Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout120_003PC_mtg_min_07-19-11 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Marianne Bramble Rob Callahan Henry Levy John Major, Vice Chair Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the July 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler Marion. Absent was Marianne Bramble. City Manager Diane Schleicher, Zoning Specialist Dianne Otto, and the City’s consulting engineer, Downer Davis, were also present. Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. Chair Monty Parks asked for discussion on the Minutes of the June 21, 2011, meeting. Henry Levy moved to approve as written. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Chair Monty Parks recommended and it was agreed that agenda item three (Conceptual Site Plan) would be moved ahead of agenda item two (Special Review) to keep both items from Kyle Pratt together. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Section 4-050(F). The petitioner was Kyle Pratt. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said that Section 4-050(F) discusses Uses Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval. She said the request was to add “commercial amusements, including amusement parks and other commercial games and sports.” Otto said that was the same verbiage was included in Uses Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval for the C-1 zone. She asked the Commissioners to keep in mind the request was for all C-2 properties; it would not apply only to the parcel that Kyle Pratt needed this for. Otto asked that they also consider the other uses already allowed in C-2. Rob Callahan asked if the highlighted strip on the Zoning Map being shown on the screen was the only C-2 district. Otto said it was. Callahan asked if the addition of the use was the only way to take care of this. Otto said the use that Pratt was proposing was not currently allowed in the C-2 district. She said it did not need to be the exact verbiage as used in C-1, but there were no uses listed in C-2 that fit what Pratt was proposing so something needed to be added to C-2 to address that. John Major said the next agenda item was something that appeared to be environmentally friendly. He said the C-2 strip was completely surrounded by R-something. He suggested modifying it to things that were environmentally like what was being proposed; something not detrimental to the environment and included buffering of the residential. Otto spoke of possible difficulty determining if a project was environmentally friendly. Major said it seemed like it was going from nothing to everything. Demery Bishop, referring to paragraph one of Section 4-050(F), said uses in C-2 districts are intended for locations along arterial streets where the negative impacts of traffic congestion, noise, and intrusions into residential neighborhoods would be minimized. He said the C-2 area was surrounded by residential and a blanket approval of this Amendment could lead to those types of issues. He suggested the Commissioners consider the ramifications of traffic congestion and noise in a residential environment and how to minimize it to the benefit of the residents as 2 opposed to their detriment. Bishop said they needed to consider that more than a blanket approval. Otto said they were considering a use to be added to other uses already in the C-2 zone; the same considerations they were discussing would be true of other uses already added to the list of uses permitted in C-2. She spoke against separating any use allowed after Site Plan Approval from any others on the list by suggesting this particular use have requirements the other uses do not have. Henry Levy said he worried about noise and light. Otto said lighting was a standard that was not to be addressed within the Uses Allowed by Right After Site Plan Approval. She said a lighting ordinance has been drafted and would be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future but would apply to any development. She said what was being considered was whether this use should or should not be added to the C-2 district. Levy moved they add it. Parks said they were not at motion yet. Levy said a motion takes precedence over everything else. Otto said no, the Public Hearing process takes precedence over a motion. Parks agreed and discussed that commercial amusements could include amusement parks and carnivals. He said C-2 was right in the middle of everybody’s neighborhoods. Otto said an attempt to address that concern may be to consider whether the language should be simply “miniature golf course” rather than “commercial amusements.” Bishop spoke in agreement. At the City Manager’s suggestion, Otto shared that a miniature golf course would be allowed in C-2 if “under the supervision of the city” was removed from Section 4-050(F)(g): “Parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities under the supervision of the city.” Major asked if it would tighten the requirement if they moved it to Section 4-050(F)(2), Uses Permitted After Special Review and Site Plan Approval because there would be additional items that would require scrutiny. Otto said it would be additional scrutiny but it would not be contrary to what they would see on the Site Plan. She said it would be an additional expense to an applicant to seek both. Otto said the Site Plan section in Article 5 was currently under revision and if there were things they saw in Special Review that they would like added to Site Plan they could do that when they address it. Major asked the status of that. Otto said emails were exchanged between herself and the City Attorney; Staff was not prepared yet to address that section. The Commission had no questions for Pratt. Parks asked for public input. There was none. Diane Schleicher asked Parks if he wanted to ask the petitioner if he would object if the Text Amendment was amended to miniature golf because he was the one who made the petition. Parks asked Pratt. Pratt asked if “commercial games and sports” would be specific enough. Several Commissioners responded no. Various uses that wording would allow were stated. Parks asked Pratt if there was an objection. Pratt said not specifically. Parks asked if there would be a significant objection to amending the Text Amendment to “miniature golf courses.” Pratt said no. Parks closed the Hearing and called for a motion. Major said looking at a very specific use of a very specific parcel was much less of concern than not knowing what the future may bring for unspecified parcels next to residential, and if somebody later wanted to come up with something different they could take the same initiative and go through the process. He said he was not comfortable with a blanket opening up to commercial uses and gaming activities butting up against residential. He said that opened doors that may be hard to close. Bishop, supporting Major’s comments, expressed that even though it currently applied to C-1, “commercial amusements” was shot gunning and could possibly yield detrimental effects from a future perspective. He said he was not negating what has previously been done under C-1. He said “commercial amusements” opened up a large category of activities. Parks spoke of miniature golf courses in general and about noise and light. Major moved that in Section 4-050(F)(1), beneath (a) through (k), add item (l) “miniature golf courses” as a Use Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval, and move the word “and” from (j) to (k). Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion that in Section 4-050(F)(1), beneath items (a) through (k), add item (l) “miniature golf courses” as a Use Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval, and move the word “and” from (j) to (k) passed with a 5-0 vote. The Mayor and City Council would consider the Text Amendment at their August 11 meeting. Chair Monty Parks opened the discussion for a Conceptual Site Plan for 406 First Street, PIN 4-0003-13-020, Zone C-2. He reminded everyone that this was not a Public Hearing. He said the discussion was 3 to aid and to facilitate the planning process on the part of a business owner. Dianne Otto reiterated it was conceptual and Staff felt this project would benefit by going through this process while it was waiting for the use to be allowed in the C-2 district. She said it was a very basic and incomplete proposal that Staff discussed with the applicant and many of those topics and comments were included in their packets. After giving the location as the Pirate Pedicab hut, Otto explained the project by saying the hut would not be moved and parking had been delineated on the site plan by the applicant. She said Staff would require a professional to design the site plan. Otto said a primary question that Staff had was buffering and the intent of buffering. She said setbacks do not apply because setbacks address structures. She explained that Section 3-160 defines buffering as open spaces, landscaped areas, fences, walls, berms, or a combination thereof, used to physically separate or screen one use or property from another so as to visually shield or block noise, lights, or other nuisances. Otto said the applicant would like the course to stretch entirely within the boundaries so there would be folks using the course who would be in what would typically be a buffer. She said Staff would like the Commission’s feedback, as would Pratt, on whether a buffer would be required on this project. Otto said 3-160 was recently sent to City Council who considered it but did not vote on it. She explained that Staff was again working on it to address issues with residential uses bordering commercial uses and which use was to implement buffering. Otto advised the Commission to consider this conceptual site plan under the current Section 3-160. Parks asked if buffering questions should be directed to Otto or to the applicant. Otto said both. John Major said if he was considering this more than conceptually he would be struggling to say that a buffer for the activities had been designed. He said the flow of participants goes right through it and on three out of eighteen holes as the people play they are going to have to go through the buffer, which makes it kind of not a buffer at all. Major said some additional buffering of some kind might be called for. Otto said the property to the south was zoned R-2, the properties on the east were zoned C-2 except for a small portion of the lot most to the south, and the same was true on the west side. The zoning of the abutting lots was discussed. Parks asked if this was the same situation that was behind the barbecue. Otto said no, there was no zoning district boundary cutting the lots; they both were zoned C-2. Parks said it was houses. Otto said yes, it was the use. She said the current Section 3-160 does not address uses, it addresses districts. Parks asked Davis what type of buffering would be appropriate. Davis said he would abstain from buffering. He said his concern was on the south where the greens were zero lot line. He said there was a 2-1/2-foot of fall from the back of the lot to the right-of-way according to the topo provided, and according to visual observations that seemed correct. He said he was apprehensive about developing on a zero lot line. Davis said most properties when they develop put in swales or something to convey drainage along their lots. He said he would envision the greens to be slightly higher than adjacent areas, that may not be the case, but until he sees a detailed, engineered drainage plan he would be very apprehensive to see the greens at zero lot line as drawn. Parks said that seems to be the case on the western and the southern sides. Davis said the western side was not a major concern because the right-of-way has roadside swales that carry drainage. Parks said the eastern side was against the fence as was the southern. The group discussed fences and the drawing of the greens. Davis said the seventh green did abut the western property line but as the land falls from the west to the east that should not be a major concern. He said he would want to see it engineered. Davis said fourteen and fifteen were his main concerns. Demery Bishop said the seventh abutted the eastern portion. Davis agreed. He said there was a bit over a 1-foot of fall from the northeast corner to the northwest and about 2-1/2-feet of fall from the southeast to the southwest corner, or running from approximately green seven to green fifteen. He said the seventh green did not give him major concerns because they could keep that at grade, slightly lower than adjacent property, and that could work. He said fourteen and fifteen could be problematic. Davis said he would be concerned how they could put a zero lot line and not affect the neighboring drainage. Bishop said they have so many deliberations and discussions in regards to setbacks and he knew that was not what they were talking about, but from the buffer perspective that had to filter into this overall equation. He said it bothered him not only in the drainage perspective but also just the fact they were considering conceptually something with absolutely no setbacks, not that that was the right 4 term, but something that was totally up against the property line. He questioned ingress/egress and other issues. Bishop said from a conceptual perspective that was one of the issues he had and Davis was right with concern of the drainage. He said that would have to be part of the package before it was considered any further. Otto said Staff had called for that and could not have allowed this to go forward as Site Plan Approval without it. She spoke of it being a situation of what could be done in a buffer; could people using the miniature golf course be active in the buffers or were those buffers designed as open spaces and not to be used by people. Otto said we address buffering with other commercial projects and have allowed parking in buffers. Callahan commented the fence on the plan seemed to be an attempt to create a buffer with a zero lot line. He said if they built this, at considerable expense, they were going to have prepared soil, very expensive grass, mulch, and enhancements, none of which would increase runoff rates but all of which might have a possibility of decreasing runoff rates. Callahan said the absorption capacity of the site might actually be enhanced by what they were going to do. Davis said the applicant made some statements to that; some engineers have told him it would be reduced. Davis said it may or it may stay the same. He said he doubted it would increase. He said the most important thing was not the amount of runoff; it was the direction that it goes. He explained that altering the direction of runoff was when the phone starts ringing at City Hall so his concern was that the runoff be routed to Miller [Avenue] as it was now. Callahan said as long as they do not really change the topo then drainage should not be an issue. Davis agreed. Otto noted that at the bottom of Davis’ written comments she had stated that the plan that was received was from 2007 and the datum used at that time was ’29 and now they use ’88 datum. She said part of this development process would require that the existing topo be converted and then the plan would show that the elevations are not increased or are decreased, however the design professional designs it, so that when it is implemented it ends up with the topo needed to control drainage. Callahan and Otto discussed. The fences were discussed and Otto apologized for not having noticed them on the rendering. Tyler Marion asked if the City once had a golf course on the north beach. Callahan said people have told him that Fort Screven had a course. Marion questioned if there were any buffers. He said for historical reference perhaps that was something that could be useful. Diane Schleicher said it was probably an officers-only course and the others were not allowed to complain. Henry Levy shared that during World War I his father was a post engineer at Fort Screven and his main duties was keeping the 18-hole golf course that was in the dunes in front of Officers Row in good shape for the commanding officer. Major asked about the climbing fence. Pratt confirmed everyone had received the narrative and other documents he had prepared. He said the concept was a natural grass organic miniature golf course. He explained the climbing fences in the interior would be 4-feet tall, the exterior fences would be 6-feet tall, currently in place on lots 93 and 94 was an 8-foot wooden privacy fence, and the lot to the south which was zoned residential but currently had a 3-story housing unit with an elevator that was a seasonal rental also had an 8-foot privacy fence. He said his intentions were to extend the fence from lot 93 to connect and fill in the gap on lot 92 and then on the inside of the privacy fences build a 6-foot climbing hedge fence. He described the hedge fence as posts, similar to chicken wire for a backing, with landscape material between for the vines to adhere to. Pratt compared it to an ivy wall at Wrigley Field. He described being inside the course as being inside a garden. He said it would absorb sound rather than refract it like a smooth-surfaced fence fence would. Pratt said he had adjusted the plan for the buffers and had moved holes seven, fourteen, and fifteen. He said there were at least 10-feet between the holes and the property line. He described having done a relief at the site of about eight of the holes. He said this project was a large landscaping. Pratt explained that he intended to approach the surrounding businesses and dwellings to request setting up rain barrel collection stations to recover water for the grass and flowerbeds. He described the type of grass that would be used and that the project would not be detrimental to Tybee’s WaterFirst motto. Pratt concluded by discussing water usage and drainage. Major asked about chemicals. Pratt explained that the chemicals were included in the specs for the grass which were in the packets. He also expressed he intends to approach local landscape companies for recommendations on native plantings. Major said chemicals were a concern with our marsh and ocean. 5 Pratt agreed. He said it would be no different chemicals than what were put on residential lawns all over the island. Major said that was scary. Major and Pratt discussed the fencing. Pratt said the residential properties would never see the natural climbing hedge. Parks said it was an outstanding concept and if handled right, and Pratt was going about it the right way, this would be a real addition to the island. He said there were small holes within the holes. Pratt said those were flowerbeds. Parks asked if they were intended for statuary. Pratt said no, the plan was trees and plants. Parks queried that there was no plan for lighting so at dark it closed. Pratt said there was a twilight rate. Parks asked if that was something they could mandate or was it something they could make conditional to the application. Otto said the city does not currently have a lighting ordinance; standards for lighting were coming. She said if Pratt at a future time after the proposed lighting ordinance had been adopted proposed lighting then he would be required to meet whatever lighting ordinance was in place. Parks, Pratt, and Otto discussed the operation of the business and lighting. Parks asked Davis about chemicals and the nature of the runoff. Davis said that was not his level of expertise. Major added that it was a great idea notwithstanding the points raised. He asked if a motion was required. Parks said no. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Special Review at 1011 and 1013 Bay Street, PINs 4-0021-16-008 and 4-0021-16-008A, Zone R-1. The petitioner was Arnold Seyden. The other property owner was Kirk Jones. Dianne Otto said the Special Review was for the replacement of an existing crossover. She said on June 24 Staff received a telephone call that there was work going on at the location. Otto said upon arrival she posted a Stop Work order as the work was not permitted. She said the other property owner, Mr. Jones, was directed to contact DNR since they were in a DNR jurisdictional area. She said upon receiving DNR’s Letter of Acknowledgment, which was included in the Commissioners’ packets, Staff realized that rather than just deck boards the project included support pilings and stringers. Otto said recently adopted by City Council was an ordinance, 3-100, that required crossover projects in the dune areas that were more than deck boards and handrails to come before Planning Commission and City Council for Special Review. Otto said this was communicated to the petitioner who then applied for Special Review. Parks asked what percentage of the project was completed when Otto arrived. She said she included in their packets photographs. She described what had and had not been completed and estimated 50% was complete. Henry Levy said the building code requires handrails on anything raised 3-feet above grade. Otto said Staff had worked with DNR on that issue on other crossover projects and had taken the position that if DNR permitted without handrails Tybee would not require them, however if handrails were depicted they were required to meet code so either they do not exist or they are code-compliant handrails. Levy asked if they were required or not. Otto said they were not required by the City of Tybee. Levy said they are required by the building code. Otto said it was a use that Staff does not apply the International Building Code to. John Major clarified the addresses of the properties as they were not correct in one of the documents. Demery Bishop asked if the walk would end at the dune or cross over the dune. Otto said she would like the applicant to address that. Seyden said he has been a resident of Tybee for sixty-three years and he had their job for about eight years. He said his neighbor was renovating his house and had a permit to do that and in the process he started doing his deck and then, of course, got a Stop Work order and said we are going to have to get a building permit so Seyden came to City Hall to get the building permit but then he found out we have a new regulation that came into effect in April and that it was going to cost an additional $500 and appear in front of you guys. He asked permission to rebuild the walkway and he said they were going to stop at the sand dune. He said it was going to be the same as what they had been there and they were not going to disturb any vegetation and the pilings were going to be the same depth as the old walkway. He gave the lengths of the walkway sections and the width. Henry Levy moved it be approved. Parks said as talked about several times we have to do the Public Hearing part first. Levy said a motion took precedent. Parks asked for public input. There was none. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy 6 motioned to approve. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous. The motion to approve passed 5-0. City Council would consider the request on August 11. A Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for Administration and Enforcement, other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-010, 5-020, 5-030, 5-040, 5-050, 5-060, and 5-070, which were previously approved, was next on the agenda. After discussion, Otto summarized the one sentence of Section 5-100, Standards for Variance from the Flood Damage Control Regulations. Major motioned to approve Section 5-100. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-100, Standards for Variance from the Flood Damage Control Regulations, passed with a 5-0 vote. The final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Chair Monty Parks explained that the Committee’s findings were presented to City Council the previous week and it had been pushed to the City Attorney to finalize the ordinance. Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and John Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting adjourned.