MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING ROOM
519 NORTH GOOSE CREEK BLVD.

I. Attendance:

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

Mr. Wall called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m.

II. Review of Minutes from August 17, 2010

Mr. Arenson suggested that a list of action items arising from the meetings be kept and tracked, as he felt a number of items had been previously agreed to but never followed up upon. He also asked about a couple of the details in the minutes from August 17.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Tekac seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

III. South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994

Ms. Gillis presented video training from the South Carolina Municipal Association that explains the Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act and the Comprehensive Planning process. The video covered the legal requirements as well as insights in how to best create a Comprehensive Plan.

Following the videos, she explained she thought it was important to review the process, as she felt at last month's meeting there was some confusion about the process and where we were going with the Plan. She provided several handouts which explain some of the legal issues concerning Planning Commissions and the Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act and explained that these were reference guides for the Committee's use.

She stated they were almost finished with the Plan Elements, needing to complete the Future Land Use Element, and then finally the implementation measures. She referred also to the information concerning how to implement the Plan through zoning, mentioning that she felt there was some confusion concerning zoning and how the Comp Plan fits in, how they work together, and what their responsibilities are in putting together the Plan.

She suggested one of the more sensitive issues is future land use planning, so she provided copies of the Vested Rights Amendment of 2004 which explains the property rights of property owners. She asked that the members read this prior to next month's meeting.

Ms. Gillis suggested that the discussion regarding future land use would be finalized at the next meeting in October, and then they would discuss implementation strategies in November, wrapping up in December. She advised there will be a lot of effort required of the members to read and edit the Plan.

Mr. Wall mentioned the news item regarding the City of Charleston being sued because of their violating the Comprehensive Plan in their zoning decisions. He suggested this is an example of the importance of the Plan and the clout it carries.

Mr. Buckner mentioned that even in the discussion within the video there is no attention paid to the community's existing businesses. In response to the information given by Ms. Gillis, Mr. Arenson asked about the Planning Commission's responsibility for submitting priority projects as a part of the Capital Improvements Program to implement the Comprehensive Plan and the need for specifying the salient points within the Plan to identify the projects. Mr. Wall mentioned the Alcoa plan was a good example of this, giving annual recommendations to Council. Ms. Gillis suggested this would be supported by the Priority Investment Act Element. What are the City's priorities for investment? These priorities are put into the capital improvements plan, and it will become one of the implementation strategies that come out of this Plan: the near term, the short term, and the long term things to do to make sure the Plan is implemented. She stated one of the first steps is to establish a capital improvement program whereby the Planning Commission comes up with ideas of where the funding should go, they submit this to Council, and then Council amends or adopts. Other steps are to update the zoning ordinance to comply, and an annual review of the Plan by all the other Boards and Commissions, as they all feed into each other.

Mr. Arenson asked about the goal to buy the water system presently serving Crowfield and if that is something that should be included in the Comprehensive Plan, and Ms. Gillis responded that it was not. Mr. Volkmar asked if department heads have provided a list of the improvements they wish to see, and Ms. Gillis explained that they've each received a copy of the draft of existing conditions and haven't made many changes. She stated she met with each of them individually and have gathered data from their departments, and that is what was used in the draft of the existing conditions. Some have ideas of what they want, and they all tie into one another. Deciding that something is to be included in the Plan as a capital investment priority depends upon the public; if the public believes it is a priority, then it will come out in the priority investments area, and it will come out as a capital improvements program. Is it a priority when other areas need funding? That will be determined in the discussion.

Ms. Gillis was asked about receiving the drafts for the remaining sections, and she stated the land use discussion is the major part of what is left to do. She will send electronically some updated text and maps from the previous discussions. Also, after a few meetings of trying to come up with some goals, she had been asked to bring examples of goals other communities have created, and she had requested the members to come up with ideas for anything else. She hasn't received anything, so she will continue with creating these from the input sessions. Mr. Buckner asked if the public included businesses, and Ms. Gillis answered that it did, and several attended the public vision sessions. She stated the business responses had not been separated from the residents' responses in the drafts.

Mr. Buckner mentioned that no statistical data is shared within the business community even though they pay more taxes and receive less services, and he feels as though this isn't right. It was discussed that the Economic Development element covered some of these issues, and this will be in the Comp Plan. Ms. Gillis suggested if more attention needs to be paid to this, she can do that. Mr. Buckner felt that more general statistical information needed to be available, as the businesses play such a major role and should receive more importance in the Plan.

Ms. Bowden asked how the Plan would be distributed. Ms. Gillis stated that once it is drafted it will go back out for public review. There was brief discussion about the public input meetings held at the beginning of the process. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity for public comment when they meet to approve it, and City Council will have a public hearing when they meet to approve it also. There will be a copy always at City Hall, and it will be put on the City's website.

Mr. Arenson asked if she has kept a running draft going as the elements have been discussed, and Ms. Gillis stated the reason she hasn't submitted every draft after each edit is because of the cost, but she can do that electronically, though she felt more comfortable waiting for the final draft. Mr. Arenson asked for a sample draft of where the plan is currently, as he felt they would have questions.

Ms. Gillis stated that between the Committee meetings, the surveys, and living in the general area she feels she is able to interpret the input from a planner's perspective in terms of putting together the information for the future personality of Goose Creek.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael encouraged the members to ask questions about any of the information. He stated he wants everyone to be on the same page so they can move forward, have a document everyone feels good about, and get it before City Council in a timely fashion.

There was discussion about when the Plan would be ready to be submitted to Council, and Ms. Gillis stated she feels it could be submitted by the December Council meeting. Mr. Arenson asked about the capital improvements program as defined in their information. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City Administrator manages the capital improvements program. At the end of the year, the surplus funds left over after bills are paid are pooled, the projects are prioritized, and funding is allocated based on availability. Mr. Arenson asked if the Planning Commission would at some time be able to work with this as suggested in the information they have received and based on the Comprehensive Plan, thus being able to prioritize for the vision specified in the Comprehensive Plan. It was discussed that City Council would be the ones to adopt the Plan and manage the Plan. Mr. Buckner suggested if emphasis is put on the points they feel are most important, then the Council will be able to recognize what the Committee's priorities are. There was additional discussion about interpreting the law as written, the Planning Commission being removed from some of these processes, and the City's process for identifying and prioritizing capital projects. There was discussion about the Planning Commission submitting lists of projects for consideration, though not precluding the City Manager from managing the expenditures. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that some time ago some of the authority of the Planning Commission was delegated to Staff, and the Commission does not participate in the planning process for capital improvements, though it does not keep the Commission and/or the Committee from making recommendations. There was discussion about transparency throughout the capital improvement process, recommending that in the future the Planning Commission be granted a more active role. They discussed briefly the Committee's responsibility to chart the future through the Plan and the interpretation of the Planning Commission's responsibilities as outlined in the Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994. It was suggested that, once the Plan is approved by Council, when capital projects are requested through the various City departments, it is the Planning Commission who would review the requests to insure the projects are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan following the input received from the public during the Plan process. Ms. Gillis reminded them that the future land use plan of the Comp Plan must address those things the public stated are needed for the city - they must be mapped out as to where these improvements are to be located at some future time. Mr. Arenson stated that per Legislation, the Planning Commission is the body that should, on a monthly basis, be the one to take the lead in reviewing the Comp Plan and identifying needed projects per the Plan.

IV. Adjournment

Mr. Volkmar made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Arenson seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting was adjourned at or about 7:08 p.m.