MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

 

I. Call to Order -Chairman Allen Wall

Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Doug Quinn, Franklin Moore, and Allen Wall
Absent: Jeffrey Smith and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from May 3, 2011

Motion: Mr. Quinn made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Connerty seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Mr. Wall opened the public hearing. He requested Mr. Ben-Yisrael to present the request. Mr. Ben-Yisrael referred to the summary of the requested amendments. He stated one of the more salient components was the striking of a section of the Ordinance pertaining to special uses. There are two sections within the Zoning Ordinance that grant the permitting authority for Conditional Use Permits to two separate boards or commissions. Section 151.109 grants the authority to the Planning Commission, and Section 151.171 grants the authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Therefore, Staff is requesting Section 151.109 be struck from the Zoning Ordinance, as it predates the State's Comprehensive Land Use Act which granted that authority to the ZBA. The Zoning Ordinance does specify the process for the ZBA to permit a conditional use.

Additionally, Staff is requesting some language changes to the Land Use Tables to the Zoning Ordinance to allow overnight parking of vehicles at publicly owned facilities. In the Planning Commission's zoning map amendment recommending the zoning change of the golf course from Planned Development (PD) to Conservation Open Space (CO), it was known that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the overnight parking of vehicles within the CO zoning. In Staff's review of the Section, Staff felt it best to strike that language and allow the overnight use for publicly owned facilities.

Staff also reviewed how certain land uses are to be permitted within a Planned Development district, as the Zoning Ordinance is not clear in addressing how this should occur once the majority of the planned area is developed. Staff feels there should be a mechanism in place when permitting within a planned development which is significantly completed. Staff has added a notation that states that "in an established PD all allowed uses shall be permitted in a manner consistent with the permitting requirements for that use in the most restrictive Zoning District allowing such use", which means that when a development is proposed, it will be permitted under the most restrictive method specified in the Zoning Ordinance for that type of use.

Further, Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that there is also a proposed addition to the Land Use Table to make a distinction between privately owned golf and country clubs and publicly owned golf and country clubs. Also, currently the Ordinance is silent as to whether government and professional offices are allowed within the R3 zoning district, and Staff is proposing that they be prohibited. Currently, commercial farms and nurseries are allowed in a Conservation/Open Space district by right, and Staff is proposing that these be allowed only by a Conditional Use Permit. Also, Staff is asking that the uses be clarified in regard to approved uses within the Neighborhood Commercial and Restricted Commercial districts and how these uses should be permitted.

Mr. Wall asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Per a question from the audience, Mr. Wall answered that the Commission was prepared to vote on the request that evening. There was no other question or comment.

Mr. Wall asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the proposal. There was no one.

Mr. Wall closed the public hearing.

Ms. McSwain asked for clarification that Staff's recommendation was due to a change in State law transferring the authority to the ZBA for Conditional Use permitting, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael and Mr. Wall confirmed that was the case.

Mr. Wall asked if there other were circumstances within the Zoning Ordinance where the change regarding the overnight parking of vehicles would be detrimental, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered there was not, that this would actually bring some properties into compliance.

There was significant discussion regarding the distinction between public and private clubs and the ability to have different rules within the Ordinance. There was discussion about the fact that by having rezoned the golf course to Conservation Open Space, the golf club is now a nonconforming use, resulting in either needing to acquire a Conditional Use Permit or making a change in the Zoning Ordinance to make a publicly owned golf club a by right use, whereas a privately owned golf course would require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Moore asked about requiring that both be allowed by Conditional Use Permit, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded that was what Staff was trying to avoid, but it was agreed this would add a layer of protection in the approval process. He stated if wanting to treat the two the same, it would be his recommendation to have them both allowed by right - meaning stated as an approved use within the Land Use Tables and falling under the standard development review process rather than going before the ZBA for a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that typically publicly owned facilities are treated differently in zoning ordinances. He stated that the proposed changes allowed for the flexibility required by the City and the protection for private development. Mr. Wall clarified that the only difference is for CO and LI zoning districts. He asked if there were any properties zoned CO that were not owned by the City, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he couldn't immediately think of any.

Mr. Moore, Mr. Connerty, who stated he wished to state for the record that he owns property which abuts the golf course, thus having an interest, Mr. Quinn, and Ms. McSwain questioned whether the ordinance should differentiate publicly owned facilities from privately owned and discussed the respective implications. They questioned and discussed the advantages of requiring a Conditional Use Permit for both public and private facilities.

Mr. Quinn questioned if this detailed the type of vehicles which could be parked, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it has been broadly written to allow any type of vehicle.

The Commissioners questioned the reasons behind the City's request to treat the two differently and stated they felt requiring a Conditional Use Permit for both privately owned and publicly owned facilities offered more protection and transparency. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated in light of their questions and concerns he would be comfortable if they wished to combine them and make them both by right uses, as when looking at the prospective land uses in the City, he didn't feel there would be another golf club located within the City in the future, and the development process in place provided the review process necessary to insure it was done properly. Ms. McSwain asked if the City was reluctant to go before the ZBA, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it was only a question of expediency and efficiency, that there have been discussions about taking it to the ZBA but thought perhaps this could be solved with the change discussed here. Ms. McSwain stated she preferred the more restrictive requirement. She stated she agreed that legally there was typically a different process for public vs. private but preferred requiring the same standards.

Motion: Ms. McSwain made the motion to accept and recommend to City Council the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance except that both publicly and privately owned entities are to be subject to the same due permitting procedure, being conditional rather than by right. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Wall confirmed that the City's golf course will now be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that as the ordinance relates to a golf course, the zoning ordinance will be the same as it is presently. He confirmed the only advantage to the City of changing the existing language was in not having to take an application to the ZBA for a Conditional Use Permit.
Vote: All voted in favor.

IV. Street Naming - George McCracken Drive

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained this was the same street as discussed and named the previous month but, because the property owner wished to use George McCracken Drive and the school district had approved of the name, this was being brought before them again for consideration.

Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to accept the name George McCracken Drive as the street name. Ms. McSwain seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

V. Comments from the Commission

Mr. Wall asked if rezoning a piece of property which resulted in the current use being a nonconforming use was an illegal rezoning, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded that it was not and explained that rezoning is often done with future usage in mind, and a nonconforming use may legally continue in perpetuity as long as there is no discontinuation of that use.

Mr. Wall reminded the Commissioners of the City Council workshop June 23 to review the Comprehensive Plan.

VI. Comments from Staff

There was discussion on how the Commission wished to proceed in regards to the discussion regarding the Planning Commission taking on a broader role in the development review process, per the Comprehensive Plan. There was brief discussion about the desired scope of their involvement in project review, and it was decided it would be discussed further at the next meeting.

VII. Adjournment

Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Moore seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.