MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
GOOSE CREEK, SOUTH CAROLINA
I. Call to Order - Chairman Allen Wall
Chairman Allen Wall called the meeting to order at 6:34 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 July 6, 2010 Meeting
Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Connerty seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.
Mr. Wall asked about Mr. Quinn's request that other properties that are in the same situation be reviewed and clarified prior to development questions arising. He asked if there was an answer given. Ms. Hanson answered that these types of situations will be reviewed during the research and rewriting of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wall explained that the clarification for the Crowfield Corporate Center had been presented to City Council at their last meeting. He stated that he discussed this with Mr. Harmon, letting him know the Commission did not want this to be an Ordinance due to the fact there was no public hearing on it, and Mr. Harmon is considering making this a Resolution rather than an ordinance.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated this matter had just been referred back to the Commission, and it was his intention to brief the Commission at this meeting.
He reminded them that the Commission voted at the last meeting to recognize that the zoning for the Crowfield Corporate Center is Planned Development Light Industrial. This was short of a zoning ordinance because Staff advised that they felt an amendment was not necessary, as the area has been historically zoned Light Industrial. This was forwarded to City Council, and they decided to pass an ordinance for the clarification, but after the discussion with Mr. Wall and Mr. Harmon it was decided that City Council would instead pass a resolution, making it less official because of the process used. From there, he felt Mr. Wall's comments had been further considered and the issue should be brought back to the Commission and treated like a zoning map amendment. To prevent any future questions, it is felt that the Commissioners should go through the full process for zoning map amendments, including posting the property with signage, advertising the proposed amendment, holding a public hearing, and making a recommendation. City Council will then hear it and then hopefully pass the ordinance.
Mr. Wall asked about developers wishing to develop residential properties there. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Staff hasn't received any concrete proposals concerning residential use, so this can move forward without causing any damage to any potential applicants. He stated he would have to consult the City's attorney for guidance should a developer come forward in the midst of the ordinance process.
Mr. Arenson asked about how the language would be crafted for the amendment. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that it would be a zoning map amendment, so there wouldn't have to be any written changes, just changing the zoning map. He suggested they would remove the PD designation and it would become Light Industrial. Mr. Arenson asked if this would stand legally, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded he thought it would.
Mr. Wall stated the Commission needed to clarify that they wished to have a public hearing at the next meeting.
Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to hold a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting to recommend changing the zoning map for the Crowfield Industrial Park to indicate Light Industrial rather than Planned Development. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. McSwain asked about other areas in the city zoned PD with sub-zoning and if this would be any different from those areas. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it would be, and this would establish a precedent for how other areas would be zoned; in the future you would not see "PD" anywhere, you would see the sub-zoning. Mr. Wall asked if this would have to be city-wide, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he felt it would be. There was some question as to how that would affect initial planning for Planned Developments.
Mr. Arenson said he felt perhaps something like this needs to be done to the zoning map to keep something like the Crowfield Greens development from happening in the future. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City has recently sought legal counsel to determine if the City has any recourse. Once Mr. Harmon has briefed City Council on that he will update the Commission. He stated one way to prevent this is to go in and look at the definition of condominiums and townhomes and possibly limit the number of units that can be built or can remain under the ownership of the developer, how many can be rented, etc., though the City has to be mindful of legal boundaries. Mr. Wall asked if the City was taking away the PD designation, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he didn't feel they would. At this time it is a flexible zoning to allow development options, so perhaps in the future there will be other zoning designations that would work. Mr. Wall asked about how this would impact Carnes Crossroads, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Carnes not only has the PD designation but also the City sub-zoning designations, as well as the Daniel Island Company's sub-zoning designations, and all these will have to be clarified. He stated he felt this would present the opportunity to prioritize this and get it fixed.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated at one point the City entertained an application for multi-family housing within the Corporate Center, but it was turned down. Also there are documents from Westvaco at the time of Crowfield Plantation being established that included a land use plan showing potential residential uses within the Corporate Center, so there needs to be more definite clarification than PD-LI.
Mr. Quinn asked how to prevent developers from pushing for the flexibility of the PD designation. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested the Development Agreements are the mechanism where these terms and conditions can be worked out.
Mr. Arenson suggested developers will take advantage of any loophole available, and referenced the Crowfield Greens development. He stated any loophole that allowed this development should be closed so the situation won't occur again, where the developer sells one particular plan and then at the last minute changes the plan and potentially affects property values in the area. He feels the City should be looking at how that occurred and close any zoning loophole.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the best way to achieve that is through placing conditions on the conditional use permit, ask very specific questions, get very specific agreements without crossing the legal boundaries, and codify that in the decision - that if any changes are made they would have to come back for public review.
Mr. Wall suggested this discussion didn't pertain to the motion and asked if there was additional discussion concerning the motion to hold the public hearing.
Vote: All in favor. None opposed.
III. Discussion: Review of Land Use Buffer Ordinance
Mr. Ben-Yisrael provided a draft of the basic framework for the ordinance. He explained this was just the introduction for the land use buffer ordinance, including specific provisions for landscaping, structural buffers, maintenance provisions, and specific suggestions for landscaping elements. He suggested the Commission could review this and come forward next month for discussion. He will continue drafting the specifics for the ordinance, particularly the various sizes of buffers depending upon the use, as well as buffers along streets and rights-of-way. Mr. Smith asked about adding provisions for maintenance violations, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated there currently is a standard provision in the ordinance defining fines, and he will cross reference that. Mr. Wall asked if it stated which development was required to provide the buffer, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that would have to be spelled out in the specific language. Mr. Wall asked if by the next meeting there would be more specific information, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that was his intent. Mr. Wall asked if one public hearing would be sufficient for the entire ordinance, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he felt that one public hearing should work. Mr. Arenson asked if Staff would be looking at existing ordinances from other areas, and if so which areas. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded he was reviewing Hilton Head, Mt. Pleasant, Summerville, as well as others, still making it specific to Goose Creek. Mr. Smith asked if there is anything on record now concerning buffers, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered there is a requirement now for up to a fifteen foot buffer when there are incompatible land uses or zoning districts. The specifications for the buffers are lacking, and there is some confusion as to when these buffers should be implemented. Mr. Smith asked what would happen for properties in existence today if the ordinance is amended, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated they would be grandfathered from enforcement, and there would be a trigger for future development that would require their conforming to the new buffer requirement.
Ms. McSwain was excused from the meeting.
IV. Discussion - Upcoming Zoning Map Ordinances
Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that in addition to the Crowfield Corporate Center there were several properties that when annexed into the City were zoned incorrectly. One is a property in Crowfield Plantation which was zoned with its sub-zoning of R-3 rather than the PD zoning of Crowfield. Another is at the entry of Brickhope Plantation which was first used as the sales office for Ryland Homes. It was annexed after the Brickhope area, and the Development Agreement states this will be utilized for restricted commercial uses. However, when it was annexed it wasn't zoned, resulting in its zoning defaulting to "Conservation/Open Space".
It was suggested these could be heard also during the next month's meeting. Mr. Wall asked if one public hearing could suffice for all the properties, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he thought they would have to be heard separately.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael referenced another area that also needs to be rezoned, a City owned property in the Persimmon Hill community. Most of the property is wetlands, and currently it is zoned PD as is the adjacent property. The City wishes to have it zoned Conservation/Open Space. Mr. Smith asked if a property zoned CO can actually be developed, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the use potential is extremely limited, so essentially once it is rezoned it would serve as a buffer area. Mr. Arenson asked about the property shown between the two properties, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated this was owned by the Persimmon Hill investors and has a significant amount of wetlands on it as well.
Mr. Wall asked if this was to be included in the public hearings, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered yes, that it was of a high priority.
There was brief discussion about holding the buffer ordinance discussion at a meeting other than the next month to allow more specific language to be added and to allow additional time for the Commission's review.
Motion: Mr. Washington made a motion to add the three additional properties to the public hearing agenda at the October meeting. Mr. Connerty seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.
V. Comments from the Commission
Mr. Wall asked the Commissioners if they had any comments, concerns, or questions concerning the Comprehensive Plan and its process. Mr. Arenson made the suggestion that a more specific agenda be created in order to keep the discussion more focused and to state the particular objectives for the meeting. Mr. Smith asked for clarification of the makeup of the Steering Committee. It was explained that each member of the Planning Commission is a member plus one representative from the ARB, the ZBA, the Recreation Commission, EDAC, and City Council. It was explained that by state law, the responsibility for the Comprehensive Plan sits with the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith asked who the representative was for City Council, and it was stated that Jerry Tekac is Council's representative. Mr. Arenson suggested it would be helpful to receive draft copies of the elements covered so far. Mr. Wall mentioned that Ms. Gillis was hoping to present the document once all the information was gathered. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that she has provided copies of the elements worked on so far, most being the existing conditions, with the exception of the Priority Investment Area and the Transportation element, so if additional copies are needed Staff can provide those. He stated he would follow up with Ms. Gillis to discuss the Commission's concerns and feedback. Mr. Wall asked if the Plan was on schedule, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated we were behind schedule. He said it was highly unlikely that a recommendation could be made to City Council prior to December, that more than likely it would be three months into 2011. Mr. Wall stated he agreed with Mr. Arenson about having stated goals and objectives for each meeting.
Mr. Arenson asked if he could have a copy of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
VI. Comments From Staff
Mr. Ben-Yisrael reminded the Commission that it is time again for the yearly training. He stated he is open to recommendations and suggestions. There was discussion as to some of the options for scheduling the training.
VII. Adjournment
Mr. Quinn made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Connerty seconded the motion, all voted in favor, and the meeting adjourned at or about 7:53 pm.
