2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW C HA R LESTO N C O UN TY P LA N N - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

C HA R LESTO N C O UN TY P LA N N IN G C O M M ISSIO N M EETIN G J ULY 8 , 2 0 1 3

2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW

TODAY’S AGENDA: LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW

• Urb a n Gro wth Bo unda ry – K

ia wa h Rive r Pla nta tio n

• F

uture L a nd Use De sig na tio ns

• Pa rks, Re c re a tio n, & Ope n Spa c e
• Spe c ia l Ma na g e me nt Co mmunitie s – Urb a n/

Sub urb a n Cultura l Co mmunity Pro te c tio n

• Histo ric Rura l Co mmunitie s – Rura l Cultura l Co mmunity

Pro te c tio n

• Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a Re c o mme nda tio ns
• Go a l, Ne e ds, & Stra te g ie s

TODAY’S AGENDA: REVIEW OF POPULATION & HOUSING ELEMENTS

• E

xisting c o nditio ns

• Da ta upda te s a nd disc ussio n o f re c e nt tre nds
• Go a l, Ne e ds, & Stra te g ie s

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB): KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION

KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION UGB APRIL 8 & MAY 13 PC MEETINGS

• Disc usse d a lte rna tive s fo r the UGB lo c a tio n
• PC a ske d fo r mo re info rma tio n re g a rding

the po te ntia l impa c ts o f a ny UGB c ha ng e s

• n the a ppro ve d De ve lo pme nt Ag re e me nt

KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION UGB

BEACH CO. LETTER

• Ho use ke e ping ma tte r to mo re a c c ura te ly

re fle c t the distinc tio n b e twe e n the hig he r de nsity Rive r Villa g e a re a & the lo we r de nsity Rura l Re side ntia l a re a

• De ve lo pme nt Ag re e me nt e sta b lishe s the la nd

use s a nd de nsitie s pe rmitte d

• Pro po se d re visio n wo uld a dd mo re la nd to the

Rura l Are a

KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION UGB

LEGAL DEPT. MEMO

• De fining the UGB will no t a lte r K

RP’ s o b lig a tio ns

• r rig hts in de ve lo ping its pro pe rty a s de sc rib e d

in the De ve lo pme nt Ag re e me nt

• T

he de ve lo pme nt sta nda rds o utline d in the De ve lo pme nt Ag re e me nt will no t b e a ffe c te d b y a lte ring the UGB

KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION UGB

ALTERNATIVE LOCATION

Curre nt UGB Alte rna tive UGB L

• c a tion

R ur al Ar e a Ur ban/ Subur ban Ar e a

Curre nt UGB Alte rna tive UGB L

• c a tion

Kia wa h Rive r Pla nta tion

KIAWAH RIVER PLANTATION UGB HISTORY

(UGB & ZONING)

Curre nt UGB Kia wa h Rive r Pla nta tion

Pla nne d De ve lopme nt

Alte rna tive UGB L

• c a tion

FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATIONS: PARKS, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE

NEW FLU DESIGNATION FOR PARKS, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE AREAS

• T

his future la nd use c a te g o ry pro vide s fo r:

• L

a nds inte nde d to re ma in in a pre do mina ntly na tura l sta te

• L

a nds tha t ha ve b e e n pro te c te d thro ug h pe rma ne nt c o nse rva tio n e a se me nts o r a re pub lic ly o wne d tha t sig nific a ntly re stric t de ve lo pme nt

• I

nte nde d fo r pub lic o r priva te re c re a tio n ,inc luding b ut no t limite d to Co unty pa rks a nd re c re a tio na l fa c ilitie s

• Ope n Spac e s, Gr

e e n Spac e s, and Par ks and R e c r e ation

• Purpo se : Pro te c t pro pe rtie s fro m re zo ning to hig he r

inte nsity zo ning distric ts in the future

PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR PLAN: PARKS AND RECREATION

• Pa rks, pla yg ro unds, swimming po o ls, re c re a tio n

fa c ilitie s, a nd o pe n spa c e s a va ila b le to the g e ne ra l pub lic , e ithe r witho ut a fe e o r unde r the ma na g e me nt o r c o ntro l o f a pub lic a g e nc y

• T

his is the “Parks and Re c re atio n” de finitio n in the Z L DR

• De finitio ns fo r “Gre e n (S

pac e )” and “Ope n S pac e s” are c urre ntly inc lude d in Plan

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINITIONS

• Gre e n (Spa c e ): An o pe n spa c e a va ila b le fo r

unstruc ture d re c re a tio n, its la ndsc a ping c o nsisting

• f g ra ssy a re a s a nd tre e s. Ma y o r ma y no t b e

a sso c ia te d with the Gre e nb e lt.

• Ope n Spa c e : Any pa rc e l o f la nd o r po rtio n the re o f,

wa te r fe a ture , e sse ntia lly unimpro ve d (ne t o f impe rvio us surfa c e s) a nd se t a side , de dic a te d, de sig na te d, o r re se rve d fo r e ithe r pub lic o r priva te use o r e njo yme nt o r fo r the use a nd e njo yme nt o f

• wne rs, o c c upa nts, a nd/ o r the ir g ue sts o f la nd

a djo ining o r ne ig hb o ring suc h o pe n spa c e .

NEW FLU DESIGNATION FOR PARKS, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE AREAS

• Apply this future la nd use c a te g o ry to :
• Pro pe rtie s pro te c te d b y pe rpe tua l e a se me nts
• Gre e nb e lt Pro g ra m & priva te pro pe rtie s
• Sta te a nd fe de ra lly pro te c te d pro pe rtie s

FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATIONS: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT COMMUNITIES Urba n/ Suburba n Cultura l Community Prote c tion De sig na tion

Sol L e g a re & Grimba ll Rd

Special Management Communities

Urban/Suburban Area Re d T

• p &

Sa nde rs Rd Koe ste r Rd Phillips Snowde n 4- Mile , 6- Mile , 7- Mile , 10- Mile , White ha ll T e rra c e , & Copa he e

COM 3% I NDU 9%

Mixe d Style Re side ntia l 1%

NT RE S 14% PD 10% RE SMG 2% RURAG 1% RURAL 1%

Suburba n Re side ntia l 39%

Spe c ia l Ma na g e me nt 20%

F uture L a nd Use De sig na tions: Pe rc e nt of Uninc orpora te d Ac re a g e in the Urba n/ Suburba n Are a

CURRENT PLAN DEFINITION: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

“Within the Urban/ S uburban Are a, partic ularly in the E ast Co o pe r are a, the re are e stablishe d c o mmunitie s inte rspe rse d with larg e trac ts o f land. T he se c o mmunitie s have life style s that are mo re rural than suburban. T he se S pe c ial Manag e me nt Are as g e ne rally have mixe d de nsity re side ntial patte rns. Co mme rc ial, institutio nal and o ffic e de ve lo pme nt sho uld be allo we d within the se c o mmunitie s to o ffe r lo c alize d se rvic e s and e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s to the re side nts. T raditio nal life style s link the se are as, as e vide nc e d in…”

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

• Cha ng e “Re side ntia l/ Spe c ia l Ma na g e me nt” to

“ Urba n/ Suburba n Cultura l Community Prote c tion”

• Re de fine this future la nd use de sig na tio n to me e t

c o mmunity ne e ds

• No c ha ng e s to the lo c a tio n o f this future la nd use

de sig na tio n re q uire d

• I

n the future , c o mmunitie s wo uld ha ve zo ning c usto mize d to the ir uniq ue a re a thro ug h o ve rla y distric ts a nd o the r pla nning te c hniq ue s

PROPOSED DEFINITION: “URBAN/SUBURBAN CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTECTION”

• I

nte nde d to prote c t a nd promote the c ulture a nd

unique de ve lopme nt pa tte rns a nd susta in the strong se nse of c ommunity

• Co mmunitie s c ha ra c te rize d b y lo w de nsity sing le -

fa mily re side ntia l de ve lo pme nt, limite d c o mme rc ia l, a nd so me a g ric ultura l use s

• Ma ny o f the ro a ds a re pa ve d with c o nne c tio ns to

Co unty o r Sta te ma inta ine d ro a ds; ho we ve r, e a rthe n ro a ds still e xist

PROPOSED DEFINITION: “URBAN/SUBURBAN CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTECTION”

• F

uture de ve lo pme nt sho uld b e c o mpa tib le with the e xisting la nd use s a nd de ve lo pme nt pa tte rns

• Re side ntia l de nsity: thre e to four units pe r a c re
• No te : Re quire s re visio ns to the de nsity table
• Co mpa tib le institutio na l, o ffic e , a nd lo w inte nsity

c o mme rc ia l sho uld b e a llo we d to o ffe r se rvic e s a nd e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s fo r lo c a l re side nts

• Co mpa tib le b uilding sc a le a nd c o ve ra g e
• Swe e tg ra ss b a ske t ma king (inc luding sa le s) sho uld

b e re c o g nize d a nd pro mo te d

FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATIONS: HISTORIC RURAL COMMUNITIES Rura l Cultura l Community Prote c tion De sig na tion

HISTORIC RURAL COMMUNITIES

• So me Rura l Are a c o mmunitie s ha ve histo ric

c o nne c tio ns to the L

• wc o untry a nd simila r

de ve lo pme nt pa tte rns to the c o mmunitie s in the Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a we just disc usse d:

• E

xa mple s inc lude Pa rke rs F e rry, Ada ms Run, Wilto wn, Ma uss Hill, Sug a r Hill, Je ric ho & Osb o rne

• Ma y b e o the r c o mmunitie s in the E

a st Co o pe r Are a , e tc .

MWV Prope rtie s

HISTORIC RURAL COMMUNITIES

• So me Rura l Are a c o mmunitie s ha ve histo ric c o nne c tio ns

to the L

• wc o untry a nd simila r de ve lo pme nt pa tte rns to

the c o mmunitie s in the Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a we just disc usse d:

• E

xa mple s inc lude Pa rke rs F e rry, Ada ms Run, Wilto wn, Ma uss Hill, Sug a r Hill, Je ric ho & Osb o rne

• L
• we r de nsitie s o c c ur due to la c k o f o ff-site wa te r a nd

se we r

• Ma ny lo c a te d in Se ttle me nt Are a s
• Pro pe rtie s 30 a c re s o r le ss (ma in c rite ria )
• Did no t re c o g nize c ulture a s c rite ria fo r inc lusio n
• Sho uld b e ide ntifie d a nd de sc rib e d in the Pla n a nd ZL

DR

PARKERS FERRY AREA

• Me t with re side nts o n F

e b . 27 a nd Apr. 24 to disc uss pla nning a nd zo ning issue s a nd so lutio ns

• F

e b . 27 c o mmunity me e ting :

• 53 pe o ple a tte nde d re pre se nting the Pa rke rs F

e rry, Ada ms Run/ Wilto wn, a nd Osb o rne c o mmunitie s

• I

de ntifie d g e ne ra l c o mmunity b o unda rie s a nd wha t is wa nte d/ ne e de d in the future thro ug h a c o mmunity ne e ds surve y

PARKERS FERRY AREA COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY RESULTS

• Atte nde e s live d in the c o mmunity fo r a lo ng time

(a ve ra g e : 36 ye a rs)

• Wa nt to pro te c t c o mmunity histo ry a nd c ulture
• Co nc e rne d a b o ut:
• Ab ility to sub divide pro pe rty
• Ac c e ss to pub lic se rvic e s, re ta il, a nd me dic a l se rvic e s
• Wa nt mo re e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s in the

c o mmunity

APRIL 24 COMMUNITY MEETING PLANNING & ZONING SOLUTIONS

• Compre he nsive Pla n
• Rura l Cultura l Co mmunity Pro te c tio n F

uture L a nd Use de sig na tio n

• Zoning
• Ne w zo ning distric t
• Sc he dule d to ho ld a no the r c o mmunity me e ting in

la te summe r 2013

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

• Cre a te a ne w F

uture L a nd Use de sig na tio n:

Rura l Cultura l Community Prote c tion

• Prote c t a nd promote the c ulture
• Allo w mo re fle xibility to subdivide pro pe rty
• Pe rmit se rvic e , b usine ss, o ffic e , a nd e mplo yme nt
• pportunitie s
• Applic a b le to o the r Rura l pa rts o f the Co unty

(Jo hns I sla nd, E a st Co unty)

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION RURAL CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTECTION

• I

nte nde d to prote c t a nd promote the c ulture a nd

unique de ve lopme nt pa tte rns a nd susta in the strong se nse of c ommunity

• Co mmunity de ve lo pme nt pa tte rn
• L

e ss de ve lo pe d due to la c k o f o ff-site wa te r a nd se we r

• Mo stly re side ntia l
• Ma ny c hurc he s
• Ve ry fe w b usine sse s to da y
• Histo ric a lly ha d sma ll ne ig hb o rho o d b usine sse s
• Stro ng tie to na tura l re so urc e s
• Ma ny e a rthe n ro a ds c o nne c ting to sta te ro a ds

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION NEW COMMUNITY DESIGNATION (CONT’D)

• F

uture de ve lo pme nt sho uld b e c o mpa tib le with the e xisting c o mmunity

• Re side ntia l de nsity: one unit pe r a c re
• Re side nc e s, a g ric ulture , fo re stry, c hurc he s, c e me te rie s,

c ultura l a nd histo ric b uilding s, sc ho o ls, po st o ffic e s, e tc . sho uld b e a llo we d

• Co mpa tib le b usine sse s a nd o ffic e s sho uld b e a llo we d to
• ffe r se rvic e s a nd e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s fo r lo c a l

re side nts

• No t lo c ate d o n Wadmalaw I

sland o r E disto I sland o r within a Planne d De ve lo pme nt o r F

• rm-Base d Z
• ning

Distric t

APRIL 24 COMMUNITY MEETING

IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES

• Wilto wn Co mmunity inc luding :
• Pa rke rs F

e rry

• Ada ms Run
• Osb o rne
• Je ric ho
• Ma uss Hill
• Sug a r Hill

Ag ric ultura l Re side ntia l 59% Ag ric ultura l Pre se rva tion 39%

Rura l Co mme rc ia l 1% Rura l E c o no mic De ve lo pme nt 1%

F uture L a nd Use De sig na tions: Pe rc e nt of Ac re a g e

FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATIONS: URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA

SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL/RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY

• “…pro vide s fo r sing le fa mily de ve lo pme nt o n

typic a l sub urb a n lo ts. Mo re inte nse la nd de ve lo pme nt re q uire s o ff-site utilitie s.”

Co mpre he nsive Plan, pag e 40

• De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 2 to 4 dwe lling s/ a c re
• No te : Ve ry lo w in c o mpa riso n to a dja c e nt jurisdic tio ns

MIXED STYLE RESIDENTIAL/ RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY

• “…pro vide s fo r sma ll-lo t sing le fa mily

de ve lo pme nt, a s we ll a s fo rms o f a tta c he d a nd multifa mily de ve lo pme nt suita b le fo r c lo se -in, hig h a c c e ss a re a s. T ra ditio na l ne ig hb o rho o d style de ve lo pme nts inc luding a mix o f re side ntia l, c o mme rc ia l, institutio na l a nd o ffic e de ve lo pme nt c ha ra c te rize mixe d style de ve lo pme nt…”

Co mpre he nsive Plan, pag e s 40-41

• De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 5+ dwe lling s/ a c re
• No te : Ve ry lo w in c o mpa riso n to a dja c e nt jurisdic tio ns

COM 3% I NDU 9%

Mixe d Style Re side ntia l 1%

NT RE S 14% PD 10% RE SMG 2% RURAG 1% RURAL 1%

Suburba n Re side ntia l 39% Spe c ia l Ma na g e me nt 20%

F uture L a nd Use De sig na tions: Pe rc e nt of Uninc orpora te d Ac re a g e in the Urba n/ Suburba n Are a

URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA RESIDENTIAL FLU DESIGNATIONS - ISSUES

• Re c o mme nde d de nsitie s a re ve ry lo w a nd,

c o mb ine d with the F L U de finitio ns, do no t pro mo te mixe d use de ve lo pme nt

• Co nflic t with Co unty po lic ie s to dire c t g ro wth to

the Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a whe re infra struc ture e xists

• E

nc o ura g e a nne xa tio n (a dja c e nt munic ipa litie s ha ve muc h hig he r de nsitie s)

• Ma ke it diffic ult to e nc o ura g e a ffo rda b le /

wo rkfo rc e ho using a nd pub lic tra nsit a lte rna tive s

URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA NON- RESIDENTIAL FLU DESIGNATIONS - ISSUES

• Do no t a ddre ss o r pro mo te mixe d use

de ve lo pme nt

• Civic /

I nstitutio nal, Offic e , Co mme rc ial, and I ndustrial F L U de sig natio ns

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

• Co mb ine the two re side ntia l F

L U c a te g o rie s into a sing le “Urb a n/ Sub urb a n” F L U de sig na tio n:

• “…e nc o ura g e s mixe d use de ve lo pme nt a nd a

g e ne ra l la nd use pa tte rn tha t inc lude s a va rie ty o f ho using type s, re ta il, se rvic e , e mplo yme nt, a nd c ivic use s, a s we ll a s o pe n spa c e a nd linka g e s to pub lic tra nsit in a wa lka b le e nviro nme nt.”

• De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 4+ dwe lling s/ a c re
• Add simila r la ng ua g e to no n-re side ntia l F

L U c a te g o rie s

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: ZONING

• Annua l wo rk pro g ra m:
• Re vie w/ re vise a ll Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a zo ning

distric ts fo r de nsitie s, dime nsio na l sta nda rds, & use s

• Add a ne w mixe d use zo ning distric t
• I

nc o rpo ra te de nsity b o nuse s fo r inc lusio n o f a ffo rda b le / wo rkfo rc e ho using with pe rfo rma nc e c rite ria (Minimum pe rc e nt fo r a ffo rda b le / wo rkfo rc e units, de e d re stric tio ns, e tc .)

• I

mple me nt the Pla n with a me ndme nts to the e xisting Multiple Use F lo a ting Zo ne

LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL, NEEDS, & STRATEGIES

LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL

E xisting L a nd Use E le me nt Go a l (with pro po se d re visio ns): “L and re so urc e s will Ac c o mmo date hig h quality g ro wth in a way that re spe c ts the unique c harac te r o f diffe re nt parts o f the Co unty, pro mo te s e c o no mic o ppo rtunity whe re appro priate , re spe c ts private pro pe rty rig hts, is c o o rdinate d with the pro visio n

• f c o mmunity and public fac ilitie s, and pro te c ts c ultur

al and natural re so urc e s.”

L a nd Use E le me nt Go a l fro m 1999 Pla n: “Ac c o mmo date quality g ro wth in a balanc e o f land use s and de nsitie s while pre se rving the sc e nic be auty, natural re so urc e s, and c ultural he ritag e o f Charle sto n Co unty”

LAND USE ELEMENT NEEDS

• Ado pting a de fine d Re inforc ing the Urb a n Gro wth

Bo unda ry throug h inte r- jurisdic tiona l c oordina tion

• Pre se rving the rura l c ha ra c te r o f the Co unty
• E

nc o ura g ing c o mpa c t g ro wth in a lre a dy de ve lo pe d a re a s whe re infra struc ture a lre a dy e xists

• Pro viding g uida nc e fo r the lo c a tio n, c ha ra c te r, a nd

inte nsity o f la nd use s in the Co unty

• Autho rizing inno va tive pla nning stra te g ie s tha t re spo nd

to e me rg ing la nd use po lic y ne e ds, with fo c us o n the fo rm a nd mix o f la nd use s in la nd use pla ns

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

• L

U 1. Pro te c t a nd e nha nc e the

e nviro nme nta l q ua lity o f c re e k, ma rsh a nd rive r fro nt la nds, b e a c he s, a nd a c c e ss to b e a c he s a nd wa te rwa ys

• L

U 2. I

mple me nt de sig n c ha ra c te r tha t e nha nc e s the q ua lity o f de ve lo pme nt a lo ng c o mme rc ia l c o rrido rs, e sta b lish sc e nic c o rrido rs a nd e sta b lish a re a s o f e nviro nme nta l a nd c ultura l sig nific a nc e

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

(CONT’D)

• L

U 3. F

• ste r the rura l c ha ra c te r o f la nd
• utside sub urb a n c o mmunitie s, the Urba n

Growth Bounda ry, e nc o ura g ing lo we r

de nsity de ve lo pme nt

• L

U 4. Co o rdina te la nd use pa tte rns with

tra nspo rta tio n, ho using , e mplo yme nt a nd re ta il de ve lo pme nt to pro vide c o mmunitie s a nd ne ig hb o rho o ds whe re pe o ple c a n live a nd wo rk

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

(CONT’D)

• L

U 5. E

nc o ura g e c o mpa c t g ro wth in a lre a dy de ve lo pe d a re a s inside the Urb a n Gro wth Bo unda ry a nd in de sig na te d b usine ss a nd industria l c o rrido rs Institutiona lize the loc a tion of the Urba n

Growth Bounda ry a nd the c rite ria to c ha ng e its loc a tion throug h inte r- jurisdic tiona l c oordina tion with the Citie s of Cha rle ston a nd North Cha rle ston, the T

• wn of Mount Ple a sa nt, a nd se rvic e provide rs
• L

U 6. Suppo rt E nc oura g e c ompa c t g rowth in a lre a dy de ve lope d a re a s inside the Urba n Growth Bounda ry a nd infill o f e xisting va c a nt site s in urb a n

a re a s o ve r de ve lo pme nt in lo w g ro wth a re a s, g iving hig h prio rity to a re a s o f g re a te st e mplo yme nt a nd re side ntia l de nsity

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

(CONT’D)

• L

U 7. E

sta b lish a Co unc il dire c te d a nnua l wo rk pro g ra m fo r the Pla nning De pa rtme nt with a de q ua te re so urc e s Continue the

imple me nta tion initia tive s a dopte d by County Counc il in the Compre he nsive Pla n

• L

U 8. E

sta b lish pro g ra ms a nd po lic ie s whic h e nsure ne w g ro wth c o ntrib ute s its fa ir sha re to the c o sts a sso c ia te d with g ro wth

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

(CONT’D)

• L

U 9. Re q uire tha t a ny a pplic a tio n a ffe c ting

Co unty re so urc e s b e re vie we d b y the Co unty fo r c o nsiste nc y with the a dopte d future la nd use pla n

• L

U 10. Ado pt inno va tive pla nning a nd zo ning

te c hniq ue s suc h a s F

• rm-b a se d Zo ning Distric t

re g ula tio ns to a utho rize a c o mb ina tio n o f la nd use s within c o mmunitie s, inc luding re side ntia l, se rvic e , a nd e mplo yme nt la nd use s

LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES

(CONT’D)

• L

U 11. De nsity bonuse s be yond the ma ximum de nsity of the re c omme nde d future la nd use de sig na tion ma y be a pprove d whe n a fforda ble a nd/ or workforc e housing units a re inc lude d in propose d de ve lopme nts in the Urba n/ Suburba n Are a .

• Add de finitio n o f “wo rkfo rc e ho using ” to the Pla n: Ho using

a ffo rda b le to lo w a nd mo de ra te inc o me fa milie s (tho se e a rning up to 120% o f the Cha rle sto n-No rth Cha rle sto n Me tro po lita n Sta tistic a l Are a (MSA) me dia n fa mily inc o me , a s de fine d in the sc he dule pub lishe d a nnua lly b y the U.S. De pa rtme nt o f Ho using a nd Urb a n De ve lo pme nt)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION (FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)

• Dwe lling units for sa le : Ho using in whic h

mo rtg a g e , a mo rtiza tio n, ta xe s, insura nc e , a nd c o ndo minium o r a sso c ia tio n fe e s, if a ny, c o nstitute no mo re tha n 28% o f the a nnua l ho use ho ld inc o me fo r a ho use ho ld e a rning no mo re tha n 80% pe rc e nt o f the a re a me dia n inc o me , b y ho use ho ld size

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION (FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)

• Dwe lling units for re nt: Ho using fo r whic h the

re nt a nd utilitie s c o nstitute no mo re tha n 30% o f the a nnua l ho use ho ld inc o me fo r a ho use ho ld e a rning no mo re tha n 80% o f the a re a me dia n inc o me , b y ho use ho ld size

POPULATION & HOUSING ELEMENTS

REVIEW OF POPULATION & HOUSING ELEMENTS

• Incorporating leading trends and issues that are

currently affecting Charleston County or will affect the County in the near future

• Updating statistics using data from the 2010 Decennial

Census and 2007-2011 American Community Survey

• Reviewing the goal, needs, and strategies

POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2035

The County’s total population increased 13% from 2000 to 350,209 residents in 2010

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, 2010; 2035 projection by BCDCOG

295,044 309,969 350,209 396,640 1990 2000 2010 2035

Charleston County

AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2000 TO 2011

The aging population will most likely increase in Charleston County as residents “age in place” and more retirees are attracted to the area; however, the majority of the population is still working age (19-64 years old).

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

Youth (0-19), 24% Seniors (65+), 12% Working Age (20- 64), 64%

2000 2000

Youth (0-19), 24% Seniors (65+), 13% Working Age (20- 64), 63%

201 011

RACIAL COMPOSITION, 1990-2011

64% 62% 66% 36% 38% 34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1990 2000 2011

White, non-Hispanic African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, and two or more races

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

RACIAL COMPOSITION, 2011

Charleston County has a more diverse population than both South Carolina and the United States.

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

76 76% 69% 69% 66% 66% 24% 31% 34% 34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

United States South Carolina Charleston County White, non-Hispanic African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, and two or more races

HISPANIC POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 1990-2011

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

9% 1% 1% 13% 2% 2% 16% 5% 5%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

United States South Carolina Charleston County 1990 2000 2011

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2000-2011

The percentage of residents with Bachelor degrees or higher increased 24% between 2000 and 2011 in Charleston County.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

82% 82% 88% 88% 14 14% 38% 38% 2000 2011 High school graduate or higher Bachelor’s degree or higher

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2011

Over one-third of the County’s population has a bachelor’s degree

• r higher.

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

85% 85% 84% 4% 88% 88% 28% 28% 24% 38% 38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

United States South Carolina Charleston County

High school graduate or higher Bachelor’s degree or higher

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2011

Nonfamily households continue to increase, and it is expected that single-person households will soon equal family households as marriage rates continue to drop.

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

33% 33% 33% 33% 41 41% 67% 67% 67% 67% 59% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

United States South Carolina Charleston County Percentage of Nonfamily Households Percentage of Family Households

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1970-2011

As marriage rates and birth rates decrease, the average household size continues to decline in Charleston County.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

3. 3.35 35 2. 2.86 86 2.61 61 2. 2.42 42 2.41 41 3.1 .11 2. 2.75 75 2. 2.63 63 2. 2.59 59 2.6 .6

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

1970 1980 1990 2000 2011

Charleston County United States

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1990-2011

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

$26,875 $37 37,81 810 $50,133

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 1990 2000 2011 Median Household Income (Charleston County)

$46,253 $49,253

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2011

$52, $52,762 $4 $44, 4,587 $50, $50,133 United States South Carolina Charleston County Median Household Income

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, 2011

The three industries that employ the most County residents are Government, Trade, Transportation & Utilities, and Professional & Business Services.

Source: Charleston Regional Competitiveness Center via Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011

20% 19% 15% 14% 12% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Government Trade, Transportation, & Utilities Professional & Business Services Leisure & Hospitality Health Services & Private Education Manufacturing Financial Activities Construction Other Services Information Natural Resources & Mining

Charleston County

AVERAGE WAGE PER HOUR BY SECTOR, 2011

With the exception of Government, Health Services and Private Education, and Manufacturing, the County is below the national average wage per hour by sector.

Source: Charleston Regional Competitiveness Center via Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011

$32.41 $27.09 $24.12 $23.73 $22.00 $21.58 $21.14 $15.88 $14.20 $9.76 $8.84

$- $10 $20 $30 $40

Manufacturing Financial Activities Information Government Health Services & Private Education Construction Professional & Business Services Trade, Transportation, & Utilities Other Services Natural Resources & Mining Leisure & Hospitality Average Wage/Hr

POVERTY LEVELS, 2011

10. 0.5% 5% 12. 12.7% 7% 11 11.8% 14. 4.3% 3% 17. 7.0% 16. 6.8% 8%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0%

United States South Carolina Charleston County

Percentage of Households with Incomes Below Poverty Level Percentage of Individuals with Incomes Below Poverty Level

In 2011, the poverty guideline was $18,530 for a family of three, as determined by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

COMMUTER-ADJUSTED POPULATION, 2010

Charleston County is home to many of the region’s major

• employers. As a result, the County’s commuter-adjusted population

is significantly larger. In 2010, the daytime population increased by 16% or about 53,000 people.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; American Community Survey, 2006-2010

350,209 403,209

• 75,000

150,000 225,000 300,000 375,000 450,000 Population (2010) Commuter-Adjusted Population (2010)

Charleston County

16% (53,000)

350,209

TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 1980-2011

99,240 123,550 141,031 168,768

• 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 1980 1990 2000 2011 Total Housing Units (Charleston County)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

HOUSING TYPES, 2011

Approximately 169,000 housing units exist in Charleston County.

Single- Family, Detached, 58.5% Multi- Family, 25.2% Manufactured Housing, 7.1% Single-Family, Attached & Duplexes, 9.2%

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

HOUSING SIZE, 2011

The majority of housing units in Charleston County have 2

• r 3 bedrooms. 20% of homes have 4 or more bedrooms.

1% 1% 9% 9% 28% 28% 43% 43% 16 16% 4% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

AGE OF HOUSING STOCK BY YEAR BUILT, 2011

In the BCD Region, Charleston County has the largest percentage of older housing stock (built 1959 or earlier); however, compared to the national housing inventory, the County’s housing stock is relatively young. 54% of the housing was built post- 1980.

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

2000 or later, 20% 1980 - 1999, 34% 1960 - 1979, 26% 1959 or earlier, 21%

HOUSING TENURE, 1990-2011

In 2011, vacant units increased while both owner-occupied and renter-occupied units decreased slightly.

50% 50% 53% 53% 51 51% 37 37% 34% 34% 32% 32% 13% 13% 18% 19 1990 90 20 2000 00 20 2011 11 Owner- Occupied Units Renter- Occupied Units Vacant Units Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

HOUSING TENURE, 2011

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

Vacant Units, 18% Owner- Occupied Units, 51% Renter- Occupied Units, 32% Charleston County

Renter- Occupied Units, 30% Vacant Units, 12% Owner-Occupied Units, 58%

United States

Owner-Occupied Units, 57% Vacant Units, 15% Renter- Occupied Units, 29%

BCD Region

MEDIAN & AVERAGE SALES PRICE, JAN 1 – MAY 31, 2013

Source: Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, May 2013

$1 $198, 98,206 06 $274,325 325 $259, $259,450 $362, $362,613

Median Sales Price Average Sales Price BCD Region Charleston County

MEDIAN GROSS RENT, 2000-2011

Median Gross Rent increased 48% from 2000 to 2011 in Charleston County.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

$602 $602 $51 510 $605 $605 $871 $728 $728 $895 $895 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 United States South Carolina Charleston County 2000 2011

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

• Housing is affordable when no mo

more t than an 3 30% of a household’s annual income is spent on housing costs. This includes mortgages, rent, utilities, insurance, and other associated housing expenses.

• When housing costs exceed 30%, households are cost

burdened and ma may st struggle t to af afford o

• ther b

basi asic n needs ds such as food, clothing, and transportation.

• The traditional definition of housing affordability does not factor

in transportation costs, which can add an addit itio ional al 1 15% to the cost of housing.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING, (OWNER-OCCUPIED) 2011

43% of home mes wit with mo mortgages ar are u unaf affordable in in Ch Char arleston Co County.

63% 63% 67% 67% 57% 38% 38% 33% 33% 43% 43% United States South Carolina Charleston County Affordable (less than 30%) Unaffordable (30% or more)

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

AFFORDABLE HOUSING, (RENTER-OCCUPIED) 2011

Rental units tend to be more unaffordable. 55% % of

• f re

rental u units ar are u unaf affordab able in in Ch Char arleston Co County.

48% 48% 49% 49% 45% 45% 52% 52% 51 51% 55% 55%

United States South Carolina Charleston County

Affordable (less than 30%) Unaffordable (30% or more)

Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Ch Charleston Co Coun unty Industry Average wage/hour Manufacturing $32.41/hr Financial Activities $27.09/hr Information $24.12/hr Governm nment nt $23. $23.73/hr He Health Services & Private E Education

• n $22.

$22.00/hr Construction $21.58/hr Professional & Business Services $21.14/hr Trade, Transportation, & & U Utilitie ies $15.88/ 88/hr Other Services $14.20/hr Natural Resources & Mining $9.76/hr Leisure & Hospitality $8.84/hr

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Source: Charleston Regional Development Alliance (CRDA) Economic Scorecard, 2012

COST OF LIVING COMPARISON, 2013

City, y, S State Co Compo posite I Ind ndex Apartment R Rent Home

• me P

Price New York, NY

225.6 $3,902 1,303,421

Washington, DC

144.8 $1,852 $746,549

Boston, MA

140.0 $1,755 $459,744

San Diego, CA

131.9 $1,752 $554,436

Seattle, WA

115.3 $1,436 $370,966

Charleston, SC

98.5 $895 $242,000

Orlando, FL

97.7 $815 $209,095

Atlanta, GA

97.0 $888 $231,965

Charlotte, NC

94.8 $815 $224,594

Huntsville, AL

93.2 $775 $219,782

Durham, NC

92.7 $784 $210,494

Wichita, KS

91.4 $658 $232,651

Savannah, GA

91.0 $760 $198,028

Raleigh, NC

90.8 $635 $206,825

Source: The Council for Community and Economic Research (formerly the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association), 2013; American Community Survey, 2007-2011

POPULATION TRENDS

• Inc

Increas easing p ing popul ulat atio ion

• 52.4% of the US population will live in the South by 2030.
• Diversifying po

popu pulation

• By 2043, there will be NO majority population in the United

States due to declining birth rates among the white, non- Hispanic population and consistently higher birth rates among the Hispanic and Latino populations.

• Gra

Graying o

• f

f Am Ameri rica

• The population, age 65 and older, is increasing and having

new implications on local economies. By 2030, one in 5 Americans will be over the age of 65.

POPULATION ELEMENT GOAL

“A socio-economically diverse and growing population will be accommodated by Charleston County in an environmentally and fiscally sustainable manner with particular attention to low to moderate income residents.”

POPULATION ELEMENT NEEDS

• Monitoring population and cultural shifts and national

trends

• Developing policies to meet the needs of the County’s

population

• Encouraging diversity within communities

POPULATION ELEMENT STRATEGIES

P 1.

• 1. Monitor population growth trends and demographic shifts

as indicators of population change and use this information to guide future updates to the Comprehensive Plan. P 2.

• 2. Continue to monitor and update the Demand Analysis to

identify how the County will accommodate growth in the future. (Add ddresse ssed i in P1 P1) P 3.

• 3. Develop land use strategies and implementation measures

that address the needs of the aging population.

POPULATION ELEMENT STRATEGIES

P 4.

• 4. Support a diverse population through land development

regulations which accommodate a range of housing, , tran ansp sportat atio ion, and employment options opportunit itie ies. P 5.

• 5. Continue to monitor and evaluate population and cultural

shifts and national trends for their potential impacts on land use and development patterns. P 6.

• 6. Adopt innovative planning and zoning techniques, such as

Form-Based Zoning District and M d Multipl iple U Use se F Floatin ing Z Zone Dist strict regulations that focus on the form and mix of land uses in land use plans to support encourage diverse communities and r d resp spect c culture a and h d history.

HOUSING TRENDS

• Household S

ld Size & & Composition

• Nonfamily households, specifically single-person households,

are increasing and will affect home preferences in the future. By 2025, single-person households are expected to equal family households nationally, and by 2050, they will exceed the number of family households.

• Chang

anging ing Pr Pref efer erenc ences es d due ue to Gener enerat atio ional nal D Dif iffer erenc ences es

• Inventory in Charleston is largely single-family, detached

residences – there will be a need for more diverse housing

• ptions to accommodate urban lifestyle preferences.

HOUSING TRENDS (CONT’D)

• Homeo

eowner nership ip v ver ersus us R Rent enting ing

• The aging population and younger generations are both more

likely to rent, but for different reasons. Older residents do not want the onus of home maintenance that comes with homeownership; younger residents want the mobility afforded by renting.

• Lack o
• f Housing t

that i is Afforda dable le

• Discrepancies between wages and salaries and the cost of

housing in Charleston County are leading factors resulting in unaffordable housing.

HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL

“Quality and housing t that is is affordable housing will be encouraged for people of all ages, incomes, and physical abilities.”

HOUSING ELEMENT NEEDS

• Meeting the projected demand for 12,000 new

homes by 2020 a di diversifying p popula lation

• Promoting affordable and workforce housing th

that i t is afforda dable le

• Ensuring a supply of safe and structurally sound

homes

HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES

H 1.

• 1. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions, the Lowcountry

Housing Trust, and other affordable housing agencies in pursuit of supplying affordable housing that is is af afforda dable. H 2.

• 2. Continue to support funding for affordable and workforce

housing agencies such as the Lowcountry Housing Trust. H 3.

• 3. Continue to identify solutions for obstacles to creation of

affordable housing in the County ZLDR, development approval processes, and fee structures. (Duplica cate o e of H11) 1)

HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES

H 4.

• 4. Develop incentives in the ZLDR such as density bonuses,

transfers of density, and mixed-use development provisions to promote a variety and diversity of div diverse affordable an and d workfo forc rce housing types optio ions t s that at p promo mote w walkab abil ilit ity to to servic ices, s, r retail ail, a and public ic t transpo sportat atio ion, particularly in the Urban/Suburban Area. H 5.

• 5. Continue to allow density bonuses in planned developments

and the use of accessory dwelling units in the Rural Area to promote affordable housing for low and moderate income households that at is af is afforda dable. H 6.

• 6. Establish special management areas to support existing

communities and maintain existing housing stock.

HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES

H 7.

• 7. Continue to enforce the Building Code and Beautification

Section of the Charleston County Code of Ordinances (Ord. #1227) and coordinate with other jurisdictions to maintain housing stock in a safe and habitable condition tha hat m meet a all ll FEMA MA re requirements. H 8.

• 8. Promote mixed-use developments with diverse housing
• ptions in walking distance to services and retail in the

Urban/Suburban Area through the future land use plan and

• ZLDR. (Co

Comb mbin ined w d with H H4) H 9.

• 9. Continue to encourage provision of workforce housing that

at is is af afforda dable an and d me meets t the n needs ds o

• f the div

diversifying po popu pulation (e.g .g., ., through rental apartments, townhouses, duplexes, and first- time home buyer initiatives).

HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES

H 10

• 10. Continue to enforce the Residential Building Code to protect

the general health, safety, and welfare of the population. (D (Dupl plicate

• f H

H7) 7) H 1

• 11. Charleston County should be proactive in promoting

affordable and w workforce housing through incentives and the e removal of regulatory barriers. H 12.

• 12. Inco

ncorporate t the e reco commendations o

• f the

e Tri-Co County H y Housin ing Need Needs Asses essmen ent i int nto t the e Pl Plan b by adopting a amen endments t to

• the

e ZL ZLDR a R and nd co coordinating with o

• ther

er C Count unty d dep epartmen ents, o

• ut

utside e agencies, a and p publi lic and p private or

• rganizations. Note: The Housing

Needs Assessment will be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for review, recommendation, and approval.