MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2012, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BLVD.
I. Call to Order -Chairman Franklin Moore
Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Franklin Moore, Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall and Barry Washington (arrived at 6:35)
Absent: Doug Quinn
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
Mr. Moore thanked Mr. Wall and Mr. Quinn for their service as Chairman and Vice Chair for the past many years.
II. Review of Minutes from December 6, 2011
Mr. Smith questioned who should sign the minutes as Chair for the December meeting, and it was decided that Mr. Wall would sign the minutes, as he chaired the meeting. Mr. Connerty stated he would abstain from voting due to his absence at the meeting.
Motion: Mr. Wall made a motion to accept the minutes, and Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
III. Discussion - Land Use Buffer Ordinance
Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the discussion from the December meeting regarding some still outstanding issues and some sections that need additional review, possibly amending the ordinance if it should be remanded back to the Commission for further consideration. He reminded them the ordinance has been forwarded to City Council. The chair of the Commission, chair of EDAC, and City staff will meet this week to discuss the ordinance, and then a joint Council workshop will be scheduled for discussion.
He summarized their previous discussions regarding required buffers for incompatible uses and situations where an adjacent property is vacant (Section G4) and stated he had made revisions based on their discussions. He reminded them that any changes now would be included only if the Commission has the opportunity to review the ordinance again, but stated he would research whether any current changes could be forwarded to Council without having to have Council send it back to the Commission.
Also discussed at their last meeting was the Commission's overall position on the ordinance and their wish to have a position memorandum created to underscore the fact that the land use buffer ordinance is the Commission's effort to implement the recommendations that came from the planning process for the Comprehensive Plan regarding beautifying the city, the preservation of trees, etc.
There was brief discussion about the surveys submitted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan process and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
There was discussion regarding suggested revisions to G4. There was concern that as written it would require a business owner to put a buffer in place years after their initial development, depending upon the later development of an adjacent property. It was suggested that the new use on the vacant property should be responsible for any buffer required. It was suggested that the language be amended to say that no buffer is required until the vacant property is developed, and then that property being developed would be responsible to provide any required buffer. It was stated this would be more business friendly and fairer to the existing businesses.
There was discussion regarding applying the ordinance only to new development and relying on the substantial completion clause for existing businesses. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested the City would still undertake the educational initiative and work with businesses to strongly encourage them to landscape as much as possible without requiring them to conform within the five year period.
The challenges of enforcement of the ordinance, as written, were discussed. It was reiterated that, as written, there is the five year grace period, the City will be working with the businesses in its educational efforts regarding the ordinance, businesses would have the five year window to conform and would have the opportunity to budget for the changes, and there were exemptions available depending upon the circumstances. For new businesses it would be simply a plan review process, whereby unless the ordinance was met plans couldn't be approved and permitted.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that most uses within the business district are compatible; therefore, no buffers would be required. Most of the opposition is to the street buffer requirement. Currently, because parking is allowed within setbacks, many properties in the business corridor have parking established within what would become the twenty-foot street buffer area. It was suggested that because there is such a high percentage of existing businesses that will not be able to comply without going through the variance process, the ordinance could state these types of properties would be exempt from the requirements. If a business has parking or a part of their principal building within the required buffer, they would be exempt from installing the buffer in these specific areas but would be required to comply where possible on the property.
It was recommended that City Council send the draft back to the Commission following the joint meeting and the Council workshop to perfect it and include content of the meetings' discussions.
Mr. Connerty asked the Chair to make the point at the meeting Thursday that the Commission has held public hearings, and they have provided opportunities for EDAC and other business people to come before them so the Commission could listen to their feedback and concerns and discuss and consider these at the public hearings. He respectfully asked that Mr. Moore make that point at the meeting and encourage their membership and the people they represent to attend the meetings so the Commission could make informed decisions.
Mr. Smith stated he felt the Commission had offered a lot of flexibility and compromise and hoped the others at the meeting would be receptive to their effort to stand firm in their conviction to their constituents.
Ms. McSwain asked for clarification that at the meeting on Thursday there would be no elected representatives at the meeting, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael confirmed it.
IV. Discussion - Montague Plantation Road/Henry Brown Boulevard
Mr. Ben-Yisrael gave a brief overview of the location of the boulevard as well as the history of the concept for the corridor. There was discussion about the proposed location and design for the roadway. He explained the changes from the original plan to the current proposed plan. Currently it is now designed to be a three lane roadway, with the third lane being a planted median with intermittent left turning lanes. There was discussion about the roadway bisecting the residential communities now developed in the area as well as the challenges of its being a bypass for trucks traveling from Liberty Hall Road to Highway 52. There was discussion about the modified conceptual design in comparison to the concept set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion about the wish for the original concept of the five lane bypass to be relocated outside to the northern side of the community and the challenges which limit that possibility. Mr. Smith stated the residents are most concerned about being able to limit the speed and type of traffic that are allowed along the proposed road.
There was discussion about perhaps making a recommendation to City Council restricting the number of lanes, prohibiting truck traffic, limiting the speed limit, and adding sound barriers and a crossing for the community, with the hope Council will work with DOT to include the restrictions. It was requested that Mr. Ben-Yisrael draft a recommendation that the road meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wall stated the road was conceived prior to the development of Brickhope and was originally planned to be a truck bypass but the only way Brickhope became a reality was for the road to remain and run through the community; it was part of the deal to develop Brickhope. He agreed it was too late to change it unless there could be some type of land swap done with the property to the north, leaving the utilities, and allowing that road to be a highway instead of a neighborhood road. There was discussion about the amenity center and the playground being right at the road and access to the amenity center being restricted because of the road.
V. Comments from the Commission
There were none.
VI. Comments from Staff
There were none.
VII. Adjournment
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Wall seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
