MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 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 6:34 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Doug Quinn, Franklin Moore, Jeffrey Smith (arrived following the approval of the minutes), Allen Wall and Barry Washington (arrived following the approval of the minutes)
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from June 7, 2011

Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Moore seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor (5 members).

III. Discussion - Land Use Buffer

Mr. Wall asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael to begin the discussion. He stated he wished to have this discussion prior to holding a public hearing to make sure all of their comments from the ongoing discussions have been incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained Zoning Ordinance section 151.085, the existing buffer ordinance, is to be replaced with this new language. He stated other staff members have given feedback as well as the EDAC.

Mr. Connerty questioned if all the questions from prior meetings have been addressed and included, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the only omission may be the provision requiring nonconforming establishments coming into compliance within a five year period. There was brief discussion regarding this, particularly concerning the time period for compliance, and the Board decided that previous minutes would be consulted, and the resulting decision added to the language. Mr. Wall requested this be clarified at the next meeting but still schedule a public hearing for the next meeting.

IV. Discussion - Role of Planning Commission

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that pursuant to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan there has been the discussion regarding the State legislative enabling language stating that the Planning Commission is to review any new proposed development, though this has not been the case previously with the Commission. He stated the Commission members have expressed their wish to have a more active role, but more discussion was needed to determine the extent of their role. He recommended that, for the next 12 to 18 months, prior to the approval of all new major developments/redevelopments, Staff will prepare Staff reports and provide them to the Commission at their meetings, getting the Commission's comments and feedback. Per Mr. Wall's question, it was stated that this would be provided in time for the Commission's comments and feedback to be incorporated into the project. Per Mr. Moore's question, Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested this include all major developments: new subdivisions, anything requiring that a new road be built, commercial and industrial developments, new public facilities, new trails, etc. This would not include additions to existing structures, parking lot modifications, or minor site plan modifications. The major question for consideration, per the enabling legislation, will be if the proposed project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan from a land use perspective.

Mr. Connerty asked about what would change at the end of the referenced 12 to 18 months. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that as it goes along, particularly after the time period, the Commission can determine how they wish to proceed with the review process. Mr. Wall asked if Staff agreed with this process, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would have additional discussions, though the legislation was specific in its language and provides for a more formal review process.

There was brief discussion about the Commission being able to have input in decisions such as the development of Henry Brown Blvd. Mr. Ben-Yisrael gave a brief update on its status, explaining the most current plan for the road is more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan than the initial plan. Ms. McSwain asked if the Commission could provide some type of recommendation or directive to put this in motion, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he would give this some thought and would come back to them with the necessary statement or language once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted.

There was discussion about the ability to dictate planted medians and DOT having jurisdiction over the roadways and their design, with the wish to have the planted medians in lieu of continuous suicide lanes.

It was decided that Mr. Ben-Yisrael would bring a recommendation to them at their following meeting in regards to their having a larger role in the approval of new developments.

V. Comments from the Commission

Ms. McSwain asked if someone could inspect the landscaping planted for the Crowfield Greens development, as so much of it has died. Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded he would look into it; there was an agreement that it would have to be maintained and replaced in the event it died.

Mr. Wall mentioned there had been a Council workshop to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, with Council stating there were some areas where the language may be too restrictive. He asked if the first reading would be in August, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael responded he thought it probably would be heard in August. He explained that in some cases the implementation strategies of the Plan used language such as " the City will provide" . . . and Council questioned if that might be interpreted to be too definitive in some instances; they suggested using language such as "will consider", or "will encourage," etc.

VI. Comments from Staff

Mr. Ben-Yisrael briefly mentioned making up training for some members.

VII. Adjournment

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Quinn seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.