MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BLVD.

 

I. Call to Order -Chairman Alan Wall

Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty (arrived following the opening of the public hearing at 6:36), Franklin Moore, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith and Allen Wall
Absent: Gayla McSwain and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from October 4, 2011

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

III. Public Hearing - Rezoning of 104 Wilmer Avenue from Residential Medium Density (R2) to General Commercial (GC)

Mr. Wall opened the public hearing. He summarized the procedures for the hearing, explaining that their decision is simply a recommendation to City Council.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the application and referenced two maps showing the location of the property in relation to surrounding properties and the zoning of the properties in the area. He pointed out that the properties immediately adjacent to and across from the subject property are zoned Residential, though there are properties in the vicinity and along St. James Avenue that are zoned General Commercial. Further west of the subject property are other residential uses. He stated the applicant wishes to use the property as a professional office.

Mr. Quinn recused himself from the application, stating he knew Mrs. Barnette.

Mr. Barnette, owner of the subject property, stated he hoped to use the property as a professional office, and because they would enter from St. James this would not affect any property owners located beyond the property. He stated there was a single family home next to the property.

Mr. Wall asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for the proposal, and there was no one.

Mr. Wall asked about the small land area to the right of the property, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered it was a part of the property which runs behind the applicant's property, most likely used for access.

Mr. Wall asked if anyone wished to speak against the issue. There was no one.

Mr. Wall closed the public hearing.

He asked Mr. Barnett if the people next door had an opinion, and Mr. Barnett stated they had stated they were glad he was asking for the change. Mr. Wall asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael if Staff had a recommendation. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he wished to provide some additional information regarding the reason for the zoning separations as they exist. He pointed out the commercial properties along St. James Avenue and then along Wilmer where the zoning transitions from Residential 2 to Residential 1; this was done to provide a buffer between the commercial uses and the residential uses. He stated that historically the City had not been in favor of rezoning properties in this area due to potential encroachment into the residential area from increased commercial activity, and he felt the City's recommendation would be consistent with those past decisions. Mr. Wall asked if Restricted Commercial would provide the preferred buffer. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the Restricted Commercial would also allow the use as a professional office. He briefly explained the difference in allowed uses for the two zoning designations.

Mr. Wall asked if the Commission could consider a zoning different from what was requested per the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the applicant would have to make the request. There was significant discussion regarding the ordinance and statue requirements for being able to change the zoning request. When asked Staff's potential recommendation for a Restricted Commercial zoning, Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that because of the residential properties in the area he felt the recommendation would most likely be the same, particularly because there is not a buffer between the two properties. There was discussion about the possibility of being able to add a buffer to the property.

Mr. Moore questioned why the property across the street that is owned by the First Baptist Church was zoned General Commercial, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he did not know. Mr. Smith asked about how approved uses compare between the Residential 2 and the Restricted Commercial, and it was stated that Residential 2 can be used only for residential uses.

Mr. Wall mentioned that the Commission had turned down a similar request on Farm Road that had no residential use nearby.

There was brief discussion regarding there being a buffer of trees on the left side of the property.

Mr. Connerty stated his concern that if the Commission voted on the application it would limit the applicant's ability to bring the application back for a less intense zoning within a reasonable time. There was additional discussion about the zoning ordinance requirement regarding the time restraints for reapplying for a zoning change. It was decided because the public hearing had been advertised for the application, the applicant could not reapply for six months without the approval of City Council.

The applicant asked that his application be withdrawn, without bias, and at the request of Staff provided a written request prior to the end of the hearing.

The applicant asked if Staff would then be able to recommend the restricted commercial zoning, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he would have to consider the option further, though he would still have some serious reservations about a commercial use being next to a residential use. He also stated there would be a better chance of receiving the Restricted Commercial zoning than a General Commercial zoning. Mr. Connerty suggested to the applicant that, for the reapplication, the buffer question be considered and suggested having an actual statement presented to the Commission from the adjacent neighbor.

Mr. Wall closed the public hearing, with no decision made, as the applicant had withdrawn his request.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would look at the options of both Restricted Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial and discuss the options with the applicant.

IV. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson

Mr. Wall asked if there were any nominations for Chair. Mr. Quinn nominated Mr. Wall for Chairperson. Mr. Connerty asked if the Commission could wait until the two absent members were present, and it was answered that the zoning ordinance requires it to be done in November. Mr. Connerty nominated Mr. Moore who accepted the nomination. Mr. Wall removed his name from consideration. Mr. Wall nominated Mr. Quinn for Vice Chair. Mr. Smith volunteered for the position. Mr. Quinn removed his name from consideration.

Motion: Mr. Quinn made a motion to accept the nominations of Mr. Moore for Chairperson and Mr. Smith for Vice Chair. Mr. Connerty seconded. All voted in favor.

V. Comments from the Commission

Mr. Quinn asked about the status of the former Burger King on College Park Road, and Ms. Hanson stated the owners had closed on the property the prior week. Mr. Smith asked about the status of the former Food Lion property. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he was aware a petition had been circulating within Crowfield Plantation to have the owners clean up the property, and Mayor Heitzler has been urging members of the community to contact USC concerning the property, but stated he was not aware of any responses or anything further.

Mr. Connerty asked about the status of the proposed Harris Teeter, citing an article in the local news stating it is most likely a year out, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he thought that was the latest estimate.

Mr. Moore asked about whether the Commission should begin changing the Zoning Ordinance in regard to withdrawing an application. He asked if the applicant had asked for guidance by Planning, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that Staff reviews the application but tries not to recommend changes, as he can't speak for the Commission and doesn't wish to mislead them in any way. There was brief discussion regarding the costs involved for the City in having multiple applications for a property.

VI. Comments from Staff

Mr. Wall asked if there was a date set yet for a workshop regarding the buffer ordinance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated there was not but he would send out an email update once he had a confirmation from the City Administrator.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had submitted Ms. McSwain, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Smith for reappointment to the Commission, as their current terms expired at the end of 2011. He stated this would be heard at the next City Council meeting.

Mr. Wall asked if City Council had made any changes to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of their review, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael shared the few changes that had been made to the language, all being amended to soften several of the recommended action plan commitments. There was brief discussion about the intent of the changes. There was concern stated about negating the language whereby the City would require developers to provide recreational space, particularly when this is stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Connerty stated he understood Council wishing to be flexible and being able to use its discretion in offering incentives, etc. There was brief discussion about Staff having put the list of changes together after Council's workshop and then forwarding it to the consultant for her input.

Mr. Moore asked about the status of the Land Use Buffer Ordinance. There was discussion about there being resistance from EDAC. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City's attorney had provided comments which he would forward to them prior to the workshop. Mr. Connerty asked about the comments, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that the majority of his comments were in regard to existing properties and the decision of who was responsible for providing the required buffer and how that would be enforced. There was brief discussion regarding the sharing of the responsibility for buffers between adjacent properties.

VII. Adjournment

Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Smith seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.