MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
JULY 14, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Vice Chairman Clift

Vice Chairman Clift called the meeting to order at 6:31

Present: Butch Clift, James Fisk, Larry Monheit, Kevin Smith, and Thomas Volkmar
Absent: Robert Williams and Van Williams
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

Pledge of Allegiance

II. Public Hearing - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family Use, 95 Bridgetown Road

Vice Chairman Clift explained the process for the hearing. He asked Staff to present the application summary. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the application was for development of a 60 unit multi-family for rent condominium development. The applicant has presented plans and drawings as well as a summary of how the project meets the thirteen criteria within the Zoning Ordinance for conditional use permits, and Staff finds the application adequate to meet the submittal requirements. He stated the Board should be aware that two previous Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the property. One was granted in 2003 for what was then to be Phase 3 of the Bridgetown Place development; then in 2004 a CUP was granted for the construction of approximately 80 townhome and condominium units on the site.

Chase Northcutt, with RHA, owner and developer of the project, introduced himself and then introduced Zack Bearden with Seamon Whiteside & Associates. Mr. Bearden presented a drawing of the previously approved project and then an overlay of the current proposed project, showing that they were comparable in location and height. He stated this project would be of less density. They have implemented Staff's comments into the current plans, such as adding a wrought iron fence along Bridgetown Road, increasing buffer plantings, and adding sidewalks on Bridgetown Road to Crowfield Boulevard. He explained the amenities included for the project.

Mr. Bearden addressed the thirteen criteria as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, stating the plans do meet all criteria. He stated the designed landscape buffer keeps the pine tree buffers on all three sides of the property. In regard to traffic issues, Mr. Fisk asked if there had been a traffic study, and Mr. Bearden responded there had not. Mr. Bearden stated this project would produce less traffic than the general commercial use designated on the Crowfield land use plan. He stated the project will be built with 50% brick plus hardy plank for its exterior materials, providing an attractive appearance and being comparable to other Crowfield properties.

Mr. Clift invited anyone present to speak in favor of the proposal. There was no one.

Mr. Clift then invited anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of the proposal to come forward.

Ms. Barbara King stated she was concerned there had been no traffic study and disagreed that the traffic would not be adversely impacted, as other like streets within Crowfield Plantation have been. She questioned how the owner will qualify residents, stating her fear that residents, if not properly screened by the owner, could be a safety concern in regards to the schools being adjacent to this property, as she felt the low income and low rental rates would attract residents of questionable character and background. She asked if this project had been presented to the Crowfield ARB and if they had received approval and if they would have to meet all the restrictions within Crowfield.

Ms. Debra Inman, property manager for Bridgetown Place Village, asked that a traffic study be done prior to approval, as the traffic now, particularly during the school year, is quite heavy. She questioned if this was indeed a low income project and asked the number of bedrooms being built, as this would add additional cars over the planned two cars per unit.

Ms. Cecilia Nettleton spoke about the amount of traffic currently traveling Bridgetown Road and stated her objection to adding more.

Mr. David Gould asked if this development would be a part of the Food Lion shopping center property, and it was answered that the Food Lion property is not within the City Limits of Goose Creek. Mr. Gould spoke to the amount of traffic that uses Bridgetown Road as a short cut and stated his objections to adding to the traffic. He asked if the new development would have a Crowfield regime and if they would have to maintain it to the Crowfield standards.

Mr. Bearden stated there was a traffic study that had been previously completed and asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael if a copy could be given, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he thought one had been done when Crowfield was first planned. Mr. Bearden stated the site is zoned for commercial use, and this project would lessen the density and would result in a lower traffic yield than the commercial use. Mr. Northcutt stated a package had been submitted to Crowfield today, and they would be meeting with them in the coming weeks, and it will be held to the same standards as other Crowfield projects. He stated there will be a third party property manager, and background checks, both criminal and credit, will be done on all potential residents. Mr. Sid Boone, attorney for the developer, stated there will be a homeowner's association for the project.

Mr. Monheit asked if this project will be required to pay homeowners dues, and Mr. Northcutt answered they would.

Mr. Volkmar asked how they were evaluating the impact of the project on the property values of the neighboring properties as required to meet the evaluation criteria. Mr. Mike Riley, architect for the project, explained the architectural details for the project. He stated they would be built with 50% brick, using three colors, as well as hardy plank siding, architectural shingles, with muted color tones to meet the Crowfield architectural palette. He stated the buildings will compliment what is there now.

Ms. Sarah Neiman, consultant for the developer, presented renderings of the product. Mr. Monheit asked about the hardy plank siding, and Mr. Riley explained that it is a lap siding that is a higher grade product than vinyl siding.

Mr. Volkmar questioned there being no traffic study, and Mr. Bearden explained that the previously approved CUP was for a higher number of units, and there is a "dark" Food Lion, so they didn't feel a study was necessary. Mr. Fisk asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael if the study initially done for Crowfield Plantation would still be applicable to today's traffic flow, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it would only be applicable and reliable if the use projections were accurate, to the degree that the projected uses match existing uses. He explained this site and the Food Lion site were projected to be used as commercial developments, so the design of the land use plan for this area gave consideration to all these projected future uses.

Mr. Volkmar questioned the perimeter buffer, with the existing pine trees being left as they are. Mr. Bearden stated additional landscaping would be added to the buffers. Mr. Riley and Mr. Bearden stated there would be an 8' fence on the three sides of the property.

Mr. Smith asked what the projected rental rates would be for the units, and Mr. Northcutt stated they would range from the $400's to the $600's, and there is no subsidy.

Ms. King asked about Mr. Boone's reference to there being a homeowners association for the project and asked who would be considered the homeowner and if this would be filed with the Crowfield Homeowners Association.

Mr. James Barfield spoke about his concerns regarding the traffic and the problems associated with low income projects.

Mr. Bill Bates stated there needs to be a traffic study provided because of the number of cars generated by the schools traveling Bridgetown and Springhall. He stated the residents from the existing apartment complex use Bridgetown Road rather than Springhall because of the school traffic, and Bridgetown Road is used to avoid the traffic light at St. James Avenue and Crowfield Blvd.

Mr. Ronald Howes questioned who was going to be paying the Crowfield Homeowners regime fee and if the fee was going to be different from what other homeowners pay.

Mr. Bill Ferrell stated his objections to having low income housing and stated his concern about what it would do to property values.

Ms. Inman stated that having been a property manager for twenty years, she objected to having such low rent properties in the area because of the type of residents that will live there.

Mr. Barfield spoke again about the number of children in the area.

Ms. Bates questioned if the residents will be able to use the Crowfield amenities in relation to the homeowner dues being paid.

Mr. Boone stated the owner of the property will be required to pay residential homeowners fees for each unit. In this instance, for the sixty planned units, there will be 60 individual homeowners fees that will be paid. There was discussion about the use of Crowfield amenities by the residents.

Mr. Northcutt stated they will be a long time owner and will be there at least fifteen years, as it is a fifteen year ownership. He stated that if the market will bear higher rates over time, the rental rates will be increased.

Mr. Volkmar asked what other uses would be considered as conforming to the current zoning for the property and thus would not need to come before the Board for approval. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that per the conditional use permits previously granted, an Eighty (80) unit townhome/condominium development or the duplexes within Bridgetown Place Phase 3 could be approved at Staff level. Additionally, the PD zoning allows virtually every use within the zoning ordinance subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and subsequently the approval of City Council. For multifamily housing, the Zoning Ordinance now states that these projects must go through the most stringent review process available, and that is the Conditional Use Permit, which is why this application is here. All other uses, such as a convenience store or other retail establishment, could be approved without these approvals, as the property is zoned PD, and the land use map designates the property for general commercial use.

Mr. Boone stated that per the covenants and restrictions of Crowfield, this property cannot be developed for a general commercial use.

Mr. Howes asked if the meeting is recorded, and Mr. Clift answered yes.

Ms. King stated she felt that from the comments at the meeting, more study needs to be done about some of these concerns. She stated her opinion that the current economy has forced developers to go through the State Housing authority in order to make more money. She stated because of the immediate impact on the immediate properties as well as Crowfield Plantation as a whole, the Board should have every question they have about the project answered prior to making a decision.

Mr. Clift asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael is he had anything to add, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered there was nothing further from Staff.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Mr. Volkmar stated he felt as though there were some questions regarding traffic flow and property values that should be addressed and brought back to the Board. He suggested tracking vehicular traffic flow and getting information regarding property valuations from an appraisal rather than relying on proposed building materials. Mr. Monheit and Mr. Volkmar stated there was a question about the effect on the general character and overall welfare of the adjacent areas. Mr. Volkmar also stated he would like to get additional information on the proposed buffer. Mr. Volkmar stated he would like to ask the applicant to bring back additional information to the Board to address those items. Mr. Fisk agreed that the traffic study is worth further investigation given the changes since the previous study. Mr. Monheit stated his need for additional information regarding the impact on property values. Mr. Smith stated there was no substantive information regarding the statements that there would be no negative impacts, and he felt without that they could not make a decision. Mr. Volkmar stated they could bring forth the eighty unit townhome project without having to bring it before the Board, and he appreciated their coming forward with their presentation, but he felt more information was necessary for him to vote on the application. Mr. Monheit agreed and asked that they come back to the Board with additional information.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated if it was the Board's intent to continue the hearing, to request additional information and perhaps provide the applicant the chance to answer questions and provide more information, and to allow the public to ask more questions in response to the information provided, he suggested the Board move to reopen the hearing, then continue the hearing, to provide that opportunity.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar moved to reopen the hearing and to continue the hearing. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Ms. Barbara Towe stated she agreed with previous comments and concerns and asked about additional parking required for the three bedroom units and asked if a packet of information would be available for their review. She stated her concern about the impact on the schools by the number of students added to the system.

Mr. Bates stated any evaluation of the traffic situation needed to take into account the school year. He asked Mr. Bearden how many entrances there were to the project, and it was answered there were two.

Ms. Bates asked whose covenants prevail - Crowfield's or the City's. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the City's Zoning Ordinance is separate and apart from Crowfield's covenants and restrictions, but by virtue of a State law passed in 2007, at the time of application for any use within a Planned Development, the City must ask if there are covenants and restrictions that prohibit that use, and if there are, the City is prohibited from issuing a permit for that use. That is the only case that a covenant and restriction overrides a City Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Clift asked the applicant to provide a traffic study that takes into account the traffic during the school year. He also asked for additional information addressing the concern that this project could adversely impact nearby property values. He asked them to provide additional information regarding the buffering planned for the site as well as the parking provided. He asked that a packet be provided for the public's use, and it was suggested the materials provided to the ZBA and ARB could be provided to the public. Mr. Clift asked that they also address Section 151.171(C)(9) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Volkmar specifically requested a vehicular traffic flow study from a reputable engineering firm that included the impact of the school year. Mr. Clift asked Mr. Bearden about the ability to provide the traffic information even though the school year is not in session, and Mr. Bearden stated they will be able to use models that provide that information. It was requested that the engineer attend so that questions can be adequately answered, and Mr. Bearden said they would definitely have the engineer attend. Mr. Volkmar and Mr. Bearden briefly discussed the buffer, and Mr. Bearden stated the added vegetation would be adequate.

The continuance of the public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, August 17.

Motion: Mr. Monheit made a motion to continue the hearing until August 17. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Comments from the Board

There were none.

IV. Comments from Staff

There were none.

V. Adjournment

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

The meeting adjourned at or about 8:10 p.m.

 

_______________________________ Date: ______________, 2011
Butch Clift, Vice Chairman