included herein as Appendix No. 3. This project will be developed per the Town’s Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-OD). The overall residential density for the 13.57-acre project will be 19 units per acre (less than the 20 units per acre base zoning for mixed use per the UC-OC). The project will include a net total of 409 parking spaces within the Phase Two area only; existing spaces are not included. Portions of these spaces will be located in a parking garage. The project summary for the development is as follows:
Phase One Area 8.30 Acres
Phase Two Area 5.27 Acres
Total Area 13.57 Acres
Phase One Retail 102,696 s.f.
Phase Two Retail 35,000 s.f.
Total Retail Square Footage 137,696 s.f.
Total Residential Units 254
Overall Density 19 units/ Acre
= N= Parking Required
Residential Units 254 units X 1 sp./ unit = 254
Retail Area 35,000 s.f. X 1 sp./ 250 s.f. = 140 20% reduction for retail parking= 140 x .8 = 112
Outdoor Dining 1800 s.f. x 1 sp. / 100 s.f.= 18
Total Spaces 384
Parking Provided
Surface Spaces 133
Garage Spaces 281
Total 414
Spaces removed 5
Net Total Spaces 409
Building heights, setbacks, and buffers shall be in accordance with the Urban Corridor Overlay District.
Building Height* 55’
Front or Side Setback 20’ SB
Rear Setback** 10’
Internal Side and Rear Buffer*** 5’
*In all cases, the maximum height for buildings in the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Urban Corridor District (UC-CBS) that are located within 50 feet of an abutting residential property line, or an abutting street right-of-way adjoining residential property; provided such residential property is located outside of the UC-CBS, shall be 40 feet, measured from grade to roof ridge, and further provided that no such building shall exceed a maximum of three stories. This is reflected on the Sketch Plan for buildings along Rifle Range Road as well as the Northeast property line abutting the Riverwood Apartments.
**Where rear or side property lines abut residential properties lying outside the UC-CBS, a minimum 15 foot setback, with a minimum 10 foot type “C” bufferyard with an F3 fence, is required. This is reflected on the Sketch Plan for the Northeast property line abutting the Riverwood Apartments.
= O= ***Buffers are not required where interconnectivity between parcels is provided or shown on the plan for future connection. A future connection is shown on the Sketch Plan for the Southwest property line.
The bufferyard and setbacks adjacent to Rifle Range Road indicated on the Sketch Plan comply with the UC-OD. Retail development of the Rifle Range Road frontage will be limited to the ground floor corner of Building "A" and Building "C" adjacent to the entrance road. The remaining frontage will be residential. Extensive landscaping, an eight-foot wooden fence and architectural design of the buildings and garage will be utilized to lessen the impact of the project on the adjacent Riverwood Apartments.
Development of the project is scheduled to begin in 2013 with completion expected in 2014 depending on market demands. The project will be subject to review through the Town’s Design Review process.
II. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The existing site is sparsely wooded with pines and a few hardwoods. A tree survey has been performed for all trees 8” DBH and greater. Four hardwood trees 24” DBH and greater and two hardwoods less than 24” DBH will be assessed by a certified arborist to determine the viability of relocation on site as indicated on the Sketch Plan. One live oak greater than 24” DBH will be removed. Planning Staff has indicated their support of the required removal based on the condition of the tree and the proposed tree relocations. Tree removal and replacement must meet the requirements of the Town’s tree ordinance. The developer and his arborist will coordinate with the Town staff on proper measures to be taken prior to the relocation of the trees. In addition, existing building structures must be removed from TMS. Nos. 532-11-00-142 and 141. Elevations on the property range from Elev. 18 adjacent to Rifle Range Road to Elev. 15 at New Parrish Way. According to F.I.R.M. Panel # 45019C 0536 J, dated November 17, 2004, this property is located in Flood Zone X. Construction must comply with applicable FEMA and Town of Mount Pleasant requirements.
Existing public facilities such as wastewater, water, police, and fire protection, will be impacted by this development and will be compensated for through impact fees and taxes generated. Further explanation of these impacts and the means by which these costs will be funded is found in the Impact Assessment portion of this report.
Impacts on existing roadways through increased traffic demands are outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis and in the Impact Assessment section. Transportation Impact Fees generated by this development are further discussed in the Impact Assessment.
III. IMPACT ASSESSMENT A. Wastewater The projected average daily wastewater to be generated by the new development is calculated as follows:
= P= LAND USE SIZE WASTEWATER WASTEWATER GENERATION RATIO GENERATED (GPD) Retail Uses 35,000 s.f. 200 gpd/1000 s.f. 7,000
Residential Units 254 Units 300 gpd/unit 76,200
Total 83,200
This is the equivalent of 278 REU’s (Residential Equivalent Units, one REU equates to 300 gpd). The actual REU’s may be lower based on the number of one bedroom units developed. Based on the current impact fee structure of $4500.00 per REU, this development will generate $1,251,000.00 in sewer impact fees. Gravity sewer mains will be extended from New Parrish Way to serve all buildings in Phase Two. All sewer main construction shall be in accordance with Mt. Pleasant Waterworks’ requirements, and the system will be deeded to Mt. Pleasant Waterworks for ownership and maintenance upon completion and acceptance.
B. Water Supply The projected average daily water demand for the development is 278 REU’s, same as the wastewater generation. Based on the current impact fee structure of $2,000.00 per REU, this development will generate water impact fees in the amount of $556,000.00. Water service is available from an existing 12” water main that serves Phase One. A 10” or 12” main will be extended through Phase Two to serve all buildings. Fire hydrants will be located throughout the project to provide adequate coverage to all portions of the development. All water main construction shall be in accordance with Mt. Pleasant Waterworks’ requirements, and the system will be deeded to Mt. Pleasant Waterworks for ownership and maintenance upon completion and acceptance.
C. Telephone, Power, and Cable Television South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, AT&T, and Comcast Cable will be will be providing power, telephone, and cable services, respectively, to the project. These utility companies will install their cables underground in easements to be located outside of proposed water, sewer, and drainage easements. The utility companies will be required to avoid trees indicated to remain on the Sketch Plan.
D. Solid Wastes
Solid wastes generated by the development will be collected at planned refuse receptacle locations by private collection services. Therefore, there will be no impact at all to the Public Works Department of the Town of Mount Pleasant. This project will generate $ 10,008.00 in Public Services General Maintenance Fees based on $27/unit and $0.09/sf of commercial space. The developer requests a waiver from the Town for the impact fees for the residential units related to sanitation and refuse containers (total of $174.00 per unit) since these units will have no place to store the containers.
= Q= E. Transportation A Revised Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn Associates for the project, addressing access to the development, existing and proposed traffic volumes and distributions, and the affects of the project on the adjacent roadways. Based on the Town’s current impact fee structure, this development will generate the following transportation impact fees:
LAND USE SIZE IMPACT FEE RATE IMPACT FEE Retail Uses 35,000 s.f. $2.84/s.f $ 99,400.00 Residential Units 254 Units $663.73/unit $ 168,587.42 Total $ 267,987.42
F. Drainage
Stormwater from Phase Two will be collected and piped to the drainage system in Phase One, which ultimately drains to an offsite central detention pond which serves several parcels in the area. Since this pond was not sized to handle developed runoff from all Phase Two parcels, the existing Phase One detention pond will be enlarged to handle Phase Two runoff. The drainage facilities design for the development must be approved by the Town of Mount Pleasant and SCDHEC-OCRM. All construction must be in accordance with the town of Mount Pleasant Road Code.
G. Recreation
Due to the urban infill nature of this development, no active recreation areas other than the swimming pool and deck are provided on site. However, a series of plaza areas shared by adjacent buildings will be located at various places on the project. In addition, the residential portion of the development will generate $90,932.00 in recreation fees based on 254 units at a rate of $358.00 per unit.
H. Education
The future residents of the development would send their children to Whitesides Elementary School, Laing Middle School, and Wando High School. The Charleston County School District provided data for the following calculations:
254 units x 0.2 students/household = 51 students Total New Students = 51 (at build-out)
Whitesides Elementary School 24 new students (+/-) Laing Middle School 12 new students (+/-) Wando High School 15 new students (+/-)
= R= I. Police
The Mount Pleasant Police Department will provide police protection for this development. The residential portion of this project will yield approximately 500 new residents resulting in the addition of approximately 115 percent of one new police officer (based on the ratio of 2.3 officers per 1,000 population). Taxes and fees generated from this development and its residents will fund these additional personnel, as well as any equipment, facilities, etc. added. Based on the current Municipal Services Impact Fee for police service, this development would generate $17,526.00 from the residential units and $4,200.00 from the retail uses.
J. Fire Protection
The development will be served by an existing fire station located on McCants Drive. It is possible that the addition of 254 residential units and the retail uses would require additional personnel or equipment. However, impact fees and taxes generated by the development will fund these costs. The Fire Department portion of the Municipal Impact Fees for this project amounts to $58,674.00 for the residential units and $6,650.00 for the retail uses.
K. Environmental Resources
A survey of trees 8” DBH and greater has been performed for the site. A discussion of tree relocation and removal was included previously in this report. Removal of trees is to be approved by the Town of Mount Pleasant. Careful attention will be paid to proposed site grading to ensure the viability of saved trees. Trees identified as being preserved and bufferyard areas which are not to receive improvements will be protected prior to, during and after development in order to maintain the most effective screening of the development from adjacent properties (tree protection zones will be indicated on future submittals s required by the Town’s tree ordinance). Bufferyards shall maintain native vegetation where possible.
L. Cultural and Archaeological Resources
Since this site was previously partially developed, it is not anticipated that this tract possesses potential to contain significant cultural resources. Any site that may be discovered during construction will be recovered, catalogued, mitigated, and preserved.
M. Fiscal Considerations
It is estimated that the residential units will rent for $850.00 to $1600.00 per month. Based on an average value of $150,000.00 per unit and a 6% tax collection ratio, a value of $5,000,000.00 for non-residential uses with a 6% tax collection ratio, and current millage rates, this development will generate annual property taxes of approximately $468,000.00 for Charleston County and $100,000.00 for the Town of Mt. Pleasant. Building permit fees and plan review fees are expected to total $80,000.00 and $40,000.00, respectively.
A summary of the previously described impact fees to be generated by the development is as follows:
= S= Fee Total Sewer Impact Fees $ 1,251,000.00 Water Impact Fees $ 556,000.00 Transportation Impact $ 267,987.42 Fees Recreation Impact Fees $ 90,932.00 Municipal Services Impact $ 106,840.00 Fees Totals $2,272,759.42
N. Housing
The residential component of the mixed-use development is extremely important as it provides housing opportunities that will compliment the adjacent land uses and provide additional opportunities to live in close proximity to the increasing job opportunities nearby.
O. Mt. Pleasant Comprehensive Plan
The proposed infill development, including a mix of uses, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s stated goals of conserving natural resources, projection of an aesthetically pleasing community presence, optimization of investments in existing infrastructure, prevention of premature development of outlying lands, and sustenance of the character of existing residential areas. In addition, the following goals are addressed:
The mixed-use nature of the project will lead to a vibrant community in which there is activity 24 hours a day.
The project could provide places for Mount Pleasant residents to live in close to proximity to work. The project is also located within walking distance to shops, restaurants, schools, and many of the Town’s active and passive recreation opportunities, including sports fields, public parks, and waterways, thus promoting a healthy walkable community.
As an infill development, existing infrastructure will be utilized and will prevent encroachment on existing residential areas.
The project will attract quality, environmentally safe business to Mount Pleasant.
The project complies with the Urban Corridor Overlay District.
= T= IV. APPENDICES
=
= APPENDIX 1:
Charleston County Tax Map & Sketch Plan (From 2005 Submittal)
=
=
APPENDIX 2:
Charleston County Tax Map & Revised Sketch Plan (From 2007 Submittal)
=
=
Appendix 3:
Charleston County Tax Map & Revised Sketch Plan (2012 Submittal)
=
=
0' 15' 30' 60'
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: Proposal to amend Chapter 156, Mount Pleasant Zoning Code, Section 156.054, pertaining to Impact Assessment review for a development project that involves a change in use or an expansion in use, such that an Impact Assessment will only be required for that portion of a proposed development project that results in a net increase of impact for the new use compared to the previous use.
CURRENT TEXT: § 156.054 IMPACT ASSESSMENT. (A) Purpose and intent. The purpose of an impact assessment shall be to provide a basis for assessing a proposed major development project’s favorable or unfavorable impact on the town’s overall environment and infrastructure, with an emphasis on transportation, drainage and service provision. (B) Minimum threshold requirements. An impact assessment shall be required when one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) The proposed development is comprised of residential uses that are projected to generate more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips. (2) The proposed development is comprised of 40,000 square feet or more of nonresidential area, and is projected to generate more than more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips. (3) The proposed development is comprised of a combination of residential and nonresidential uses such that the residential component only is projected to generate more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips, and the nonresidential component consists of 40,000 square feet or more of area. (4) Projected peak hour vehicle trips shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Transportation Director.
PROPOSED TEXT: § 156.054 IMPACT ASSESSMENT. (A) Purpose and intent. The purpose of an impact assessment shall be to provide a basis for assessing a proposed major development project’s favorable or unfavorable impact on the town’s overall environment and infrastructure, with an emphasis on transportation, drainage and service provision. (B) Minimum threshold requirements. (1) New development of vacant land. An impact assessment shall be required when one or more of the following conditions are met: (a) The proposed development is comprised of residential uses that are projected to generate more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips. (b) The proposed development is comprised of 40,000 square feet or more of nonresidential area, and is projected to generate more than more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips. (c) The proposed development is comprised of a combination of residential and nonresidential uses such that the residential component only is projected to generate more than 75 peak hour vehicle trips, and the nonresidential component consists of 40,000 square feet or more of area. (d) Projected peak hour vehicle trips shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Transportation Director. (2) Redevelopment of improved property. An impact assessment shall be required for redevelopment projects when the net increase in both peak hour vehicle trips and building square footage meets the threshold requirements as noted in division (B) (1) of this section. The impacts assessed shall be predicated only upon the net increase of peak hour vehicle trips and building square footage.
Page 1 of 1
Framework Plan Appendix A
US 41
US 17
AIRPORT
WANDO HIGH SCHOOL JOB CENTER
r a n d i v e W o R PALMETTO ISLAND PARK LEGEND
Existing Community Node
BOONE HALL Proposed Community Node
I-526 SWEETGRASS Neighborhood Node BASKET OVERLAY Green Gateway JOB CENTER HAMLIN Neighborhood Character Districts FARMS PORT Existing Historic District Core Redevelopment Corridors Cultural Landscape District Proposed Open Space Job Center Primary Transit Corridor Isle of Palms Connector Bike & Pedestrian Corridor
Ravenel Planning Area Boundary Bridge ISLE Urban Growth Boundary OF PALMS PATRIOT’S Water Access Opportunity POINT Schools Parks
N 1/4 1/2 1 2 MILES FEET 2000 4000 8000
Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan 2009 - 2019 June 2009 Appendix B Recommended Bicycle Code Changes
CHAPTER 73: BICYCLES
GENERAL PROVISIONS
73.01 DEFINITION. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
BICYCLE. A device having two wheels, with tires 20 inches or more in diameter, connected by a frame of metal or wood, and arranged to be propelled by human power. This definition shall not apply to toy bicycles or velocipedes. ('81 Code, § 73.01) (Ord. passed 2-4-63)
DELETE: 73.02 License required; exceptions 73.03 Regulation of new and secondhand dealers 73.04 Regulation of rental agencies 73.05 Release of impounded bicycles 73.06 Bicycles not in possession of owner 73.07 Suspension; impoundment 73.08 Violations a noncriminal offense
DELETE: sections 73.20 thru 73.27 ‘Registration and Licensing’
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT
73.40 APPLICABILITY. The rules and regulations set out in this subchapter shall be observed in the operation of each bicycle on the streets and public places of the municipality. ('81 Code, § 73.30) (Ord. passed 2-4-63)
73.41 OPERATOR'S DUTY AS TO SAFETY. Every person operating a bicycle shall at all times operate such bicycle with due regard for the safety of other persons and vehicles lawfully on the streets, highways, parkways, and public places, as well as for his or her own safety, and shall at all times and under all conditions yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on the streets, highways, parkways, public places, and on the crosswalks. ('81 Code, § 73.31) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99
73.42 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC LAWS, SIGNS, AND SIGNALS. Appendix B Recommended Bicycle Code Changes
Every person operating a bicycle shall comply with all vehicle traffic laws, except where such laws, by their nature, do not apply to bicycles, and shall comply with all vehicle traffic signs and signals erected for the regulation of traffic. ('81 Code, § 73.32) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Rights and duties of bicyclist, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3420
73.43 LAMPS AND REFLECTORS. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a bicycle on the streets, highways, parkways, and public places of the municipality during the period of one- half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise unless such bicycle is equipped with a front light, casting a beam of white light in front of such bicycle visible for not less than 500 feet, also a red reflector on the rear which shall be visible from all distances from 50 feet to 300 feet to the rear when directly in front of the lawful upper beams of head lamps of a motor vehicle, but a lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. ('81 Code, § 73.33) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Lamps and reflectors, on bicycles, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3470 Time when vehicles must be equipped with lights, see S.C. Code § 56-5-4450
73.44 BRAKES AND CHAIN GUARDS. It shall be unlawful to operate a bicycle on the streets, highways, parkways, and public places of the municipality if such bicycle is not equipped with adequate brakes. ('81 Code, § 73.34) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Brake on bicycle, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3490
73.45 MANNER OF RIDING. It shall be the duty of all persons operating a bicycle to ride single file, in a straight line, and as near the right hand curb as possible, on all main highways and thoroughfares and in central business sections, and when riding on other streets will not ride in groups and more than two abreast. ('81 Code, § 73.35) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Riding on roadways and bicycle paths, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3430
73.46 HAND AND ARM SIGNALS REQUIRED. Before stopping, turning, or changing the direction of any bicycle on any street, highway, parkway, or public place, it shall be the duty of the bicycle rider to give the proper hand and arm signal as specified in S.C. Code § 56-5-2170 to indicate his or her intention to stop or to turn to the right or left. ('81 Code, § 73.36) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99
73.47 CLINGING TO MOVING VEHICLES. Appendix B Recommended Bicycle Code Changes
It shall be unlawful for any person operating a bicycle on any street, highway, parkway, or public place to attach himself to any other moving vehicle. ('81 Code, § 73.37) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Clinging to vehicles prohibited, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3450
73.48 NUMBER OF RIDERS. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a bicycle equipped for carrying only the operator to carry another person on the front or rear frame or handlebar of a bicycle. ('81 Code, § 73.38) (Ord. passed 2-4-63) Penalty, see § 73.99 Statutory reference: Manner of riding bicycle; number of persons which may be carried, see S.C. Code § 56-5-3440
DELETE: section 73.49 Trick riding
73.99 PENALTY. Any person over 17 years of age violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, on conviction in the municipal court therefor, in addition to the suspension or revocation of any license as mentioned in this section, be punished by the payment of a fine not to exceed $500 or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed 30 days. Any corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter, on conviction in the municipal court therefor, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500, which may be recovered by an action for debt, and by the suspension or revocation of any license mentioned in this chapter. However, no penalty shall exceed the penalty provided by state law for similar offenses. ('81 Code, § 73.99(D)) (Ord. passed 2-4-63)
Appendix B Recommended Streets and Sidewalks Code Changes
DELETE: 95.09 Roller skating and bicycle riding. No person shall skate on the public streets or sidewalks nor ride bicycles on the sidewalks except where permitted to do so by special notice erected by authority of the municipality.
Appendix B Recommended Zoning Code Changes
Add: 156.317(E)(5): Bicycle facilities. Multi-family developments in excess of 10 units must provide bicycle parking. Refer to section 156.177 for the full requirements.
Add: 156.177 Bicycle Parking Requirements.
(A) Spaces required. Bicycle storage and parking shall be required for multi-family residential developments and commercial developments at the time of the initial construction of any principal building; or when a structural alteration or other change in a principal building produces an increase in dwelling units, guest rooms, floor area, seating or bed capacity, or that changes the use so as to require more parking to serve that use, or when a conversion in use occurs.
(1) Multi-family parking requirement. Multi-family developments in excess of ten (10) units shall provide enough secure bicycle parking to accommodate ten (10) percent of the units at one rack/space per unit.
(2) Commercial parking requirement. Commercial developments and redevelopments of 6,000sf or more shall provide enough secure bicycle parking in accordance with the following chart:
Gross Floor Area Required Number of Minimum Bicycle . Parking Racks/Spaces 0 - 6,000 sq. ft. 1 6,001 - 10,000 sq. ft. 2 Over 10,000 sq. ft 1 per every additional 10,000 sq. ft.
(B) Parking requirement reduction. Commercial developments outside of the Urban Corridor – Overlay District may be eligible for up to a 10% reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces for developments or uses that make special provisions to accommodate bicyclists in addition to the required bicycle parking. Examples of accommodations include enclosed bicycle lockers, personal lockers, employee shower facilities and dressing areas for employees. A reduction in parking may not be granted merely for providing outdoor bicycle parking spaces.
Examples of Class 2 Bicycle accommodations. Left, William Sonoma interior bike room (San Francisco). Right, employee bike parking and showers (Tucson). Appendix B
(C) Design and Location. All bicycle parking is subject to design review. Required bicycle parking must:
(1) Consists of racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed and of solid construction, resistant to rust, corrosion, hammers, and saws;
(2) allow both the bicycle frame and the wheels to be locked using a standard U-lock;
(3) be designed so as not to cause damage to the bicycle;
(4) facilitate easy locking without interference from or to adjacent bicycles; and
(5) be located in convenient, highly visible, active, well-lighted areas, close to entrances, without interfering with pedestrian movements; and
(6) where provided for residential developments, must be protected from the elements; and
(7) where located in commercial parking lots, must utilize a paving material or surface different from the adjacent parking, and include parking islands located on each side of the bike facility to minimize vehicular conflicts. Parking islands must contain one 2.5 inch caliper tree.
Examples of protected bike parking for residential developments (left: Class 1 exterior parking, right: Class 2 interior parking)
Examples of Class 1 commercial development bike parking
TOMP Facilities Audit Appendix C
Public Accessible by Vehicle Facility Location Description Bike Racks Restrooms Sidewalks Parking Water passive park with pier & Pickett Bridge 990 Pitt St. kayak launch no no yes yes yes Duffie Baseball Complex 615 Center St. ballfields no* no yes yes no Town offices, municipal Town Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane court, gym and track no yes yes yes yes Town recreation facility 1 at Jones Center Egypt Road with gym, pool, fields entrance** yes yes yes yes Darby Building 302 Pitt St. Music/art activity rooms yes yes yes yes yes dock, boardwalk and small Shem Creek Park Coleman Blvd. at Shem Creek pavillion yes yes yes yes yes activity center, playground Remleys Point Community Center 363 6th St. & basketball yes yes no yes inside activity center, playground Greenhill Community Center 707 York St. & basketball yes yes no yes inside Miriam Brown Community activity center, playground Center 118 Royall Ave. & basketball yes yes yes yes inside assembly hall, field, & Alhambra Hall 131 Middle St. playground no yes no yes yes Memorial Waterfront Park Harry Hallman Boulevard pier, visitors center, park 1yes at yes yes yes yes ballfields, gym, pool & entrance Park West Facility 1251 Park West Blvd. recreation center 1ballfield at cold yes yes yes yes 5 soccer fields and war sub Patriots Point Soccer Complex 85 Patriots Point Blvd. playground memorial yes yes yes yes tennis courts, ball field & MP Tennis Complex Whipple Rd. playground no yes yes yes yes fitness room, café, aerobics Senior Center 840 Von Kolnitz room yes yes yes yes inside passive park with nature Kearns Park Wando Park Boulevard trails no no yes yes no Julian Weston Tennis Courts 330 Royall Ave tennis courts no no yes yes yes none at Farmers Market Pavilion 645 Coleman open air pavillions pavilion no yes nearby no Speights Field/Reid Field 530 Reid St. baseball fields no no no in ROW no Carolina Park Active/Passive Park Recreation Way fields no no yes TOMP Facilities Audit Appendix C
Fourth Street Dock 233 Fourth Avenue dock no no no yes no
* Duffie Field has racks at School but none at the fields. ** Jones Center has a rack at the front door but none at the field. Red text identifies those areas that can or should be improved Yellow fields still need to be verified Recommended Improvements Appendix D
Old Mount Pleasant Street Location Linear Feet Type of Path # of sides Cost Estimate Barbara St. From McCants to Center 1,680' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $58,800 Bellview Ave. From Ellis to McCants 1650' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $74,250 Center From Middle to Pitt 360' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $18,000 Center St. Entire length 6,880' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $309,600 Edwards St. From McCants to Center 1,675' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 Erckman Dr. From Coleman to Majore 1,820' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $63,000 Glencoe St. From McCants to Center 1,660' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $58,100 Goblet Ave. From McCants to Center 1,680' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $50,400 King St. From Fairmont to Erckman 1,520' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 Majore St. From Erckman to McCants 210' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $6,300 Mataoka St. From McCants to Center 1,700' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $68,000 McCants From Middle to Pitt 400' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $20,000 McCants Entire length 6,615' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $297,675 McCormick From Middle to Pitt 400' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $16,000 Middle From McCants to McCormick 940' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $37,600 Pherigo St. From Coleman to McCants 2,080' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $72,800 Pocahontas St. From McCants to Center 1,700' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $59,500 Royall From McCants to the end 2,875' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $129,375 Royall Entire length 6,760' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $304,200 Simmons Entire length 4,865' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $218,925 Venning From Whilden to Simmons 985' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $44,325 Waterworks Blvd. From Center 420' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $14,700
Small Gaps to Close Street Location Linear Feet Type of Path # of sides Cost Estimate Ben Sawyer Blvd. From Ben Sawyer to RRR 170' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $6,800 Park West Blvd. From Hwy 17 to the circle 375' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 $13,125 South Morgans Point Rd. From Hwy 17 to South Morgans Point Rd. 250' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 Recommended Improvements Appendix D
Neighborhood Connectors Street Location Linear Feet Type of Path # of sides Cost Estimate Hidden Cove, Oak Park & Hobcaw From Hidden Blvd. to Hobcaw Bluff Dr. along Creek Plantation easement? TBD Home Farm, Bay Club, North Point, New Parish Village, Riverwood, From Center St. Ext. to Rifle Range along MPW and Harbor Gate Shores property. 1,730' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Harborgate, Scotts Creek, From Island View Dr. to Scotts Creek Cir. and from Oakhaven Scotts Creek Cir. to Oaklanding Rd. 525' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 TBD Center St. Ext. From Ben Sawyer to New Trail 1,360' 1 TBD
Large-scale connectors Street Location Linear Feet Type of Path # of sides Cost Estimate Darrell Creek Trail Carolina Park Blvd. to Commonwealth 2,950' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Darrell Creek Trail Hwy 17 to Carolina Park Blvd. 5020' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Highway 41 Entire length 24,670' 10' Asph. 1 TBD Mathis Ferry Entire Length 16,000' 10' path 1 TBD National Drive Hwy 17 to Harleston Green Ln. 850' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 TBD National Drive Linksland to Victory Pointe Dr. 3,200' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Porchers Bluff From Rifle Range to Hwy 17 4,365' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Porchers Bluff Rd. Ricle Range Rd. to National Dr. 2,250' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Rifle Range Road From Six Mile to Porchers Bluff 11,400' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Seacoast Parkway entire length 5,425' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD Seacoast Parkway Ext. From terminus to Etiwan Point 4,350' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD South Morgans Point Rd South Morgans Point Rd. to National Dr. 1,950' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 TBD Von Kolnitz Mathis Ferry Rd. to Hospital Dr. 1,700' 5' conc. sidewalk 1 TBD Wando Park Blvd. Longpoint to Woodfield 4,655' 8'-10' Asph. path 1 TBD
Note: This list may not include all improvements that should be considered. Additional improvements may be identified later. Appendix E Parent Survey Summary
Program Name: SC Safe Routes to School- Month and Year February Lowcountry Collected: 2012
School Name: Cario Middle Set ID: 7280
School Enrollment: 1400 Date Report Generated: 03/27/2012
Enrollment within Grades Targeted by SRTS 1400 Number of 160 Program: Questionnaires Analyzed for Report:
Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 1400
This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.
Sex of children for parents that provided information
Page 1 of 16 Grade levels of children represented in survey
Grade levels of children represented in survey
Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent
2 1 1%
4 1 1%
5 2 1%
6 60 38%
7 55 35%
8 38 24%
11 1 1%
12 1 1% No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 2 of 16 Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school
Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school
Distance between Number of children Percent home and school
Less than 1/4 mile 5 3%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 7 4%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 12 8%
1 mile up to 2 miles 28 18%
More than 2 miles 107 67% Don't know or No response: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 3 of 16 Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Number School Family Time of Trip Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle
Morning 158 1% 3% 58% 34% 4% 0% 0%
Afternoon 157 4% 3% 68% 22% 4% 0% 0% No Response Morning: 2 No Response Afternoon: 3 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 4 of 16 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school
Page 5 of 16 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school
School Arrival
Number within School Family Distance Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Distance Bus Vehicle
Less than 1/4 mile 5 20% 20% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 7 14% 0% 29% 43% 14% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 12 0% 8% 50% 42% 0% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 27 0% 7% 44% 44% 4% 0% 0%
More than 2 miles 107 0% 0% 67% 29% 4% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
School Departure
Number within School Family Distance Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Distance Bus Vehicle
Less than 1/4 mile 3 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 7 14% 0% 57% 14% 14% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 12 8% 8% 83% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 28 7% 7% 50% 36% 0% 0% 0%
More than 2 miles 107 1% 0% 73% 21% 5% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 3 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 6 of 16 Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Less than 1/4 mile up 1/2 mile up 1 mile up More than Asked Permission? Number of Children 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile to 1 mile to 2 miles 2 miles
Yes 62 40% 86% 75% 68% 24%
No 97 60% 14% 25% 32% 76% Don't know or No response: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 7 of 16 Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school
Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school
Page 8 of 16 Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school
Issue Child does not walk/bike to school Child walks/bikes to school
Safety of Intersections and Crossings 69% 63%
Distance 66% 100%
Amount of Traffic Along Route 63% 63%
Speed of Traffic Along Route 59% 75%
Sidewalks or Pathways 35% 88%
Crossing Guards 34% 25%
Time 29% 75%
Weather or climate 28% 63%
Violence or Crime 18% 50%
Child's Participation in After School Programs 17% 38%
Adults to Bike/Walk With 12% 13%
Convenience of Driving 8% 38%
Number of Respondents per Category 131 8 No response: 21 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically.
Page 9 of 16 Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school
Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child
Page 10 of 16 Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child
Page 11 of 16 Comments Section
SurveyID Comment
774361 We live too far to bike or walk. Wish this survey was about the bus system. My child has to walk almost a 1/2 mile to the bus stop. Also they are OVERCROWDED!!!! 3 to a seat.
774358 I drive both my 6th and 9th gr students in my vehicle. I find that people drive wrecklessly and dangerously thru the school zones and even after picking up their own child. I am cut off daily by other parents who are in a rush to get to school and even by buses. Something has to change. People never stop when anyone is on a crosswalk, even when I walk my dogs.
774362 I do not allow my daughter to walk across Park West Blvd. to go to her dance lessons due to the amount of cars in the area at the time of dismissal, the speed at which they travel, and the carelessness of their actions.
774366 I would NOT let my child ride/walk to school unless there was a crossing guard at every main intersection and/or some type of bridge/etc.
774367 The amount of traffic is directly affected by the high school start and end times. Staggering these times with the middle and elementary schools would help. Crossing 4-lane divided roads is dangerous and should have been addressed by CCSD and the Town of Mt. Pleasant when the schools were built. There is no safe way to travel by bike to the high school from/to Park West.
774374 This has been an issue I have been fighting with the town of Mt. Pleasant for about 6 years. I have not been able to get anywhere with a satisfactory solution so I am very happy to see this survey. Beth Gill
774378 There are no bike paths or sidewalks on Rivertowne Parkway (a very busy road in and out of Rivertowne), and the intersection of that road with Hwy 41 is particularly daunting. If these two issues were resolved, I might even allow my daughter to leave extra-early to ride her bike the long distance to school. I would have preferred travel by bus, but they are overcrowded and filled with unruly children...how can that be conducive to learning?
774379 most of this survey does not apply as we live in Belle Hall and Cario is very far away. In elementary school at Belle Hall she would walk or ride frequently
774380 My child walks from Laurel Hill to Cario with a group of children. They usually like walking over and have fostered good friendships this way. PLUS it is GREAT exercise for all of them. Sometimes all the middle school stuff they have to carry is too much, but they make it! :-)
774403 We live to far to walk at this time, but I would encourage it if we lived closer to the school. We drop off and pick up every day.
774421 In our previous home our children walked to school for more than 14 years, because it was close, safe, and easy. Living more than 6 miles away and having to travel VERY busy roads with 45 mph speed limit (which is the slowest anyone actually goes) and with no sidewalks, is not conducive to biking. The weight of my daughter's backpack, ~25 pounds, also is a big hindrance to biking or walking a significant distance.
774503 IMy child used to walk to crossfit and orthodontist but since the accident, will not cross pw blvd. there is no crosswalk between cario and the business on pw blvd. There should be a crosswalk there as well as a school zone to slow the traffic down.
774596 It's a shame that it took a child being struck by a vehicle at a crosswalk near our school, before something was done about the safety of our children. There were MANY complaints before the accident and our town did nothing.
774603 Most of the faculty and staff in charge of dismissal in the car rider line at the end of the day at Cario have absolutely no clue what they are doing. There is no consistency from day to day on what the proper dismissal procedures are. This gives me, as a parent, serious pause and concern at entrusting my child's safety and well being to the faculty & staff in "charge" of dismissing walkers as they maneuver through traffic. It is increasingly difficult when there is an apparent lack of consistency and focus of attention on student safety.
774605 I could really get on a soapbox for this one. We recently moved to Mount Pleasant after living in Maryland and in Europe. . Having lived in Europe where mass transportation (metro, trams and bus) systems are part of the infrastructure as well as schools designed around local communities, where bike paths are common and bikers and pedestrians have the right-of-way, we understand what we signed up for, so I doubt there is much we can add to what you already know. Cario Middle School continues to struggle with the afternoon dismissal with so many car riders. My kids won't ride the school bus after school because it gets them home an hour later than if I pick them up. Many parents, myself included have circumvented the dismissal long line of cars because it takes so long though it is working better this year. So for now we will continue to use the bus as much as we are able to and get in the car when we have to.
Page 12 of 16 774607 We live too far away for walking or riding a bicycle. My answers might have been somewhat different if we lived closer. Specifically, question 9 where i would have let me kids go by themselves in 5th grade.
774617 I am extremely concerned for the safety of everyone on our route to school. Too many young and inexperienced teen drivers, parents late for work, and no one is paying attention! Police have done very little to help with this traffic nightmare.
774618 I am extremely concerned for the safety of everyone on our route to school. Too many young and inexperienced teen drivers, parents late for work, and no one is paying attention! Police have done very little to help with this traffic nightmare.
774622 Correct the area and situation before more are hurt or a lawsuit occurs
774624 The school does not provide bus service to/from our home. I would prefer that she NOT walk to and from school because the intersection/crosswalk is very dangerous but she does not have a choice.
774634 We purchased our home in Park West so that the children had the option to bike to school instead of always taking a bus or car ride. It is our opinion that the route is safe as long as kids check for cars pulling inand out of the various community entrances along the way. They only cross one road.
774692 having the option for my daughter to bike to school would be nice; however, I don't feel that it is safe d/t to the fast and distracted drivers. the bike paths in PW are GREAT, but there is that main trafic circle at GM and PW that scares the snot out of me.
774734 Would love it if there was a light with crossing signal for Highway 17. My child would love to ride a bike to school, and I would love to let it happen. But ... Highway 17 as it is now ... no!
774835 I think its ok to make parkwest blvrd speed slower in the school zone area. I would like to see speed humps at sidewalk/street crsgs or thick painted walk strips to remind folks to slow down and look for walkers/riders. We have had several walkers/riders hit at street crsgs with sidewalk. Also lets trim bushes so cars can see riders/walkers better at a glance. Remind walkers and riders to be careful and use caution(LOOK and LISTEN) when crossing. Maybe a caution light at apt crossing that can be made to turn to red when a button is pushed to allow crossing of the street on parkwest blvd.
775143 If my children didn't have oversized backpacks filled with very heavy texts, I would allow them to bike ride to school. To carry the loads that they are given currently would be detrimental to their health!
778294 My child doesn't have any way of contact to me if anything happens.
778569 We would let our daughter ride the bus home from school but the bus does not drop off to our neighborhood for an hour or more after school lets out,even though we live less than 4 miles from the school(It used to be 1 hour 15 minutes before they dropped the kids off in our neighborhood and the kids were getting home at nearly 5pm.) As it is now the bus riding kids get home at approximately 4:45PM. We would like to let her ride her bike to school, but we are concerned for her safety, especially if she were to be traveling alone, I think it would be a little far for her to walk as it is nearly 4 miles one way. We want her to have time to do her homework. I would love to have her ride her bike if the weather permits, its also a great stress reliever.
774348 We need more crossing guards and adults to ensure safety along the routes. I am okay as long as he is on the path but crossing busy PW blvd. and around the school with all the impatient cars and zooming busses is what makes me very nervous.
774359 The bike/walk route that our school uses is inconsiderate. It adds danger for the children. Directly behind our school is property belonging to the town parks and rec. dept. For unknown reasons children are not allowed to use this route although it would be safer, cut down on traffic and distance, and possibly encourage use of the park facilities for a healthier population. There are no residential neighborhoods, only congestion along the route the school insists upon currently and it forces the children to walk through more traffic. School zone signs with flashing lights during school traffic hours would help improve safety also. I personally know of pedestrian vehicle accidents that occurred along the current route and were never even reported because their were no substantial injuries. Changing the route and adding flashing lights at the dangerous cross walk are just two simple ways to greatly improve the safety of our children.
774444 My son occasionally rides his bicycle the 4.5 mile route from school to home. I have concerns about the safety of his riding across Dunes West Parkway and into our neighborhood (Dunes West). There is no marked crosswalk at this point. He can't use the earlier marked cross walks because there is no bike path on the other side of the parkway. The "fun" of the ride is proportional to the number of heavy textbooks he has in his backpack that day. :-) My fifth grader, at Pinckney Elementary, would like to ride his bike also, but the early school start (7:30 am) combined with the long ride (45 minutes) means he would be heading off in the dark. I do not trust cars to see him riding in the dark and thus have not allowed him to do so during the winter months. There are also really no stores or other businesses along this route where children could stop and safely ask to use a telephone if needed, so I have considered purchasing a mobile phone for him to carry on the days he rides.
774488 It would help if the school buses didn't break down all the time! they don't feel safe!
Page 13 of 16 774597 Rivertowne parkway has no bike paths or sidewalks safe enough for bicycles. I also would not want youngsters crossing highway 41.
774598 Mount Pleasant doesn't have the proper sidewalks/paths and safe crossways for children to ride a bike unless you live directly in Park West.It is a shame because this flat land is ideal for children and adults to bike everywhere.
774602 We would love to ride bikes to school if the route were safer and monitored by crossing guards but we realize the cost most likely prohibits this luxury.
774625 We have three boys who love to bike to school. We are over three miles away and I bike the route frequently to get groceries or stuff from Walmart, volunteer , etc. Intersections and crossings are our only concerns .I t takes 20 easy pace minutes to bike from front of Dunes West FYI to schools.
774626 We have three boys who love to bike to school. We are over three miles away and I bike the route frequently to get groceries or stuff from Walmart, volunteer , etc. Intersections and crossings are our only concerns .I t takes 20 easy pace minutes to bike from front of Dunes West FYI to schools.
774639 We would definitely bike or walk to school if we lived a little closer than our 5 miles and there were some monitored cross walks. Dunes West and Park West (our adjoining communities) have excellent bike/walk paths all the way to school that should be utilized by many more students. It's amazing to see kids being picked up by buses only a half mile from school. We have the paved paths to get them there, but maybe the parents would like to see crossing guards. ALSO what I think is a bigger problem is the number of parents driving their kids to school and clogging up the roads rather than have them ride the bus. The school needs to discourage so many "car riders". To do so they will have to improve the efficiency and reliability of the buses. I have never lived anywhere else where it was okay for buses to just not show up or be super late without any communication to the parents.
774696 My child walked to school at our previous residence from kindergarten to 3 rd grade, the majority of the children walked. the schools here are not close to neighborhoods and it precludes walking or biking to school
774701 My son rode his bike for 2 years until he was struck by a car turning into the Rec Center to pick up her child from Cario. He nearly went through the windshield. No one would stay to witness the accident, including a Cario teacher after my son was removed by an ambulance. The driver convinced MPPD that he was at fault, he was ticketed and we had to pay for the damages to her car. I will never trust the parents coming and going from the schools again. And my son will never ride his bike to school again. And I have no faith that Cario will stop the parents from using the Rec Center to pick up their children. And I will never trust the MPPD to treat the victims of road crimes fairly, especially under age children.
774703 If there were safer crossings, I would bike with all 3 of my children. The weather is beautiful and I think exercise is very important. It also could be faster.
778556 We found it much more convenient and faster to bike to school when the back entrance to Cario/ Pinckney (from the Rec-center) was still open and we didn't have to ride all the way on that narrow bike path right beside heavy traffic. Would really appreciate if they would open that gate again for arrival and dismissal time.
778562 I think that crossing guards need to be added to park west blvd. at each intersection that children need to cross. I grew up in a town where I live more than two miles from the school but would walk and ride my bike. My parents allowed this because we had crossing guards. I think it is sad that there are no crossing guards in parkwest.
774372 I have had a student hit by a car by a parent talking on a cell phone that was in a hurry and picking up her child in an unauthorized area. I am not sure that enough people will take responsibility of themselves and their driving to slow down, stay off their phones, and keep their eyes on the road for me to let my kids walk or bike to school.
774636 I am more concerned about the long carline parents should be able to walk up and pick there kids up rather than waiting in the Carline for an hour. Especially for middle school students!
774637 I am more concerned about the long carline parents should be able to walk up and pick there kids up rather than waiting in the Carline for an hour. Especially for middle school students!
774640 My child's orthodontist is across the street from school. Prior to the most recent accident- where a schoolmate was struck while crossing the street in front of school; I would have her walk to the orthodintist for her 4 pm appointments, and I would meet her there after work. She has told me that she is petrified to cross the 4 lanes of traffic on PW blvd. in front of school. There is no crosswalk, and traffic is very heavy. I will either schedule her appontments later, and take her when I get home from work; or I will have to leave work early to pick her up and take her across the street to her appt. Unfortuneately, there is no safe passage currently for children to get across Park West Blvd. to any of 2 othodintists, a dentist, a pediatrician,an optician, a physical therapy office, a gym, and several other business establishments.
774641 My child has asked to ride her bike but I will not allow her to due to having to cross Hwy 41
Page 14 of 16 774689 I drive my daughter to Cario every morning because the buses in the morning were very unreliable in the mornings at the beginning of the year. Several times she was still waiting for the bus to pick her up and the first bell had rung at school. No communication with parents when there are bus issues at the end of the day is an issue as well. My daughter was 30 minutes late getting home one day - no one told the kids what was going on and no one notified the parents that there was an issue with their bus and that they were waiting for another bus. VERY disappointed in the bus service.
774691 Biking to school is really not even a consideration for us. We are simply too far for them to ride. If we lived closer, I may be inclined to let them bike (from time to time). Another concern is the amount of traffic. I would worry about them navigating. I just feel safer having them ride the bus. There is a sense of peace that comes with watching them climb onto the bus. We know they are headed straight to school.(and not stopping along the way to chat with friends, etc.)
774695 We have major issues with people not only speeding on Park West Blvd but through the school zone inside the loop itself. I do the speed limit and get tailgated and sped around frequently, this is another issue that has not allowed me to let my child walk/bike to school. I have (almost) four children now and it would be a huge help for her to be able to walk herself to school.
774351 There is no way I would allow my kids to walk or bike to school because they have to cross Highway 41.
774576 My oldest child has not had a problem with biking to shool when he needs to. My daughter who is a 7th grader at Cario Middle school however was hit by a car in Sept 2011 while crossing in a crosswalk. While the route to thier school is generally safe in most areas, there really should be a crossing guard at the busy intersections.
774638 Area needs more crosswalks. All the talk about crosswalks in Park West is great BUT there is not a single one from Dunes West to the bike trail!!! Hundreds of kids pick up city school buses at Thomas Lynch Hall and have to dodge traffic to get across the street. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt there! There needs to be a sidewalk to cross park west blvd at this end as well
774642 I would like to see a community service/ crosswalk attendant at the intersection of parkwest blvd and cario blvd (road leading to school) when the students are dismissed in the afternoon to assist them in crossing parkwest blvd. THIS SHOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CROSS PARKWEST BLVD. I would also like to see a "reduce speed limit during school hours" sign and a yellow flashing light going BOTH directions on parkwest blvd. At most of the other school, if not all the other schools, the major roads near the schools (ex. Mathis Ferry Road at Von Kolnitz and Chuck Dawley at Myrick/Calais Rd) are attended by a crosswalk guard for students who walk from school and will be crossing those busy roads to get home. I would also like to see the town remove all the vegetation in the medians, all along parkwest blvd from Hwy 17 north past the recreation dept., for the safety of cars and pedestrians. We have police officers in the morning directing traffic to and from the school, but we seem to be forgetting about the students who walk and bike, particularly after school.
774643 Based on the way that the bike paths and crossings are set up along the Park West Blvd. currently, and the lack of crossing guards and speed/amount of morning traffic, I do not believe that is completely safe for my child to bike to school
777530 needs to be a light installed .
778568 Bus is abysmal 45 minutes to go 3 miles?! But that's a long walk when back packs weigh more than a USMC Rucksack! Teachers/school need to change that first as son rarely uses 1/8th at night for what he has to lug daily. Stupidity of the highest order.
774697 We live too far away from school for me to even consider letting my child bike or walk to school.
774698 My child is too far from the school to walk or bike. We also live along two major highways. We tried letting her ride the school bus but became concerned when we were told children had to stand for lack of seats available and transport took longer than an hour in the evening. We now provide transport to and from the school.
775018 Cars drive too fast on the main roads and in the subdivisions. I think they need to have more speed bumps and police in the neighborhoods
774356 traffic safety and violence, crime are top reasons to not allow kids to bike/walk. Also, the kids are ALREADY exhausted from long and difficult days at school.
774365 The weight of the backpacks the kids must carry makes it physically impossible to even consider walking or biking to school. While there are bike paths, the volume of traffic is too high to be safe to safely cross the streets or intersections. A crossing light is a must for in front of the PW Rec Dept. cross walk!! There are blind spots due to trees and bushes for the bike paths which drivers don't see.
774620 Our children are slightly built girls who carry backpacks and instruments which makes walking or biking very difficult and unsafe. However, biking/walking was never discussed as an option at our house due to the high amounts of traffic and obvious lack of crossing guards at intersections. Thank you for caring enough to initiate this survey. May your results be successful!
Page 15 of 16 781925 New to the school x 2 months; uncertain of amount of encouragement the school gives related to walking/biking. Police traffic assistance is very nice when I have occassionally dropped off in morning.
774516 Walking to school is not an option for us because we live about six miles from school. However, if we lived within walking distance, I would allow my child to walk or bike to and from school if there were safer crosswalks and bike paths.
774645 My child does not walk or bike and will never.
774700 I wish people that were waiting on the bell to ring in the morning would park in the parking lot instead of holding up traffic in the car rider line while waiting for the bell to ring. It has caused many problems for people in the morning that are trying to drop off the correct way!!!!!!
Page 16 of 16 Parent Survey Summary
Program Name: SC Safe Routes to School- Month and Year January Lowcountry Collected: 2012
School Name: Moultrie Middle Set ID: 7206
School Enrollment: 940 Date Report Generated: 03/27/2012
Enrollment within Grades Targeted by SRTS 940 Number of 144 Program: Questionnaires Analyzed for Report:
Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 900
This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.
Sex of children for parents that provided information
Page 1 of 14 Grade levels of children represented in survey
Grade levels of children represented in survey
Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent
6 49 34%
7 52 36%
8 43 30% No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 2 of 14 Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school
Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school
Distance between Number of children Percent home and school
Less than 1/4 mile 12 9%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 11%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 19 14%
1 mile up to 2 miles 21 15%
More than 2 miles 70 51% Don't know or No response: 7 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 3 of 14 Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Number School Family Time of Trip Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle
Morning 142 0.7% 23% 21% 38% 17% 0% 0%
Afternoon 141 4% 24% 23% 29% 19% 0% 0% No Response Morning: 2 No Response Afternoon: 3 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 4 of 14 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school
Page 5 of 14 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school
School Arrival
Number within School Family Distance Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Distance Bus Vehicle
Less than 1/4 mile 12 8% 75% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 0% 60% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 19 0% 68% 5% 26% 0% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 21 0% 5% 24% 62% 10% 0% 0%
More than 2 miles 70 0% 0% 34% 36% 30% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 7 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
School Departure
Number within School Family Distance Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Distance Bus Vehicle
Less than 1/4 mile 12 17% 75% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 13% 60% 0% 27% 0% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 19 5% 68% 5% 21% 0% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 21 5% 5% 33% 38% 19% 0% 0%
More than 2 miles 69 0% 1% 35% 32% 32% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 8 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 6 of 14 Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Less than 1/4 mile up 1/2 mile up 1 mile up More than Asked Permission? Number of Children 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile to 1 mile to 2 miles 2 miles
Yes 65 92% 87% 84% 57% 19%
No 71 8% 13% 16% 43% 81% Don't know or No response: 8 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Page 7 of 14 Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school
Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school
Page 8 of 14 Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school
Issue Child does not walk/bike to school Child walks/bikes to school
Distance 76% 91%
Safety of Intersections and Crossings 64% 48%
Amount of Traffic Along Route 62% 58%
Speed of Traffic Along Route 55% 45%
Sidewalks or Pathways 41% 67%
Weather or climate 28% 55%
Time 27% 42%
Crossing Guards 24% 45%
Violence or Crime 20% 27%
Child's Participation in After School Programs 9% 9%
Adults to Bike/Walk With 8% 9%
Convenience of Driving 7% 3%
Number of Respondents per Category 85 33 No response: 26 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically.
Page 9 of 14 Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school
Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child
Page 10 of 14 Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child
Page 11 of 14 Comments Section
SurveyID Comment
761968 The children who ride their bicycles to and from Moultrie Middle School do not practice safe riding habits and/or follow the rules of the road. They create very dangerous conditions for themselves and other students who ride, walk or carpool.
761969 I would love to see a better bike area for the kids to park their bikes. Maybe a open shed area which is covered and has rows of bike racks. I don't think the area now is large enough.
761971 I feel that the careless drivers on Coleman Blvd. make it very improbable that I would ever allow my children to cross that road at any point. Even with a crossing guard, I have witnessed multiple times when drivers have ignored the crossing guard either deliberately or from simply not paying attention at all.
761977 My daughter doesn't walk to school because she is in band and orchestra and must take both instruments to and from school every day. Also, her backpack is quite heavy. Other than that, I think it would be great to have her walk to school with neighbors; she would be reluctant to walk by herself.
761979 My child does not attend her "home" school because I teach here. However my fifth grader I would allow to walk or bike to school if there had been a sidewalk. He would be killed on Rifle Range Road without a sidewalk.
761981 Daughter does not really enjoy riding her bike to/from school because she has to take her musical instrument back and forth (violin). I think if it were not for the violin, she would enjoy riding her bike to/from school more. Many of her friends ride their bikes. My 8th grade son rides his bike also.
762010 My daughter lives too far away from Moultrie to ride her bicycle. In elementary school, she was able to ride her bike due to the close proximity of her school.
762022 The current bikers need to be monitored more. So many ride down the center of streets - dart from sidewalks to street with no regard for cars or oncoming traffic. Shocking that more bike injuries or worse has not happened. In my three years of driving to MMS and back - I can count the amount of bikers wearing helmets on one hand.
762032 I absolutely love this, and we rode our bikes all the time to James B. Edwards. However, I do not care if you had a police escort, but there is no way my child is riding her bike from Mathis Ferry to Coleman even though she has asked. It is too dangerous with all the construction. I greatly appreciate you asking for our input, and I look forward to the healthy students.
762036 Would be great to offer public transport from Moultrie with stops along the Rifle Range Road corridor SOUTH of the IOP Connector
762066 WE live in Awendaw so this survey does not apply to us.
765708 Providing children the opportunity to walk or bike to school is important for their physical health, respect and awareness of the environment, and independence. We should encourage every opportunity for children to do this in all schools. If schools do not have a safe environment for these activities, we have to make the environment safe. We also have to educate parents who are driving on how to be safe around bikers and pedestrians. We are such a car-centric society, people do not know how to drive safely around them.
765709 I would rather have my child ride the bus. Unfortunately, a bus does not come near our neighborhood.
766015 The only reason my child doesn't ride her bike to school is because of her musical insturment.
766400 We live on the Citadel Campus and we pay someone to drive her to school each day as I teach in North Charleston and my husband is deployed.
766441 Thanks for the survey. I suggest you put some parking gravel on Ellis St near the bike racks to cover the dirt as it gets muddy in the rain.
761964 I have no problem allowing my 6th grader to ride to/from school, and I don't really know of any kids having had any problems doing so. I am not ready to let my 3rd grader ride to school by herself, though. I just don't think it's a good idea.
761973 We live off of Long Point Road so it would be impossible for our children to ride or bike to school.
761984 Moved to Mt Pleasant July 2011 and purposely renting a home near Moultrie in hopes of riding the bus or walking/riding bike would have been feasible. 1) was unable to secure a bus route from school or Dunham bus service 2)traffic and safety of my child is most important to be assured a safe route to and from school when riding alone.
762005 I feel area around school is adequate for walkers & riders.
Page 12 of 14 762012 I would feel more comfortable if there were more cross guards on busy intersections and more bike paths
762023 Specifically - crossing Shem Creek bridge is what concerns us most about his ride to school (narrow sidewalk on bridge and plenty of oncoming traffic)
762030 mount pleasant does not have a bicycle friendly roadway. I'm worried for experienced adults and would never permit my child ride a bike to school.
762037 I would love for my child to ride his bike but there are too many large intersections between our house and the school - filled with adults driving to work each morning.
762052 We live on Sullivan's Island. When the elementary school was on the island we biked or walked every day except in cases of inclement weather. As transfer students to Moultrie, the distance does not make biking or walking practical at elementary or middle school ages. (traffic safety + distance) One would think those living in the Old Village would bike or walk. Those bikers who do ride need a refresher course on how to merge into vehicular traffic when departing school. I have had many children dart in front of me/between cars when departing school.
762058 Our student normally goes by bike unless its raining; then it's very close and convenient to take him and drop him off by car as well. Both of our children also biked to elementary school some of the time.
762067 Distance from the school and safety are the biggest reasons my son does not ride his bike to school at this time.
762071 Moultrie does a great job helping walkers/bike riders to get around campus. Our neighborhood (Cooper Estates) has one street-Pelzer- from Cottingham to Coleman that is treacherous. That's a town issue. Love Moultrie.
765687 The most important factor in my concern regarding my son biking to school is his ADHD. He is distracted and doesn't always look carefully at intersections.
765695 I answered 5th grade on question #9--That is my answer for my male 7th grader--not sure what I would say for my now 3rd grade daughter. I would like her to bike, but only with a group of friends. Also, she has Diabetes and needs sto learn to manage herself first.
765719 My child rides his bike to school everyday and the greatest safety factors I observe are: the parents dropping off and picking up on side streets and the speed and apparent disregard in which the buses enter and exit the school grounds.
766413 There are some safety issues at the intersection by the bike racks where cars are going every way and trying to turn into the school and numerous children are trying to cross the street and there is no safety crossing or guard. The only guard is on Coleman Blvd. My son almost got hit by a car several weeks ago from a mother who was not paying attention. A guard would be VERY helpful. Thank you.
761965 My child (Moultrie Middle) complains about parents parking around the bike area because they don't want to wait in line, which, she says, has nearly led to a few minor accidents. I would feel my children would be much safer if parents were only allowed to use the student pick-up line instead of parking in their cars where all of the students are walking or riding their bikes.
761970 Crossing jobs do an excellent job. However, the drivers are the problem. Wish there was more of a police presence to deter running red lights and speeding. Crossing guard was hit by a vehicle disregarding her stop sign. Majority of traffic issues stem from number of parents that drive to school. Should encourage more bus riders, walkers and bikers.
762024 She frequently carries a lot of books to/from school. This would also be an issue.
762035 There should be a stop sign at the intersection of Venning and Whilden. B/c of St. Andrews Church, you cannot see around the corner until you are almost totally in the road. Cars come flying by there way too fast and there are near misses daily.
762042 My child I would not like to ride her bike lives to ar and to much trafic. Would be dangerous.
762063 Many of the kids riding bikes/skate boards to and from this school do so in an unsafe manner. They ride in middle of streets, against the traffic and often with no regard or attention to car traffic.
765710 We live near the Wando port. The only way to get to Moultrie involves a four lane highway (Longpoint Drive) and then Interstate 526. Not really sure what could be done about this. There's rally no way I would even see myself biking from our house to Moultrie and I biked to and from work for 3 years in Boston.
765735 Biking was an option in elementary school. Distance/traffic take it off the board for middle school. One high school 10 miles away makes it impossible. Not to mention backpacks that weigh 20 pounds. It's a good thought but only for neighborhoods directly across the street from the schools.
Page 13 of 14 767856 There is a 315 unit townhouse complex proposed to be built on Coleman and King Streets between my daughter's school and our house. I would like a bike path and side walk to be included in this construction on King Street from Erckmann Drive to Simmons Street. We should consider more speed bumps on King, Erckmann & Pherigo and bike paths for Center Street, McCants and Simmons. These traffic calming devices would take some cars off the road and lighten the considerable impact of an additional 315 families in our neighborhood.
761966 I encourage biking since he rides with several friends that meet each a.m. I am anxious about having him bike by himself as they have to cross many busy streets prior to reaching the crossing guard to come onto school property.
762009 Concerned about the corner of Simons Street and the street that is behind Moultrie near the bike rack. I would like to suggest a crossing guard at that point. Simmons Street becomes conjested and people on cellphones concerns me.
762053 Our family rode bikes to elementary school every year and only ride in a carpool now because of the long distance from our home to the middle school.
762073 I would encourage my child to walk or cycle to school, but we live in Hobcaw Point. The distance is not such an issue but crossing 17 does discourage me from from allowing him to get to and from school independantley
762082 before moving last month, we lived nearer to the school and both boys rode bikes to and from. Now, because we live on the other side of hwy 17 from the school, there is no safe way/place for them to cross that highway on bikes and so must take school bus, which none of us like.
762100 I am concerned about car traffic and speed on two of the main roads - Pherigo & Fairmont.
765718 Moultrie kids are everywhere when school lets out.I think signs and safe crosswalk areas with lights makes it a better culture of safety for our kids. All drivers in Mount Pleasant need to be more aware of bikers and walkers in general. Thanks for conducting the survey!
766275 My child has to ride on the sidewalk to school from our house. The sidewalk abruptly stops in one area, causing the students to ride around it into oncoming traffic. Also, the cars nose up to the intersections to turn right on red and have hit one child in our neighborhood who was crossing the small intersection on his green light, the car's red light. When he was hit he was knocked into the road into oncoming traffic.
762057 The area of my concern is Pelzer Drive in Cooper Estates where there are no side walks and "blind" curves.
766438 We live 25 miles from school; this survey is irrelevant to us.
761978 Because we live outside the MMS district carpooling/driving to school is our only option. IF we lived near the school, I would allow my 7th grader to ride a bike or walk WITH another student.
765696 My son would ride his bike if there was a safe route.
762059 As we live on the other side of 17N from MMS, this question of walking/biking is really a moot point. There are no bike lanes or crossing guards between our home and school. The traffic is too fast and congested, there is road construction, and it would take too long on foot or bike. Simply not a viable option for our family.
762054 Our children biked to JBE because it was a safe distance from the house. Moultrie and later Wando are to far to either walk or bike.
762060 Because we live on the Isle of Palms, walking won't ever be an option due to distance. I can say that the area around the school during drop-off and pick-up times is a nightmare. The parking area in front of the school is much too small, and cars get backed up and/or block the throughway. Around the side and back of the school, cars are parked all along the the narrow streets (usually halfway in the street), and I've seen kids pop out from between the parked cars on several occasions. On Farmers Market days, the situation is even worse. Market customers should NOT be allowed to park in the school lots until 4pm. In addition to taking up all of the parking spaces, they hold up the pick-up line, because the idiots will just sit there waiting for someone else to pull out of a spot. There's a huge lot across the street at the shopping center that market customers can use.
765921 Kya does not wallk or ride a bile due to the freeway. Too far and to dangerous. I am grateful that Moultrie Middle picks her up by bus. Thank you.
Page 14 of 14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Committee FROM: Christiane Farrell RE: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Update/ 218 Venning Zoning Request DATE: June 28, 2012
At the October Planning Committee meeting staff provided the Committee with an overview of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures in Old Mount Pleasant. This report explained the history of development in Old Mount Pleasant and further explained how some of the nonconformities came to be. During the meeting it was discussed that staff would continue its review of the Old Mount Pleasant area and would make recommendations to the Committee regarding nonconforming properties at the November meeting.
In further studying nonconformities in Old Mount Pleasant, staff considered two things. First, per the Zoning Code, nonconformities in the use and development of structures, buildings, and land are to be avoided and eliminated wherever and whenever possible in order to promote the general welfare and to protect the character of the surrounding area. By this, nonconforming uses are considered undesirable and no longer lawful and as such should be eliminated when possible. Staff’s second consideration, however, was that many of the lots, structures, and uses that are considered nonconforming in Old Mount Pleasant have been in existence for years, many before zoning was even adopted by the Town. A number of these nonconformities are now an integral part of Old Mount Pleasant and by many people may not be considered undesirable.
Recognizing that nonconformities in Old Mount Pleasant is a matter that needs to be addressed but also that the character of Old Mount Pleasant is equally important, the best approach to addressing this issue is the development of a neighborhood plan, similar to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan to create Neighborhood Character districts. Old Mount Pleasant likely has more nonconformities than any other area of Town. Trying to address this matter through rezoning and using existing zoning districts as a one size fits all approach to address these issues may not be the best approach. Finding a balance between those nonconformities that are undesirable and those that are an integral part of Old Mount Pleasant and that contribute to its character can be accomplished by creating a neighborhood plan and adopting corresponding zoning amendments.
If it is the desire of the Planning Committee or Town Council for staff to proceed with the development of a neighborhood plan, this will take time and public input. If the Committee or Council would prefer that staff proceed instead with rezoning of individual parcels to address nonconformities, this too will take time. The Town currently has a pending application to rezone a property located at 218 Venning Street that has a nonconforming use. This current zoning request will need to be addressed before the Town would be able to develop a neighborhood plan for this area, assuming that is desired by Town Council. A review of this rezoning request is provided below.
218 Venning Street is currently zoned R-2. The requested zoning is MF, Multifamily. The existing building has three condominium units. The property is in a horizontal property regime with two different property owners. The Planning Commission recommended
Non-conforming Uses Page 2 of 2
denial of this request. The Planning Committee recommended deferral of this request so that the matter of nonconformities in Old Mount Pleasant could be further studied.
Rezoning to MF would make the current use a conforming use.
This property is 0.16 acres, or 6,969 square feet. Per the Zoning Code, for properties less than one acre in size for the purpose of subdivision or development, the density provisions of Section 156.104 do not apply, but instead the minimum lot standards for the zoning district applies.
MF zoning requires 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit so by this only two dwelling units could be constructed back on this lot. However, this particular property is located within the Old Village Historic Overlay District and has been identified as a historic structure.
The Old Village Historic District Commission can consider historic buildings to be conforming with respect to height, yard, area, and other dimensional requirements if the OVHDC finds those to be of historic significance. As the existing structure is currently situated, it does not meet the required setbacks for the MF district but since the structure is historic, the OVHDC would be able to allow a setback reduction should the existing building be destroyed and proposed to be rebuilt. Along these same lines, the OVHDC may also be able to consider a reduction in the required 2,500 square foot lot size to allow an additional unit for a total of three units on the site as exists today. It should be stressed though that the Commission can only allow modifications to dimensional requirements if the Commission finds those dimensions to be of historic significance.
If Planning Committee and Council approve the requested rezoning, Council may also want to consider a text amendment addressing short term rentals in the Old Village Historic Overlay District. A concern expressed at the public hearing for this zoning request was that a prohibition of short term rentals only applies to those properties zoned R-2. In order to address the concern regarding the potential for short term rentals on other residential properties, the Zoning Code could be amended to prohibit short term rentals for all residential properties in the Overlay District.
/cf