Adding to the growing list of plans to regulate hotel growth that never got off the ground, Charleston’s Planning Commission rejected a proposal to remove 86 properties from the city’s accommodations zoning. While the city’s Planning Department developed the plan to preserve diversity on the peninsula, property owners questioned the process by which the mix of public spaces, parking garages, offices, and housing were selected for exclusion.
A record number of hotel rooms are expected to be added to the peninsula in 2017, with 451 new rooms coming on line this year. In managing this unprecedented growth, city planner Jacob Lindsey told the Planning Commission that the proposed ordinance would help ensure a diversity of uses throughout the 2.8 square miles that make up the peninsula south of the Crosstown. While those removed from the accommodations zone would still have the right to request a special exception that would allow hotels to be built on their property, many owners objected to the proposed change.
Bob Reed, owner of 20 Anson St., was one of several residents who objected to the “subjective” nature in which properties were selected for removal. Reed’s Anson Street property currently serves as stable space for Charleston Carriage Works, but as he told the Planning Commission, not all downtown stables were chosen to be removed.
Jamie Hood of Hood Law Firm spoke to the commission on behalf of the owners of the U-Haul property on upper King Street. The city has long eyed the property as a future location for a public park, but the owners have refused to sell. Hood argued that the city’s effort to prohibit a hotel at that location would limit the property’s value and allow the city to purchase the land for a lower price if and when they choose to impose eminent domain.
The Planning Commission rejected the proposed ordinance, which passed first vote from City Council in late February. A super majority would be required by council to give final approval to the plan. Opposing the zoning changes as a way to curb hotel growth, members of the Planning Commission discussed the possible need for a moratorium on new hotel development. Ultimately, the commission recommended that the city strengthen the set of standards used by the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine if a property is suitable for a hotel.
Before their final vote, Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg made a plea to the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance. Tecklenburg campaigned on the promise of a hotel moratorium, but that idea was eventually shot down by City Council. In place of a moratorium came a 90-day hotel study conducted by the Planning Department. Along with an appraisal of the current accommodations climate in Charleston, city staff presented an expansive list of requirements and restrictions to tighten up where and how hotels can operate downtown. While this plan was also rejected by City Council, Tecklenburg and Lindsey said that some elements of the larger proposal would be presented to council once again for consideration.
According to Lindsey, the proposed changes expected to be submitted to council include requirements that new hotels account for employee parking and how to manage drop-off points for guests. Other proposals include requiring all hotels located outside of downtown to provide a guest shuttle service to the tourism district and a plan to prevent certain hotels from skirting the 50-room limit by linking up multiple neighboring buildings.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.