Goose Creek planning commissioners review targeted edits to zoning ordinance in workshop

City staff presented a workshop on proposed amendments to Goose Creek's zoning ordinance on items including bulk zoning standards, new and revised housing types, parking and signage rules, and administrative clarifications.

The presentation, delivered by city staff members Joey, Alexis and Kendra, walked the Planning Commission through section-by-section changes carried forward after applying the 2024 ordinance to real projects. "This is going to be a very casual and informal presentation of a workshop," a staff member said at the start of the session, and staff asked commissioners to interrupt with questions during each section.

The staff said most changes are minor edits intended to clarify ambiguous language and fix items that proved difficult to administer. Among the proposed substantive edits: increasing the maximum building height in the conservation district from 40 to 50 feet to accommodate city-led projects; reducing the minimum lot width in the residential mixed district from 50 to 40 feet while keeping the 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size; adding a 5-foot rear setback in the village node district to preserve emergency access; and increasing setbacks in heavy industrial from 25 to 40 feet to align with buffer requirements.

Commissioners asked how the narrower lots and 5-foot side setbacks (10 feet between homes) would affect drainage and emergency access in Goose Creek's Lowcountry conditions. One commissioner asked, "How do you propose that is gonna avoid just a swampy situation in the Lowcountry?" Staff repeatedly pointed to existing stormwater standards and the county review process: projects must meet Berkeley County stormwater requirements during review.

The commission also discussed new and adjusted housing types. Staff proposed changes to the cottage neighborhood standards that City planners said were intended to make that option more attractive to developers: cluster size would increase from 12 to 16 units, the cap on number of clusters would be removed, and a 15-foot landscape buffer would be required between clusters with pedestrian connections through the buffer. Staff explained revisions to the open-space calculation method for cottage neighborhoods and said parking for tiny-home-style units would be set at 1.5 spaces per unit.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were retained with clarified size limits: ADUs would be allowed up to 1,200 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling's floor area, whichever is less, and ADUs would not count toward the maximum size standard for accessory structures.

Drive-through facilities, particularly in the Red Bank district, drew focused discussion. Staff proposed transferring drive-through conditions into the district's rules and removing a neutral-color requirement for canopies to support the district's intended artsy character. Commissioners pushed for stronger language to avoid drive-through queuing that blocks public rights-of-way and pedestrian routes; staff said stacking plans and staffing/flow plans are required at site review and suggested strengthening the ordinance language.

Sign rules and illumination were another area of change. Staff said they consolidated illumination language, require a night view from sign applicants, and moved a previous monument-sign base rule (the base must equal at least 40% of sign face area) into the main sign table. Commissioners raised visibility and site-triangle concerns on higher-speed corridors such as St. James (Route 52) and asked staff to reference engineering guidance (MUTCD, AASHTO or similar) to set sight-distance standards rather than fixed distances.

Landscape and street-tree standards were clarified: single-family lots would require one canopy tree or two understory trees in the front yard, and townhomes would require one understory tree per unit. Commissioners questioned practicality in tight yards and the long-term maintenance burden; staff said they will examine alternatives and encourage landscape plans by qualified designers.

Other technical clarifications include: moving tree-corridor language from the land development regulations into the zoning ordinance for consistency; defining manufactured homes to distinguish them from modular homes; clarifying cross-access and connectivity expectations; and removing mandatory bicycle parking in manufacturing zones where it may be inappropriate.

Several commissioners suggested referencing external technical standards to tighten vague language: they recommended citing the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), AASHTO, and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance for sight distance, lighting and pedestrian treatments. Staff agreed to review and strengthen the code language where appropriate.

The workshop is advisory; staff said it will return the revised ordinance for formal consideration at the Planning Commission's February meeting and that staff will incorporate commissioners' comments.

Votes at a glance

The meeting included routine procedural votes. The commission approved the meeting agenda and the minutes from the Dec. 3, 2024 meeting. At the end of the session the commission elected Judy Edwards to serve another term as chair and Heather Bird as vice chair for 2025; each nomination passed by voice vote with one commissioner recorded as abstaining on the chair vote (the transcript did not identify the abstaining member by name). The commission then adjourned.