There has been great controversy about the gathering place being developed on Maybank highway near Folly Road. The location has been under City of Charleston jurisdiction for many years and it has also had the City's "Gathering Place" zoning for some time. This made it very difficult to put any limit on the development, though the recent moratorium passed by City Council might help.
The City of Charleston Comprehensive Plan proposes a Gathering Place near the corner of Fort Johnson and Folly Road as well. However, none of the parcels are zoned for Gathering Place. The Fort Johnson side of the intersection is in the Town and as part of the Folly Road overlay, it has an office residential zoning, though a few parcels are zoned neighborhood commercial. The Grimball Road side of Folly is in the City of Charleston and is heavily commercial, including two shopping centers. City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson has promised me that she would fight any effort to rezone the parcels to gathering place. Even though Gathering Place is in the City's plan, the massive apartment complexes and high rises allowed in a gathering place can only be built if Charleston City Council approves a rezoning.
To my surprise, with little fanfare, Charleston County introduced its own version of "Gathering Place" zoning, though the official name is "Mixed Use Overlay." This overlay can be applied anywhere in the unincorporated area of the County with a commercial zoning. It involves shops and apartments, just like a gathering place. And if 14 percent of the housing is designated as low cost housing, there are no fixed density or height limits. Like the City of Charleston's gathering place zoning, gargantuan apartment complexes can be constructed.
Developers have proposed a project between South Grimball and the Brickhouse Restaurant--not far from where the City of Charleston's plan calls for a Gathering Place. It will include shopping, 330 apartments and two 4 story parking garages.
The parcel was in the Town before 2011, and it has been zoned community commercial for many years. When the Town was incorporated in 2012, this parcel remained in unincorporated Charleston County because it is separated from the Town by areas under City of Charleston jurisdiction.
If the parcel was in the Town, then up to 40 apartments could have been combined with shops on the parcel. Personally, I am very supportive of mixed use development and consider the outmoded concept of completely separated residences, shopping and work undesirable. However, the number of people (and especially cars) that our infrastructure, particularly Folly Road, can support is limited.
Since the parcel is in unincorporated Charleston County, denser development has always been possible than in the Town. With the community commercial zoning, up to 120 apartments could be placed on the parcel.
It is also part of the Folly Road overlay. The version of the Folly Road Overlay negotiated by the City of Charleston, City of Folly Beach, Town of James Island, and Charleston County had this general area zoned residential, with development quite limited--3 single family residential units per acre. Charleston County modified its version of the overlay to make this area neighborhood commercial. If you recollect, this was an initiative of Councilwoman Anna Johnson. However, in both the original Folly Road Overlay and the County's adjusted version, this particular parcel remained community commercial, which as explained above, would allow up to 40 multi-family dwellings in the Town and up to 120 in unincorporated Charleston County.
But that is before the "Mixed Use Overlay" is applied. That is why they can propose 330 apartments. At least 14 percent of the apartments will have to be low and moderate income. (About 45 of them.)
The County's version of Gathering Place, the "Mixed Use Overlay," cannot be applied in any other overlay district unless that other district allows for it. Again, with no fanfare, and certainly with no notification to the Town, the County's version of the Folly Road Overlay was modified to give the County's version of Gathering Place priority.
I believe an investigation of exactly how this change made it through the County Planning Commission and County Council is needed. So far, I have not been able to find anyone who can explain how and when it was passed.
Looking at the County's ordinance authorizing their version of gathering place, it appears that County Council must approve any increase in density beyond what is normally allowed--that is, for this project, almost tripling the amount of apartments usually allowed, from 120 to 330. However, I have heard that "County legal" has determined that it can be approved on a "staff level."
There are many grand trees on the parcel. I walked it a couple of years ago when we looked at it for the site of a Town park. The developers will need a variance to take some of the trees down. Also, the proposed parking garages are so big they will also need a variance. The developers must request the variances from the County Board of Zoning Appeals. There will be a public hearing, which probably will be no earlier than March, and more likely in April.
There will also be at least four public meetings on James Island. It is my understanding that while Councilwoman Anna Johnson wanted all meetings held at James Island Elementary, Councilman Qualey insisted that they be held in various locations. It is likely that at least one of them will be held at James Island Town Hall. Also, at some point, the Town will get a formal "letter of information" regarding the project as required by the Folly Road Overlay District.
While we are only beginning to learn about the County's version of "Gathering Place" and what it will mean for development and traffic on James Island, there is one lesson that is clear. We need to get the Town reunited. If this parcel had been returned to the Town, this massive over-development would not be happening. There are bills in Columbia right now that would provide an opportunity for those who were left out of the Town to join us. If that can be accomplished, we will not face similar surprises in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment