Business groups say Mount Pleasant’s latest plan to limit apartments encourages expansion | Good news mountain

MOUNT PLEASANT — The city’s latest attempt to limit the number of homes and apartments by reducing the number of residential units that can be built above businesses is misguided and will create more sprawl as real estate demands.

A land-use ordinance change pending with City Council members would block high-density developments that could crowd schools and increase traffic, while also providing incentives for more affordable housing.

What’s curious about Mount Pleasant’s proposed zoning is that it targets a decades-old but once-used ordinance in 2006 for the 41-building Shelmore Village development. Commercial space on the ground floor and two-story houses above.

The ordinance authorizing the Village of Shelmore allows for 12 residential units per acre if commercial buildings above the first floor are built with street frontage in a commercial area. The city’s proposal is to reduce that number to four homes per acre, or eight if half meet price and income guidelines.

“It was brought up a year ago, they[City Council]wanted it changed and scaled back because it didn’t fit with the overall plan,” said Michelle Reed, the city’s director of planning, land use and zoning. The conversation has changed, and is now about finding a more accessible home.

Real estate professionals and the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce oppose the change.

“We encourage sprawl by decongesting these areas and moving them to the suburbs,” Josh Dix, a representative of the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, said at the Jan. 10 City Council meeting where the ordinance change received initial approval.

Councilors expressed concern that continuing to allow 12 dwellings per acre over shops could have a negative impact.

The city has already approved a significant reduction in the number of residential units that can be built in two large commercial areas in so-called “redevelopment centers.” The changes to those 452 hectares of land will be smaller than the existing houses and apartments during the redevelopment.

That change and the proposed housing above the shops followed the city’s comprehensive plan.

“Schools are full, and they’re overcrowded,” said Councilwoman GM Whitley. Yes, people have property rights, but as a council we have the right to regulate zoning.

The city bans new apartment and condo construction in 2021, which will soon expire, and also has a strict permitting system that currently has no permits for multifamily development. Both measures were aimed at slowing down the city’s rapid development and population growth.

The proposed zoning change includes incentives to create “affordable” housing, which many council members agree with.

“I’d like to see our first responders be able to live in this town,” said Councilman Carl Ritchie, Mount Pleasant’s retired police chief.

Developers of the city’s proposal to build eight homes per hectare instead of four, say half of the housing units will be affordable.

“You really need scale and strength to deliver a home that’s only accessible through the private sector,” said Daniel Doyle, Chief Operating Officer and Development Director of The Beach Company.

Regardless of whether the limit is eight or 10 or 12 housing units per acre, expecting developers to do half of the “affordable housing” will not work.

“The cost to build a market rate unit is the same as the cost to build an affordable unit,” Doyle said. “You can’t cover those costs on a one-to-one ratio.”

He noted that other cities typically require 10 or 20 percent of units to meet affordability guidelines when approving large new developments.

“If 10 units were market value, you could have two at a reasonable price,” Dix said.

City Council members first approved the zoning change at a Jan. 10 meeting, but many said they expect that plan to change before final approval, which could come in February. Mayor Will Haney and Councilmen Howard Chapman and John Iacofano voted against the measure in a 6-3 decision.

“My main concern is that we have to be able to afford it,” Haynie said. “I think the only way Mount Pleasant is going to get any affordable housing is through the private sector.”

Like Charleston, Greenville, Rock Hill and other cities, Mount Pleasant does not spend more than a token amount on affordable housing efforts and has few incentives. A privately developed, unsubsidized condominium community in the city’s north end that sold for nearly $300,000 three years ago is considered the city’s biggest success in affordable housing.

“What’s being proposed is not going to bring us any more affordable housing, because there aren’t enough numbers,” Chapman said.

Haney said he might consider a plan that would allow 12 units per acre above stores in commercial areas if half of it were affordable housing. Wheatley said she might be open to that, as long as it’s a one-to-one ratio of long-term affordability.

Doyle and Dix said it would be impossible to create below-market housing in such a situation.

Other councilors were more concerned with density, the number of acres of houses.

“The way I look at it, it’s a privilege to live in commercial (areas),” said Councilwoman Brenda Corley. “I don’t know why we agree or feel pressured to increase the number because residents don’t. I don’t want more fat.

Icofano said that reducing the weighting would “just stop the affordable housing that we really need.” But there’s no guarantee that market-rate housing built above stores in Mount Pleasant will be particularly affordable.

In Shellmore Village, the houses that were built above the shops 13 years ago are like many single-family homes, and the buildings in the development now sell for more than $750,000. The apartments are for rent and can be rented for over $3,000 per month.

The concept of housing over businesses is an old one, and it’s common on busy downtown streets like Charleston’s King Street. The Shelmore Village Mount Pleasant development was slow to catch on when it was first built, then the Great Recession of 2007-09 sold the buildings for half their original asking price before reviving the development under a new owner.