MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 6:30 P.M.

 

I. Call to Order -Chairman Allen Wall

Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Gayla McSwain, Jeffrey Smith, and Allen Wall
Absent: Paul Connerty, Doug Quinn, and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes - January 4, 2011

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

III. Public Hearing - Continuation of Public Hearing for the Rezoning of Crowfield Golf Club From PD to CO

Mr. Wall explained that when the meeting was adjourned in December it was at the point where the public hearing had been closed for public comment. He stated the City has since proposed a change in the scope of the rezoning and turned it over to Mr. Ben-Yisrael for further information.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that since the last hearing Staff met with the City Administrator to discuss this proposal in detail and in the end decided to extract from the proposed rezoning the area that encompasses the club house, tennis courts, pool, and the adjacent pavilion, along with the parking for these amenities, which totals approximately 21 acres. This would mean the total land area included in the rezoning proposal is approximately 160 acres. Mr. Ben-Yisrael asked to read Staff's report on the matter, and Mr. Wall asked that he wait until time for a recommendation.

Mr. Wall stated he would open the hearing to public comment for discussion regarding the change in scope of the property proposed for the zoning change.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented a map of the properties for clarification.

When asked for additional explanation, Mr. Wall stated he met with the City Administrator, and following the meeting felt comfortable that the City's ultimate goal was to preserve the golf course property as a golf course. He explained that if the 21 acres were included in the rezoning it would limit the City's ability to expand the amenities and would decrease the flexibility in being able to make improvements to the facilities.

The question was asked what protection and restriction they would have if the 21 acres are excluded from the zoning change. Mr. Wall responded it would not have the same protection but would allow the City to expand or improve the facilities. Clarification was requested about the zoning protection provided under the Planned Development zoning if the extracted property remains as such. Mr. Wall answered it would remain as is and would not have the same protection.

A question was asked about the current deed restrictions for the property. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the 21 acres would remain Planned Development, but the question about the deed restriction for the property was not a question the Planning Commission could address. He clarified that the deed restriction does expire in approximately two years, and stated the City intends to operate the golf course then just as it is today. The possibility of the City placing another deed restriction on the property at that time is something City Council may consider in the future.

A resident spoke regarding her concern that when the deed restriction expires and the 21 acres are zoned Planned Development, the City could then sell the 21 acres for other development such as the low income projects currently under construction or proposed in Crowfield.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained there is one TMS number for the parcel, resulting in the property being just one parcel. Someone asked how the City knows exactly which area of the property will be included in the 21 acres and which will remain in the other 160 acres. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered this could be readily identified by cart paths and the edge of the included properties, which is how they know that the area equals 21 acres. The concern was stated that this would have a huge impact on the homeowners and a survey should be done prior to any change.

When asked about future plans, Mr. Wall answered there are no actual plans now for any changes or improvements, but the zoning request is just to allow the City the ability to more easily make improvements at some time. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated there have been conversations in the past about how the City could expand the Country Club, but to date that's all he is aware of. He explained that the allowed uses for the property will not change if this portion is excluded from the zoning change.

A resident stated the best protection for the golf course is for it to be successful, and the exclusion of the 21 acres would give the City the flexibility to make future changes that could help make it a more successful golf course. It doesn't take any protection away but would allow them to build a bigger clubhouse or a better place to eat, but they couldn't do that if they don't remove it from the proposed zoning change. He also complained that he came to the meeting for the stated continuation of the first public hearing yet couldn't speak about anything other than the 21 acre proposal. There was brief discussion about the ability for the two voting members to make the decision, as Mr. Arenson and Ms. McSwain recused themselves from the hearing because of living adjacent to the property in question.

There was brief discussion about the changing of the zoning ordinances to allow other uses. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that if the 21 acres were included in the rezoning, the City could expand the golf course by getting a conditional use permit through a public hearing with the ZBA. If the 21 acres remains PD, there would be no requirement for a public hearing. He assured the residents that the intention of the City is to keep its use as a golf course and wishes to have the option to expand the scope of the country club. There was brief discussion concerning the ability of a deed restriction to provide the same flexibility and security.

Mr. Wall closed the hearing and asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael to present his presentation and recommendation.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented his statement, explaining the zoning definition of Planned Development zoning and the potential for future development and the fact that this redevelopment could be approved without further action by the Planning Commission and City Council. He also explained the Conservation Open Space zoning. He stated the proposal before the Commission was being presented in an effort to provide the golf course and the residents in the community the greatest level of protection possible without unduly restricting the utilization of the property and the potential to accommodate bona fide and otherwise compatible municipal uses. He stated the question regarding deed restrictions is not being considered by the Commission, as they are only being asked to give a recommendation of what the proper zoning should be for the property. He stated that after examination of the deed language, it is Staff's opinion that given the conditions surrounding those restrictions, additional action may be necessary to provide the desired protections. The City will have the opportunity to further restrict the use of the property with its own deed restrictions. Because the CO zoning is the most restrictive zoning designation available, any future proposal to utilize the property for any purpose other than those listed would require a zoning change via a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then two public readings by City Council. An additional public notice and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals may be required depending upon the proposed land use. Therefore, it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission favorably consider the request to rezone a portion of the Crowfield Golf and Country club totaling approximately 160 acres from Planned Development to Conservation Open Space as shown on the map dated 1/26/11.

Mr. Wall stated this was the point the Commission reached at the December hearing, where the Commission was seeking Staff's recommendation. He asked the Commission to ask any questions, and they would then vote on the proposal.

Mr. Smith asked what process would be necessary if the City wished to build some type of improvement on a portion of the 21 acres if the property was a part of the property zoned CO. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the City would need to obtain a conditional use permit from the ZBA.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael reminded the Commission that though the amended proposal has been brought before them, they still have the option to recommend to rezone the entire parcel to CO or to go with the amended proposal.

Mr. Wall stated to the public that after his meeting with the City Administrator and the City Planner, he feels very comfortable that there is no ulterior motive with the City's request. He said he felt the City feels this is needed to protect the Golf Course, that they bought the property to keep it as a golf course, and separating the 21 acres was more an insurance policy than anything, as it allows the City the flexibility it might need to help create more revenue to keep the golf course going. He stated he was in favor of the request.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to recommend to City Council to rezone 160 acres to CO and to allow the 21 acres to remain zoned PD. Mr. Wall asked that Mr. Smith amend the motion to request City Council to consider placing deed restrictions on the property, and Mr. Smith so amended. At the request of Mr. Wall, Mr. Smith amended the motion to encourage City Council to address the nonconforming status of the uses as well. Mr. Wall seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: The motion was approved unanimously.

It was stated that City Council had planned to hear the recommendation at their February 8 meeting.

IV. Discussion - Land Use Buffer

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the changes and revisions pursuant to the comments made at the last meeting and briefly discussed the comments received from the EDAC at their previous meeting. He stated the EDAC requested the language be more specific regarding the front buffer area. They liked the recommendation to have a sliding requirement based on the number and type of plantings, and they asked that the Commission be sensitive to the fact that it may have an adverse impact on the businesses and their visibility. They also asked about whether businesses in operation now would be grandfathered and when they would be asked to conform. He advised that all would be considered to be legal nonconforming properties, and until they make improvements that equal 50% of their building value they would not have to comply with the change. The EDAC asked that the ordinance not be overburdening to the businesses and allow for some flexibility. There was brief discussion regarding balancing business visibility with the aesthetics for the City. There was discussion about the process in place to determine the 50% assessment for substantial improvement. There was a request that we research the ability to require that a business conform to a new ordinance if the business has appreciated 50% over its initial value or at some other point. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested he could ask other municipalities how they have accomplished this. He stated he would incorporate their suggestions into the document for review the following month. Mr. Arenson asked that a copy be sent out prior to the meeting.

Mr. Wall reminded the Commission to return feedback on the Comprehensive Plan to Jessica by February 8.

V. Comments from the Commission

There were no comments.

VI. Comments from Staff

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the training would begin the following meeting. They were reminded that February 19 at 6:00 was the Commission dinner.

VII. Adjournment

Ms. McSwain made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Arenson seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.