MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,MAY 2, 2017, 6:30P.M.
GOOSECREEKMUNICIPALCENTER
519N.GOOSECREEKBLVD.
I.Call to Order –Chairman AllenWall
ChairmanWall called the meetingto order at6:30 p.m.
Present:Gary Berenyi,Paul Connerty,Jeanette Fowler, Josh Johnson,Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall,Barry Washington
Absent:None
StaffPresent: Kara Browder, Brenda Moneer
II.ApprovalofAgenda
Motion:Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the Agenda as presented.Mr. Berenyiseconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
III.ReviewofMinutes fromFebruary 7,2017
Motion:Mr. Connerty made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected.Mr. Smithseconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
IV.Discussion– Zoning Classifications– RestrictedCommercial
Chairman Wall outlined the zoning classificationas proposed asBusinessProfessional OfficeDistrict (BPOD), and opened thediscussion to Staff. Ms. Browder highlighted the purpose andintentofthe zoning classificationto provide atransitionalzoning within proximity to residentialzoning.She presented the Commission with the table of land uses that included the BusinessandProfessional Office District (BPOD) to open the discussion.Therewas discussionregardingoperationalhours of the businesses,and theimpact of high traffic uses.Mr. Johnson inquired if theintentofthe new classificationwould be to create a classificationfrom the RestrictedCommercial,creating a classification that would be completely different.The Commission reviewed the landuse table, uses within each category, and determine what would be permitted and/or prohibitedwithineachuse.
Ms. Browder presented the Commission with Appendix D: Zoning Districts.TheCommissiondiscussed the variables for theBPOD, and the regulationsfor lot size,setbacks, and heightmaximum.The Commissionagreed toset the specifications the same as RestrictedCommercial (RC), with exceptionof the height requirement to remainat 35’.
There wasa brief discussion about the language of the section 151.129.
Motion:Ms. Fowler made a motion to recommend the new zoning classification asdiscussedwith the changesas stated.Mr. Connerty seconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
V.Discussion–LandUses;specificallytattooing, ordinance regulations andguidelines
Chairman Wall opened the discussion to Staff.Ms. Browder provided the Commission withlanguage and a definition for Section 151.028 specifically;Tattoo facility, tattoo artist, and tattooor tattooing. She explained some of the stateregulations.There wasdiscussion regardingpiercing and tattooingpermittedwithinthe same business location, and the regulations.Ms.
Browder suggestedadding the wording “bodypiercing” tothe definitions.The Commissionagreed adding the wording “bodypiercing” tothe definition.Mr. Connerty suggestedaddingtheword “licensed” person under the definition for “Tattoo Artist”.
The Commission discussed andagreed thedistance of1500 feet from the property line of a church, public or private school, public or privaterecreation area, properties zonedto allow residential uses, or propertieswithexistingresidentialstructures as outlined in §151.109Special Uses (E) reference withinthedefinition. Mr. Johnson stated that items (a), (b), and (c) should be under the section of special uses, and not under the definition. The Commission agreed to take the reference of distance of the definition and add it to the section under special uses to cover the restrictions of that use. Chairman Wall inquired if this meant that the facility could be placed anywhere they want to if it meets special use requirements. Ms. Browder stated yes, if it meets the 1500-foot distance requirement. Chairman Wall inquired about the zoning. Ms. Browder stated it would need to be identified under the Appendix B: Table of Land Uses with what the Commission felt appropriate. There was discussion about the zoning classifications to allow tattooing under the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Commercial (IC), Light Industrial (LI), and General Industrial (GI). The Commission agreed these districts to allow this type of business would be appropriate. Ms. Fowler inquired about the aesthetics required. Staff stated they would be required to adhere to the current standards set forth in the zoning ordinance language requirements reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Motion:Mr. Connerty recommended theaddition of thedefinitionsoutliningtattooing andpiercingas discussed within section 151.028.Mr. Berenyiseconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
VI.Discussion–DevelopmentofStorageFacilities
Chairman Wall opened the discussion to Staff.Ms. Browder statedthat there has been recentinterest in additional development.She presented the draft of the memo to the Commissionaddressingthe Architectural Review Board requirementsfor theaesthetics of the designstandards of new projects as proposed.Chairman Wall inquired if Staffrecommendedaresolution, or if a memo would be sufficient.Staffdeferredto the Commission for approval. Therewas discussionregarding the regulationsfor storagefacilities, existing and upcoming.Mr. Berenyinoted forthe record, that he felt themarket would adjust accordingly,favoring alot coverageregulation, and suggested some criteria to create designstandards.Mr. Johnson stated anunderstandingfor thepublic concern, but was also of the opinion that the zoningordinancewouldregulatethe development.Therewas discussion about thedistance restrictions betweenlocations.
Chairman Wall inquiredif the discussion could be tabled until thenewEconomic
Development Directorcould giveinput on the subject.Mr. Connerty recommended to table thediscussionuntil the EconomicDevelopment Director could comment.Mr. Greg Habib addressedthe Commission with the ideas and the intentions for the overall quality of life for the City of GooseCreek. He expressed his opinion regarding thecurrent development of storagefacilities.Ms. Fowler cited the recentarticlein the Post andCourierthattouched on the developmentregulationsof storagefacilities.There was a brief discussion on the needs forstoragerisingwiththe influx of multi‐family development.
ChairmanWall requested Staff would discuss and request a letter of recommendation from theEconomic DevelopmentDirector regardingstoragedevelopment.Staff stated they would.
Motion:Ms. Fowler made a motion to go to a public hearing onthe BPODzoningclassification, along with the language forpiercingandtattooing facilities.Mr. Connerty seconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
VII.StreetNameApproval – Liberty Village 5A
Chairman Wall opened the floor to staff.Ms.Browder presented the Commission with a plat ofphase V forLiberty Village.Therewas discussion about the naming,and theneed to re‐name it,due to the County denying “Dusty Miller Drive”.
Motion:Mr. Connerty made a motion to approve the street name “Chaste Tree Circle”,if available.Ms. Fowler seconded.
Discussion:There was none.
Vote:All voted in favor.
IX.CommentsfromtheCommission
Mr. Johnson commented on the recent CityCouncil readings of the Commission’srecommendationsforordinanceamendments.ChairmanWall commented on theuse of barbedwire,and restrictions withinCommercial districts.Therewas also some discussion about theproposed amendments to the ordinanceas addressedat the City Council meeting.
ChairmanWall addressed the Commission, recommending proposing to CityCouncil and theMayor for additional staffingto the Planning and Zoning Department.Mr. Berenyi accepted thetask to prepare arecommendation.
Mr. Johnson stated the recommendationfor dumpsters did not passwith City Council.
X.Comments from Staff
Ms.Browder highlighted the article in the Post and Courier, April 30th, 2017 addressingthegrowth within the City of Goose Creek.
XI.Adjournment
Mr. Connerty made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Washington seconded.All voted in favor.Themeeting adjourned atapproximately8:56p.m.
Allen Wall, Chairman
Date: