MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
GOOSE CREEK
I. Call to Order - Chairman Allen Wall
Chairman Allen Wall called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Gayla McSwain, Allen Wall, and Barry Washington.
Absent: Paul Connerty, Doug Quinn, and Jeffrey Smith
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes - May 4, 2010
Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Washington seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor; none opposed.
III. Discussion - Buffering Requirements
Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented the Commission with a summary of buffering requirements from other municipalities. He asked that the Commission provide guidance on what issues the City's new buffering ordinance should address, and then Staff can begin drafting the language for the ordinance.
Mr. Wall stated he liked the fact that Hilton Head provides requirements for buffering of street frontage as well and feels as though this would enhance the City's new commercial developments, and he would like to have this included in the ordinance.
Mr. Arenson asked about Mt. Pleasant's buffer requirements of 100 feet and asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael for examples of when that would be needed. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that this was most often used when a very intensive use - industrial uses mostly - abuts a residential development. Mr. Arenson stated he felt the Hilton Head requirements provided a good model; however, he felt the 100 foot requirement might be something that could be added to the City's new ordinance, allowing adjustment according to the project.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would like to see the buffers more specifically defined than those in Hilton Head.
Mr. Arenson stated he felt Hilton Head and Mt. Pleasant presented the most attractive areas. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested taking the language from several of the ordinances and drafting a hybrid of them for the new ordinance.
There was discussion concerning the time frame for having the ordinance completed and presented to City Council. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had received feedback that led him to believe there is support to have this heard as soon as it is available but that he would confirm that with the City Administrator. He suggested it could be brought back to the Commission in two to three months; then, once the Commission is ready, it would be presented at a Public Hearing. Mr. Wall asked if this would be passed prior to the completion of the Comprehensive Plan, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded that he was under the impression this is something that would be approved prior to that, though it would be tied to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission was in agreement that it would be best for it to be completed and approved as soon as reasonably possible so to put it in effect for upcoming projects that may begin once the economy allows development to resume. Ms. McSwain asked if developments currently in the planning stages can be required to meet the new requirements. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained it would depend on at what stage of plan review the project was . She asked about the projects listed on the development update, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he would have to review the list and determine where they were in the plan review process. She encouraged Staff to provide the new language as soon as reasonable. Mr. Wall asked if Staff would carry the recommendation to City Administrators that this ordinance be reviewed and brought to Council as soon as possible.
There was discussion about the need to review the new language with both the EDAC and ARB so they can provide feedback and to make sure they were aware of the changes being proposed.
There was brief discussion concerning the properties currently for sale in Crowfield's corporate park and concern that an appropriate buffer be in place for its development. Mr. Ben-Yisrael mentioned that the tree ordinance will be of help in preserving the trees there now, as the only trees that may be removed are those that are in the critical build area.
There was further discussion about some of the specifics in the Hilton Head ordinance. Mr. Wall mentioned the requirement that plantings be spaced to provide a more natural look. Ms. McSwain mentioned the requirement for native plants and asked that this be included as well. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested a requirement that the landscaping be viable for a specific period of time. She also asked that buffering of lighting and noise be included in the recommendations.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael referenced Mt. Pleasant's multiplier which allows for a flexible buffer requirement depending upon the amount of landscaping the developer wishes to add. The more dense the landscaping, the smaller the buffer area required in some instances. He suggested this might be something they wished to consider as well so as to provide flexibility when determining the best buffering on a case by case basis.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael mentioned the process of plan review and the need to sometimes require that new plans be submitted depending upon the lapse in time since the review of the initial plans. There was brief discussion concerning typical time allowances for plan submission and the possibility of requiring projects to incorporate the new buffering language.
IV. Comments from the Commission
Mr. Arenson asked Staff to review a plat of the properties in the corporate center to determine the current zoning. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained there is a land use plan that was designed for all of Crowfield, designating uses for all of the property. When the property was annexed, the City endorsed the land use plan separate from our zoning ordinance. Presently the City is trying to clarify this issue. He responded that he would forward additional comments concerning this to them.
V. Comments From Staff
Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that City Administrators had asked him to speak to them concerning the possibility of changing the day they meet from Tuesdays to Mondays because of conflicts with City Council workshops and town hall meetings. He said he felt this was most likely a seasonal conflict. There was brief discussion concerning continuing to meet on Tuesdays but holding the meeting at the Department of Public Works rather than in Council Chambers. The Commissioners present stated they didn't have a conflict with the change. Mr. Ben-Yisrael assured them he would question those absent and determine if it would work for them as well. Mr. Wall stated they would be willing to make the change. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded he would confirm with the City Administrator that this was not necessarily a permanent change.
VI. Adjournment
Ms. McSwain made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Washington seconded the motion, and the meeting adjourned at or about 7:29 pm.
