MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE CENTER
200 BRANDYWINE BLVD.
I. Call to Order -Chairman Alan Wall
Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Franklin Moore, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes from August 2, 2011
Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Quinn seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
III. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Land Use Buffer Ordinance
Mr. Wall opened the public hearing. He summarized the process from the previous meeting and the Commission's decision to continue the public hearing so that additional information and revisions could be presented and to allow any interested members of the EDAC and/or business community to attend and provide their feedback. He then asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael for Staff's presentation.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael recapped their decision at the previous meeting to reopen the public hearing and summarized their past discussions as well as the concerns shared by the EDAC, particularly the mandatory compliance provisions for existing properties after five years or when making improvements totaling more than 50% of the value of the property. He referred to the new exemption language proposed for the ordinance. As a result of his meeting with the Committee he also had made revisions to the requirements for buffers between otherwise compatible uses. He introduced Mr. Rick Buckner, Chairperson of the City's Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC). He explained he was working on adding more specific requirements to the landscaping requirement, having understood the Commission decided to hear from the business community before making additional revisions to the ordinance.
Mr. Wall referred the members to the proposed revision of the language regarding exemptions for nonconforming properties and asked for clarification that this required the businesses to go before the ZBA for a variance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained how the variance process would work. Mr. Wall invited Mr. Buckner to share his concerns and comments with the Commission.
Mr. Buckner agreed that the Committee appreciates the City wishing to improve its appearance, but he stated the EDAC has worked to recruit new businesses to the City and to keep businesses viable. He explained they felt requiring a 20 to 30 foot buffer resulted in a confiscation of property and would result in businesses losing parking or portions of their buildings. He explained their concerns in regard to new requirements being placed on small businesses, particularly the repercussions from the extra expenses incurred for additional landscaping, and site issues such as ROW and sight requirements which could limit the use of a business's property, affect property values, and pose liability and security challenges. He stated he felt some businesses would leave Goose Creek if the ordinance went into effect. He agreed the proposed exemption language for those businesses which cannot, because of property restrictions, conform to the proposed ordinance, could provide a solution to many of EDAC's concerns. He stated his concern that the success of the exemption language would be dependent upon the decisions made by the ZBA.
There was discussion regarding the Commission's consideration and prior extensive discussion of the EDAC's concerns as stated to Mr. Ben-Yisrael at the Committee's last meeting. The Commission reiterated their wish to not make this overly burdensome to the City's business community and explained how the exemption language would work for those properties unable to meet the ordinance, particularly for those with a lack of business frontage.
There was discussion specifically about the size of the proposed land use and street front buffers. Mr. Buckner mentioned he hoped those stated were not unreasonable for the Low Country and asked that requirements of other areas be reviewed. Ms. McSwain stated the Commission had reviewed the requirements from various other municipalities such as Hilton Head, Beaufort, Mt. Pleasant, and Summerville.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested the variance process allows the ZBA to attach conditions to their variance approvals, and as part of the enforcement of the ordinance, Staff would be able to play a more active role in conducting reviews and making recommendations to the ZBA.
There was extensive discussion concerning the process for enforcing the compliance requirement as well as how best to present the ordinance to the business community. There was broad agreement that there needed to be a proactive effort by the City to communicate personally with the businesses, to make the information available on the City's website, and to work one on one with the businesses to assist them with compliance. There was discussion about the City providing specific suggestions and examples on how the businesses could comply with the ordinance. There was brief discussion about the need to make the City's website more helpful in providing the necessary information, in a simple format, that a new business needs when they are locating within the City.
Mr. Moore made the suggestion the ordinance state that DOT approved site requirements are to be met, and there was brief discussion.
Mr. Buckner reiterated that businesses are having a hard time right now and asked that no more challenges be put on the small business community.
It was suggested that the recommendation letter to City Council state that this ordinance was created with the input of the ARB, EDAC, and the Comprehensive Plan process and that it include a summary of the Commission's discussion regarding the recommendation that the City provide a customer service based educational/communication program to help implement the ordinance.
Mr. Buckner reiterated the EDAC's wish for the City to treat the business community as its customers and work proactively in helping them meet the City's requirements. Mr. Quinn suggested having the letter of recommendation signed by the EDAC as well.
Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Mr. Wall briefly asked about a letter being attached to the recommendation that summarized the extensive discussion regarding the wish for the City to work closely with the businesses in educating them about the ordinance and how to comply. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would suggest including information about their discussions in the letter of recommendation. He stated he intended to capture the conversation and recommendation about the communication effort within the content of the recommendation letter.
Mr. Connerty asked what response ARB had to the proposed language. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the ARB did not have any specific feedback, though they fully support the concept and have been working toward this already.
Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the proposed Land Use Buffer Ordinance, including paragraph M provisions (1) and (2). Mr. Moore seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Wall confirmed with Mr. Ben-Yisrael that the buffer area is to always contain plant material but may also include a structural buffer. Ms. McSwain asked about Mr. Ben-Yisrael's intent to revise the language to make the landscape requirements more specific to address the EDAC concerns. There was extensive discussion about how specific to make the language in order to allow for some flexibility but to also provide definite information and a specific guide for businesses to follow and whether there needed to be additional discussion and additional language inserted. There was agreement that there needed to be definitive requirements so that each business is treated equally and so that businesses knew for certain what was required.
Motion: Mr. Smith withdrew his motion to approve.
Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to reconsider closing the public hearing. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Washington seconded the amended motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
IV.Discussion - Recommendation of Commission on Role of Planning Commission for Plan Review
Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented the letter which had been reviewed by the Commission members regarding their recommendation. Mr. Wall asked if their review would include proposed annexations, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered it would include all properties within the Planning Area (as created by the Comp Plan) and that it would include new development, new construction, roads, parks, etc. He explained that annexation is driven solely by City Council unless they are annexing an area with a planned development agreement that is in place, as that is a plan for future development, and that should come before the Commission for review as required by State statute.
V. Comments from the Commission
There were none.
VI. Comments from Staff
There were none.
VII. Adjournment
Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Washington seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
