MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

 

I. Call to Order -Vice Chairman Doug Quinn

Vice Chairman Quinn called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Franklin Moore, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith
Absent: Allen Wall and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from July 5, 2011

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Moore seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Land Use Buffer Ordinance

Mr. Quinn opened the public hearing. He asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael for Staff's presentation.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the proposed ordinance had been distributed to the Commissioners, and the only provision added was the compliance provision which requires nonconforming businesses to come into compliance within a five year period or at the time they make improvements to the property totaling more than 50% of the property's value.

He summarized his recent presentation to the City's EDAC meeting which was held since last month's Commission meeting, and he shared the EDAC's concerns regarding the revisions. He stated their major concern was with the compliance provision, which they unanimously wished to have amended. Because the majority of the City's businesses would be nonconforming with the passing of the ordinance and unable to become conforming because of various property situations, they felt enforcement of the ordinance would be difficult. They also questioned the required buffers and the flexibility written into the ordinance, particularly after reviewing buffer ordinances from other municipalities. They suggested the ordinance be much more specific and that Staff take a second look at the requirements for incompatible uses. They asked if the Commission would consider continuing the public hearing in order to allow more discussion and for Staff to rework the ordinance before making a recommendation to City Council. He stated that Staff was prepared to recommend the continuance following their discussion.

There was brief discussion about the overlay district concept, compliance provisions within its ordinances, and the fact that these are no longer enforced because of the abandoned downtown concept.

The availability of the variance process and thereby the possibility of being deemed as exempt from the ordinance was discussed briefly.

There was extended discussion about the need to either keep the compliance time period or to instead use only the 50% improvement requirement for compliance and the possible implications to the businesses. Mr. Moore suggested adding the ability to have an alternate landscaping plan if they could not comply, thereby making the property improved to some extent. There was discussion about getting a variance that requires they comply to the maximum extent possible for their property. Ms. McSwain stated that the variance process was already in place and the intent of the amendment was to improve the aesthetics of the City, so she didn't want to see the amendment gutted. There was agreement that the five year period would allow the businesses time for planning and budgeting for the change to determine what they could do. In light of the ongoing improvements being made by the City, it was suggested there was the need for a public and private partnership and the need to market this change as a partnership to beautify the City. Chick-fil-A's extensive landscaping was cited as an example of an alternative street buffering plan. Ms. McSwain suggested that without a time requirement the change would not happen, and there was agreement that a more attractive city would bring additional businesses and patrons. There was an agreement that they needed to be sensitive to the economic times while still assuring the business community that they were intent on improving the business environment with the change. There was the agreement that without the change the area would be left behind those municipalities that were looking forward and working toward creating a more attractive environment.

There was also a concern regarding the business community's interest in the subject because there was no one attending the public hearing. Mr. Connerty asked what the process would be should a business not be able to comply at the end of the five years, asking about the City's enforcement policy. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated they would be contacted, the process for a variance would be explained, and then the business would have the opportunity to explain their case for not being able to comply. Mr. Connerty stated he felt there was an established process in place that offers options for a business. He reiterated the goal of beautifying the City, and having conformity, and he stated this amendment is a step toward that. There was discussion that existing businesses would wish to participate once newer businesses were conforming and improving the look of the City. Ms. McSwain suggested those not able to conform entirely can be taken on a case by case basis to determine to what extent they could comply.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that after studying the language further and speaking to the EDAC he felt the buffering requirements between uses should be reconsidered; some of the requirements may be unnecessary, as the uses are actually compatible. He also cautioned that an ordinance not be approved that is not intended to be enforced with the same consistency as other ordinances.

There was discussion about the need to educate the business community about the change and market the goal of beautifying the City as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. It was stated this is what was heard from the public before and during their work on the Plan, and they felt comfortable with keeping this requirement in the ordinance. There was agreement that five years was an ample time period for a business to prepare for the change; with an effort to communicate with the City's businesses it would allow for the majority of them to comply if they could, and there was a process in place if they felt they could not comply.

Discussion followed regarding the need for working more closely with the business community and reaching out to them with more information and communication. There was the suggestion EDAC could inform the business community about this discussion regarding the ordinance so they could be present and express their concerns and have a dialogue. The Commission stated that before changing the direction of the proposed ordinance they would prefer to hear from the business owners directly and hear their concerns. There was the suggestion that the Commission make their recommendation, and if the businesses wish to express any concerns, it would then be to City Council.

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

Mr. Quinn requested Staff's recommendation. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he felt the ordinance as written needs to be reworked in regards to some of the buffer requirements between land uses and undeveloped properties being relaxed to some extent and some of the landscaping requirements being made more specific; therefore, Staff would recommend that the public hearing be continued so that the Commission could review the changes in a public hearing context. He suggested it would also allow the opportunity to invite the business community and/or the EDAC members to the hearing to hear their concerns directly.

The question was raised about being able to require new developments to conform to the new requirements prior to its approval in light of the time the process takes to have an ordinance amendment approved. There was concern that the process would take quite some time and new developments could be approved without being held to the new requirements. Mr. Connerty suggested that Staff will be explaining to new businesses that this is coming into effect and encouraging them to comply as they do their initial design.

Mr. Moore stated he felt if the Commission and City wished to encourage the public and private relationship with the business community, the first step would be to continue the hearing and give Staff the opportunity to speak to EDAC. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the EDAC had actually requested that Staff request the Commission to wait to make a recommendation until EDAC met next quarter so they could consider the Commission's final decision, but they also were aware this was not something required of the Commission. He suggested they be invited to the next meeting to have a discussion.

Motion: Mr. Connerty made the motion to reconsider the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: Ms. McSwain stated she understood the EDAC's concerns, but the Commission is required by law to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and, thus, their hands are tied in their effort to beautify the City. She stated her respect for the EDAC concerns but stated she couldn't think of anything they could say that would change her mind. Mr. Quinn asked if anyone had any objections to the changes Daniel had suggested about the buffer requirements and asked how they wished to proceed in having them revised. Mr. Moore stated they had no options but to continue the hearing.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Connerty seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. McSwain asked about the Commission wishing to invite the EDAC members to the public hearing.

Amended Motion: Mr. Smith stated an amended motion to continue the public hearing to the next stated meeting and extend an invitation to the EDAC to attend the meeting to offer input and comments. Mr. Connerty seconded the amended motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

IV. Discussion - Role of Planning Commission

Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented a policy statement regarding the Commission's request to be involved in the review of new developments within the City. He stated it was written to assure the process is seamless and does not slow the review process. It was suggested the term "major developments" be defined in the statement per the discussion from their last meeting. He suggested it could be forwarded in letter format to Council in time for their first reading for the approval of the Comprehensive Plan.

V. Comments from the Commission

Mr. Smith asked if the Quarterly Reports are mailed to the businesses, as he felt it would be a good way for information to get to them so they can be be aware of changes and information.

VI. Comments from Staff

Ms. Hanson stated, in response to Ms. McSwain's concern about new developments getting approved before the ordinance can take effect, the new development referred to as being currently in the approval process was scheduled to go before the ARB in August, so the review and approval for that project would not have been affected even if they had acted on the ordinance amendment at this meeting.

VII. Adjournment

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Moore seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.