MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 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 6:35 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall, and Barry Washington.
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes of June 1, 2010 Meeting
Motion: Ms. McSwain made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Arenson seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All in favor; none opposed.
III. Discussion - Review of Land Uses - Crowfield Corporate Center
Mr. Wall asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael to begin the discussion. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that as a follow- up to the previous month's discussion as well as Staff discussion, The City requests the Commission to make an official recognition of the zoning and land use for the Corporate Center. He gave a brief summary of the history of the Center and referenced a land use map and an aerial of the Center. He stated that it was annexed in 1985 and then zoned Planned District in 1986. Since that time the area has been developed into an industrial park.
He stated that Staff wished to clarify the specific accepted land uses for the Center, as there have been recent questions about allowable uses and requests made for the area in terms of residential uses. He stated the underlying zoning for the area has always been determined to be Light Industrial within the Planned District. Within each of the areas of Crowfield there is an underlying zoning; for some it is Residential, others General Commercial, and for the Corporate Center is has always been Light Industrial. Staff has always determined that the underlying zoning is Light Industrial, which only allows industrial uses and would prohibit residential uses.
In light of the history of the zoning of the area as well as the conversations concerning this both at a Commission and Staff level, he stated he is presenting this information so that they could officially recognize the underlying zoning district by a vote and then provide a decision letter to be forwarded to City Council. This would serve as a recommendation for City Council to do the same. Considering the City's long term economic development plan, this is an issue we feel we need to clarify, as these questions are beginning to come up.
Mr. Wall questioned whether this area had been rezoned without Commission input. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the land use map first created by Westvaco showed different land uses for different aresa of Crowfield. He stated that the PD zoning is a master zoning that allows a master plan with flexibility in land uses within the development. The City feels that the initial and long range intent was for this area to be developed as a light industrial park, and that is how it has been developed to date. Mr. Wall stated he remembered that was how the area was zoned from the beginning. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that was what the City wished for the Commission to officially recognize. He stated there was some confusion as to what the initial intent was for the area, and the City wishes to eliminate the confusion.
Ms. McSwain asked why the City wishes for it to remain zoned light industrial. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered it was because of long term economic development goals, feeling this is the highest and best use for this property, and other uses may not be compatible with a light industrial park. Mr. Smith asked if this was a request for a change, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it is currently light industrial, but because the history of the area has been so convoluted and there have been various opinions and proposals made, Staff feels that we need an official statement that this area is designated for light industrial use and should remain so. Staff is asking for a letter stating that this issue has been reviewed and this is the Commission's opinion. This would serve as a prompt to City Council to review the issue. It could be referred back to the Commission if City Council feels some official action is needed; if not, Staff can then continue enforcing what its interpretation is today.
Mr. Wall asked if the annexation ordinance stated that the property being annexed was zoned Light Industrial, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded it was zoned PD. There was discussion that it was actually referred to as "Light Industrial Park". He explained the difference between the actual zoning and sub-zoning within a PD. He stated that with the rewriting of the zoning ordinance in the future, the map will reflect the actual sub-zoning of each property within a PD.
Mr. Smith asked for clarification of exactly how this will be officially designated. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the zoning isn't changing; they are just officially stating that it is to be used for light industrial uses. Mr. Smith asked what restrictions the light industrial designation places on the vacant properties. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the light industrial designation prohibits all residential uses as well as some other commercial uses. He referenced the land usage tables from the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Quinn asked about other areas also in the same situation and asked if the Commission could in the future look at these other properties with the same designation issues and clarify their uses prior to development questions arising.
Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to recognize the (zoning) designation of the Corporate Center as Light Industrial. It was clarified that this would be Planned Development Light Industrial (PD LI). Mr. Arenson seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Connerty asked why this wouldn't be designated just LI rather than PD LI. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that currently the property is zoned PD and explained the difference between the master zoning of PD and sub-zoning within a PD. The PD zoning isn't changing; they are simply recognizing that the use of this area within the Planned Development is to be Light Industrial. There was discussion about the zoning designations within the land use plan for Carnes Crossroads. Mr. Arenson asked if the use of the vacant properties within the Center would be required to be light industrial, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that it was Staff's determination that it must be light industrial. Mr. Connerty asked that the Commission be notified as to when this would come before City Council. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated this would be provided to City Council as a letter of recommendation and that Council could conduct a public hearing in order to create an ordinance or they could simply advise Staff to continue to interpret the zoning as they have been.
Mr. Molinari stated he felt that the City Council, in order to be thorough, will do it in ordinance form, thus having to have a public forum and go through two readings. Mr. Wall questioned if that was necessary. Mr. Molinari explained that because there is so much flexibility in PD zoning, and then the annexation document stated that the property had to be used in "substantial compliance with their land use plan". However, this leads to the question of what is substantial compliance. He explained they just wished to confirm that this is for light industrial uses so Staff is able to back up their decisions when developers and realtors come with plans.
Ms. McSwain called the questions.
Vote: All in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Staff would draft a decision letter based on the record and bring it back for signature.
IV. Comments from the Commission
Mr. Wall referred to a letter he received concerning Mt. Pleasant's new Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance and asked for additional clarification. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the concept. There was discussion concerning how the ordinance works and current zoning ordinance requirements within the City. He stated he could forward his memo to the City Administrator that responded to the Mt. Pleasant information. In summary, he stated Staff didn't feel it was something that was practical in Goose Creek because of size of lots. He stated it might be workable in the planned developments but not appropriate for consideration in many areas of the City. There was discussion about the City's ordinance prohibiting such ADU's.
Mr. Wall asked about the zoning for the property of the Nazarene Church. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded the zoning was GC and explained how the property was designed.
V. Comments From Staff
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would forward his comment memo about the ADU's to the Commission members.
VI. Adjournment
Ms. McSwain made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion, all voted in favor, and the meeting adjourned at or about 7:25 pm.
