MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2010
POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING ROOM
519 NORTH GOOSE CREEK BLVD.

I. Attendance:

Committee Members Present: Joel Arenson, Kristen Bowden, Jerry Glass, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith, Tom Volkmar, Allen Wall, and Barry Washington
Committee Members Absent: Rick Buckner, Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Jerry Tekac
BCD COG Staff Present: Jessica Gillis
City Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

Mr. Wall called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. He welcomed Kristen Bowden to the Committee, as she is replacing Nancy Hellstrom as the ARB's representative to the Committee.

II. Review of Minutes from June 22, 2010

Motion: Mr. Washington made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

III. Review of Previous Meeting

Ms. Gillis explained that due to her computer's hard drive crashing that afternoon she was not going to be able to share with the Committee the Community Viz modeling and suggested instead they continue the discussion from the previous month regarding the Land Use Plan. Because there were too few in attendance last month to allow an official meeting, and because the Land Use Plan is so vital, she felt it would be beneficial to bring everyone up to speed on the discussion.

Ms. Gillis referred to the map that was used at the last meeting to create future land use suggestions. Mr. Wall summarized the discussion regarding the Alcoa property in relation to Alcoa's conversation with Ms. Gillis concerning their plan to develop a portion of their property. They wish at some time to sell a majority of their property which covers an area to Carnes Crossroads and to Highway 52. The Committee members discussed last month how to plan for the development as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion about providing adequate buffering with a frontage road, developing a mixed-use commercial and residential project similar to Carnes Crossroads, having a light industrial area, and Alcoa keeping 1,000 acres surrounding their plant. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that the thinking from last month's meeting was to have a feeder road provide access to the future commercial properties.

Mr. Glass asked about developers not wishing to be blocked off of Highway 176 and not being able to have signage on 176. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded that all of those issues could be addressed with their development agreement. There was discussion about the time frame for this and the need to have a specific plan for the use of this land for when this does occur.

There was discussion about the fact that the property is not within the city limits but still needed to be a part of the Land Use Plan in the event it was sometime annexed. Ms. Gillis explained that because of the Priority Investment Act being implemented, the planning for the property's use should be a coordinated effort between the County and the City. She explained that the County is also preparing their Comp Plan, so hopefully this can be a coordinated effort.

There was discussion about Alcoa's plan, as it mirrors Carnes Crossroads, including commercial, retail, compact housing, as well as large estate sized lots that would surround the wetlands and capture the beauty of the surrounding area. There was brief discussion about the ability of the City to prohibit clear cutting of trees for future developments. Ms. Gillis offered to send the County's Land Use Plan for the Alcoa property to the Committee members so they are aware of the County's vision for the property. She explained that the County is focusing their growth in areas where their current infrastructure exists. They are changing their vision for growth because of the congestion generated and the strains on the infrastructure of the past years' growth. She stated that municipalities are realizing some of the challenges of unmitigated growth and are rethinking how they want to plan for the future. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the tool that allows a government to create a use and development plan for its surrounding area and then create zoning to implement the plan. She explained that their task is to create a vision for the City for the next twenty years so that the Planning Commission will have a map and a plan that provides the basis for any future development decisions and then the Commission can and will create the zoning that will implement the plan.

There were questions regarding how property is rezoned, the process required, and the ramifications of rezoning. Ms. Gillis explained the governmental process and the ability for the City to negotiate with the property owners to plan for the use and to have it rezoned to the benefit of both parties. She emphasized the need for a strong plan, strong Planning Commission, and strong zoning.

Mr. Wall explained there had been discussion at last month's meeting concerning designating the property along Highway 52 across from the Waffle House for use as a transportation hub.

Ms. Gillis summarized some of the topics covered last month regarding land use planning, including the Red Bank Road area, the downtown vision, city gateways, and the Henry Brown Blvd. extension. The Committee briefly discussed ideas for how the extension could best be designed, whether for neighborhood traffic or for a direct route for truck traffic traveling to I26. Ms. Gillis suggested that there should be a plan in place to insure the City has a say in how this is completed.

The concept and possible location of the "downtown" and the "town center" were discussed in regards to being able to design something from scratch rather than changing what is already in place. There was also discussion concerning the projected seven separate commercial centers throughout the city as detailed by EDAC. Ms. Gillis reiterated the fact that it is possible to have a downtown center as well as commercial centers established throughout the planning area. She stressed the fact that based on the Comprehensive Plans being written at present, growth does not necessarily have to spread down the 176 and 52 corridors, as other municipalities have decided they prefer self-contained communities.

She asked about the conversation concerning branding the City as far as the various ways it could be differentiated from North Charleston, Summerville, etc. when driving through or entering the City. She stressed that this entails more than just signage, it is more about the aura of the City, its personality via landscaping, streetscaping, architecture, elements that can be envisioned within the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that this feeling is somewhat dependent upon the scale of the city - whether it is scaled for the pedestrian or for the automobile. She suggested that it is more difficult to create this when it is not a blank slate development wise, but with strong zoning and administration it can happen slowly over time.

There was discussion about planned development zoning and how it allows developers to create mixed use large-scale communities. Ms. Gillis gave a summary of the history behind planned development zoning and development agreements.

There were questions about the ability to control future growth within the area. Mr. Quinn questioned whether, despite the Plan, development decisions would be made otherwise. Mr. Arenson suggested that future area development and growth plans were up to Berkeley County and their Comprehensive Plan since they control the areas not now within the City of Goose Creek. Ms. Gillis stated that in working with the County and their Plan, they have decided that they are "hands off" those areas within the Goose Creek area and will accept whatever Goose Creek's Plan sets for the Goose Creek area, adding that to their Plan.

Mr. Glass suggested that in the end if a developer wishes to have a property rezoned to their specifications, even if that rezoning does not adhere to the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the developer will in the end be able to get the land rezoned. Ms. Gillis reiterated that, per South Carolina law, property must be developed per the Comp Plan or the City risks the chance of being sued. There was disagreement as to whether that would actually happen. Mr. Glass stated that City politicians would not tell developers no when such a proposal came forward and that they would not abide by what the Plan recommended. There was discussion about even going through the process if there was the feeling that it was a lost cause in setting the vision. Mr. Quinn stated he didn't feel it was a lost cause but that there were too many things that would change in five to ten years to be able to plan for them. Mr. Arenson suggested it would be beneficial to meet with the County's Committee to discuss some of these key areas.

IV. Adjournment

Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Arenson seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting was adjourned at or about 7:00 p.m.