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

I. Call to Order -Chairman Allen Wall

Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present: Gayla McSwain, Franklin Moore, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall and Barry Washington
Absent: Paul Connerty
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes from November 1, 2011

Mr. Wall asked that a couple of grammatical changes be made.

Motion: Mr. Moore made a motion to accept the minutes with Mr. Wall's modifications, and Mr. Quinn seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Discussion - Land Use Buffer Ordinance

Mr. Wall stated he felt it best for the Commission to discuss the City attorney's concerns regarding the Land Use Buffer Ordinance prior to meeting with City Council and asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael to update the Commission.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael first stated the City Administrator wished to have a meeting with the Chair of the Commission, the Chair of EDAC, and the Mayor in order to discuss the ordinance. This will precede the joint workshop with Council.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that Mr. Domin's comments questioned how existing properties were to be dealt with in light of some of the concerns stated about compliance and enforcement. He questioned which property owner would be responsible for the buffer or a portion of the buffer and how the City would enforce it. He stated this presented the question of whether they wished for the ordinance to concentrate on existing businesses.

There was discussion regarding the ability to compromise and the concerns stated regarding requiring the changes for existing businesses rather than just new businesses.

Ms. McSwain asked about the surveys taken as a part of the visioning workshops for the Comprehensive Plan update and stated that the ordinance was a result of what the citizens asked for in the surveys, stating they wished to make the City a more attractive city. Ms. McSwain stated she felt the Commission was tasked with looking out for the common good of all the residents, not just the businesses.

Mr. Smith stated the Commission had been cognizant that some may need additional time, but he agreed the Commission is tasked to make the City a more desirable place to live, and he felt the ordinance accomplishes this.

Mr. Wall stated he agreed that the ordinance was a result of the citizens' requests. He stated he felt as though the inclusion of the variance process in the ordinance had satisfied EDAC's Chairman, plus they had extended the time to conform to five years, and he felt sure the ZBA would be able to determine which properties could not conform and provide a compromise for those properties.

Mr. Moore stated the Commission wanted to make everyone happy, particularly businesses, and felt perhaps it was simply a communication issue, so hopefully when they meet with them (EDAC) they could work it out. Mr. Wall suggested the ordinance had been misrepresented in the paper and reiterated that only one of EDAC's members/businesses had attended any of the Commission's public hearings.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael referred to Mr. Domin's comments, specifically the provision which allows for existing businesses not able to conform to go before the ZBA for a variance and consideration for compromise. In regards to applying the ordinance to existing properties, he stated if the requirement for existing properties to conform within 5 years is set aside and instead rely on the substantial improvement clause, they would still accomplish their intended result. He suggested that the substantial improvement clause gets them a long way and addresses some of the issues the City might have moving forward.

Mr. Quinn stated he knew Mr. Ben-Yisrael had researched this and asked how other communities dealt with existing businesses. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated they apply it to existing businesses as well as new businesses. He stated he isn't sure, however, how it has played out in terms of enforcement.

There was discussion regarding the suggestions concerning the establishment of required buffers between two adjacent properties if one of the properties is vacant and the question as to which property owner was responsible for establishing the buffer. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the table in Paragraph G(4) applies only to new development. It was suggested that no buffer be required until the vacant property is developed, and then each property owner would be responsible for establishing one-half of the required buffer. As written, the property owner of the proposed use would be solely responsible for the buffer. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated if there was an existing buffer, that buffer would count toward the required buffer. Mr. Wall stated that because a buffer is needed only when there is an adjacent incompatible use, until the use is determined for a vacant lot there should be no requirement for a buffer; then, when the property is developed and if a buffer is needed, the property owners would share the responsibility for the buffer.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the ordinance would be most effective if applied to new construction on vacant property.

Mr. Wall suggested there was concern regarding street buffers and asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael if he felt there was a compromise. He stated his concern that if the street buffer requirement was required for only new developments the buffers would be "spotty". Mr. Wall stated he had been driving through other communities and noted the street buffers required, and he wished for Goose Creek to look like those other communities. He stated he understood the concern about costs. Mr. Moore stated he felt there was a trade-off, as the more appealing the City is, the more businesses will wish to come here. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he felt it was noble to make every effort to beautify the City, and other communities have benefitted from their landscaping efforts, but they also have had certain standards in place long before now which has allowed them to establish their standards at the time of initial development.

It was stated there would be an assumption built into the ordinance that within the same zoning district a compatible use would be built on an adjacent vacant property but, if not, the new development would be responsible for providing the buffer in total. This would take care of EDAC's concerns regarding buffer requirements for existing businesses. The new business would have to provide a buffer based on the zoning of the adjacent property.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested he would work on the language for paragraph G(4) and bring it back to them at their next meeting

There was discussion about the method to determine the depth of street buffers, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested measuring from the property line. Mr. Moore suggested that might require the additional cost of a survey, but it would be a more reasonable method.

Mr. Wall questioned if there was a need to meet and discuss the changes discussed prior to the Chair's meeting with Staff and the EDAC Chairman. It was decided that Mr. Ben-Yisrael would present the new language for G(4) at their next meeting as well as a short synopsis of their position that can be forwarded to the joint meeting. Mr. Ben-Yisrael reminded them that the Commission had already forwarded their recommendation to City Council, and any substantial changes would have to be sent back to the Commission before City Council could act on it, so these changes would be only relevant for the workshop. A new formal recommendation would have to be made for a new draft.

IV. Discussion - Review of Proposed Kingdom Hall Development

Mr. Ben-Yisrael presented the preliminary site plans for the Kingdom Hall development on Seewee Drive and oriented the members on its location. He stated there were some issues still needing to be worked out, but he felt in the long run these would be settled. Mr. Quinn asked if their plans would meet the buffer ordinance, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that he did not have the final landscaping plan but they might have to add some landscaping. Mr. Wall asked if Staff would discuss the buffer plan with them, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would.

There was brief discussion regarding fencing retention ponds.

V. Comments from the Commission

Mr. Quinn asked if there had been any response from USC regarding the Plantation Square Shopping Center, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had not heard that there had been any official response.

Mr. Moore stated he felt the Land Use Buffer Ordinance was very important for the future of the City and the Commission should, therefore, work with EDAC to come up with something in lieu of letting the ordinance die. Mr. Wall stated he felt they had made some movement toward that. Ms. McSwain stated if the City Administrator and members of EDAC have not read over the results of the different citizen surveys that were collected, perhaps they could be provided a copy so they can understand where the Commission is coming from.

Mr. Wall asked if the applicant for the previous rezoning had received permission to reapply, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he has not heard back from the applicant. He stated he would try to contact him to see if he still intends to come before the City. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Staff intends to act upon it once hearing back from the applicant.

Mr. Wall mentioned the building at the corner of State Road and Red Bank Road is close to being down without anyone having to tear it down. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the owner had applied to have it torn down, and asbestos was found, so he had to have the asbestos removed before proceeding with the demolition.

It was confirmed that City Council would have the first reading for the Comprehensive Plan at their next meeting.

Mr. Wall thanked the Commission and Staff for their support throughout his chairmanship.

VI. Comments from Staff

Mr. Ben-Yisrael thanked Mr. Wall for his work as Chair.
VII. Adjournment

Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Washington seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.