Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20060918_PCMinutes 1 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 2006 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos called to order the September 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Other Commissioners present were Charlie Brewer, Barry Brown, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Susan Hill, Gene Kindrick, and Chuck Powell. Absent was Honor Hutton. City Staff present were Chuck Bargeron, Diane Schleicher and Dianne Otto. This meeting was held on Monday because of the SPLOST/ESPOST election on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. Gene Kindrick motioned to approve the Minutes of the August 7, 2006 Planning Commission agenda meeting. Charlie Brewer seconded. The vote was unanimous. Bill Garbett motioned to approve the Minutes of the August 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Chuck Powell seconded. The vote was unanimous. Keith Gay presented a Site Plan Approval petition for Coral Investment Group at 1213 Highway 80, PIN 4- 0026-02-007, Zone C-2. Gay said in April 2006 a fire destroyed a building with the exception of a screened porch and a small building. He said they want to relocate an existing building to the site and build a deck between the three structures. He said the reason they have to go through Site Plan review is because they relocated the building to use the space more efficiently. He said there is a 6 foot setback requirement and they are 8 feet. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos called for questions. Barry Brown asked if there was a buffer. Gay said not currently; the 8 foot cedar fence will be replaced. He said the other side is C-2 so the buffer is not required. Chuck Powell asked Downer Davis to comment on the drainage plan. Davis said he had not reviewed the plan; the package was handled to him that evening. He said it is a relatively simple project and described the drainage at the site. Davis said if they choose to approve tonight they should do so on the condition the petitioner meet the requirements of the drainage review. Tsoulos called for anyone in the audience that wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. She closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Sandy Chandler motioned to approve on the condition the engineering is approved by Davis. Chuck Powell seconded. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Tsoulos told Gay the petition would be before Council on October 12. Howard Reeve presented a Zoning Variance request from Section 5-010 (J) of the Land Development Code, Shore Protection with Variance, for 1 Shirley Road, PIN 4-0006-06-001, Zone R-2. Reeve said his request is to build in front of the Tybee line. He distributed a handout/overlay and explained it showed the distance from the present footprint. He said the front line of the duplex would go 4-1/2 feet in front of the steps of the present house. Barry Brown asked about the lots. Reeve said there is a building on lot 45 that would be moved to lot 44, and then he would build a duplex on lot 45. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos clarified that the overlay showed the existing building. Reeve said that was correct. Susan Hill asked if the porch faced east on the overlay. Reeve said yes. Sandy Chandler asked if part of the duplex would extend over the property line. Reeve said a lawyer researched the warranty deed and the 20-foot Shirley Road right-of-way is owned by the property owner. He said he proposes incorporating the Strand section into lot 45 and then changing the property line on lot 44 over 5 feet. He said he can not fit the old house on Lot 44 unless he changes the property line. Brown asked about steps on the north side when the house is relocated to lot 44. Reeve said because of the 20-foot setback he would have to change the steps. He said he would use Shirley Road as the setback. Tsoulos asked if it was a private road. Reeve said it was. Brown said he was looking for the setback information to be shown. He asked if there would be variances for lot 44. Reeve said by incorporating Shirley Road there would be a 20 foot setback. Brown said Shirley Road should be shown as the property line instead of as a road. Reeve said the lawyer said that the City did not want that property when it was originally subdivided in 1938, and the owner of lots 44 and 45 own that road. Brown said if that is the case it should be shown that way on the survey. Reeve said he can have that done. Sandy Chandler said it looked like the area of the road is a separate piece of property. Reeve said yes, and so is the part of the Strand a separate piece of property. Charlie Brewer said typically a roadway leading into a rear parcel is a flagpole lot and the property at the end is defined as one property. Brown agreed. Chandler asked if Reeve could use another piece of property, even if he owns it, for a setback. Chuck Bargeron said he spoke with Whitley Reynolds and it is a 20-foot access easement and Reeve may have the right to use it. Chuck Powell asked the hardship for building within the DNR shore protection line. Reeve said the present building encroaches into it. Powell said once Reeve moves the present building he loses the right to rebuild on that footprint. He asked the hardship. Reeve said it was the location of the building. He asked if Powell meant the DNR or Tybee line. Powell said the DNR line. Reeve said he did not think that was why he was here but the 2 DNR does not have a problem about where he is placing the building; he just has to get permission from Tybee to go forward with the application. Bill Garbett asked how far Reeve was encroaching into the Tybee line. Reeve said 24 feet. Susan Hill said the dimensions of the overlay did not match up. Reeve said he has to change the property lines between lots 44 and 45. Brewer confirmed with Reeve that the existing house would be rotated when it was moved and that was why the overlay did not match. Brown asked about the square footage of the duplex lot. Reeve said he was using lot 45 and part of the Strand, and it is far more than the required 6,750 square feet. Powell asked which lot the 5 foot section between lots 44 and 45 goes with. Reeve said presently it goes with lot 45 but he will need 5 feet more in lot 44 to get the old house on it to have the proper setbacks. Brewer said the gravel drive scales at 12 feet, not 20 feet. He asked Reeve if he wanted to take the full 20 feet of Shirley Road. Reeve said yes. Tsoulos asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Keith Gay said on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Osteen, who own the property, they request that the Commission approve it. Christian Joly said he and his wife Susan live on Shirley Road. He said very reluctantly they need to speak against. He said Shirley Road is a tranquil lane, and cramming three households on the lot is going to congest the area enormously and impact the other houses. He said he did not understand the basis for the variance. He cited the hardship wording from Section 3-090 of the Land Development Code. He said the lot is the most regular lot you can think of and the decision of the Commission ought to be no. Frank Mathews said he lives on Shirley Road. He showed a survey from 1938 of the Shirley Road lots. He said the sewer runs down the middle of Shirley Road. He asked if Reeve intended to build on Shirley Road. Tsoulos said Reeve would not build on it but would use it as a setback. Mathews talked about overhanging trees, damage to the road and traffic. Leon Slotin said he and his wife own the house adjoining the property. He said a man has a right to use his property, within bounds. Slotin said the property owners repaved the road themselves. Slotin asked if the other property owners could use the road as they see fit. Slotin talked about the Osteen’s renters using other property owners land to go to the beach because the dunes are impassable. Slotin asked Reeve if he planned to have a walkway. Reeve said no. Slotin asked how three families were going to get to the beach. He said the people are going to want to come across his property and we would have to put up a fence, and the people would have to go up to Butler Avenue and down to Tenth Street. Slotin said if everyone owns the road how would Reeve get to his property. Slotin said Shirley Road is a nice area and Reeve’s project was going to change the character. Susan Arden-Joly said it is interesting that the Osteen’s claim now that the road belongs to them because a few years ago they did not step forward when there were sinkholes in the road. Regarding the issue of 24 feet into the shore protection line, Arden-Joly said the dunes shift and should be maintained. She said a variance should not be granted no matter how desirable from one person’s point of view. Keith Gay said when Osteen bought the property his deed exemplified that the road was his property. Speaking to those from the audience who had spoken, Gay said Osteen is not trying to take the road; he is using it as setback, and they can use it as setback as well. Gay said the variance is not an encroachment into the dune line; it is an encroachment into the line established by Tybee. Tsoulos said the Commission is discussing a variance but are willing to listen to the issues of the street. Arden-Joly said the Osteen house was built by her great-grandfather and she did appreciate that Reeve was trying to save it. She said this project is too big for the space. Reeve said he is not using any public lands. He said the Strand area is owned by Osteen. Slotin asked how the Tybee dune line is determined. Brown said it was established less than 6 years ago by Council, property to property. Slotin asked about the DNR line. Brown said that is established by the state. Slotin asked about orange markings on the property. Reeve said that was the face of the building. Slotin asked how far it would be from his property. Reeve said 10 feet. Slotin said his house is on the line and if the Osteen house is moved 10 feet from his property it will really destroy his property. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Brewer motioned to deny. Chandler seconded. Brown gave an example of a road at the end of a property that was considered to be an easement, not part of the property. Tsoulos said to keep in mind they are dealing with a variance, not the road. The vote was unanimous. Tsoulos told Reeve he has the right to proceed to City Council’s meeting on October 12. Hubert Ellzey presented a Zoning Variance from the Land Development Code Section 3-090, Schedule of Development Regulations, at 1 Shipwatch Circle, PIN 4-0021-17-017, Zone R-1-B. Citing his closeness to the Ellzey family, Commissioner Gene Kindrick recused himself. Ellzey said there was a set of stairs in the driveway that took up two parking spaces. He said they were poorly built and they wanted to construct stairs on the side of the house which faces Polk Street. He said Polk Street is a private street and is part of the Shipwatch Dunes complex. Ellzey said in March of 2004 he spoke with Dee Anderson and Chuck Bargeron, and they told him to get a letter from the Shipwatch Dunes Association, a copy of the plat and a drawing of the stairs. Ellzey said he did not have a copy of the plat. Ellzey said Bargeron told him to get a copy of the 3 tax plat, draw the house, take the measurements, and turn it in. Ellzey said in April [2004] he got a permit. He said October 2005 he spoke with Bargeron and Anderson and told them because of the boom on Tybee he was having trouble finding a contractor and he asked if he could have someone build it or build it himself. Ellzey said they said sure, you can do anything you want. Ellzey said he showed Anderson the property, a copy of the drawing and told Anderson the stairs would come out approximately 12 feet, maybe a little bit more. Ellzey said Anderson said there was more than enough room. Ellzey said he asked Anderson if he was sure, and Anderson said he was positive. Ellzey said construction was completed in November 2005. Ellzey said in April [2006] he got a call from Bargeron who said there was a problem with the stairs, and on July 7th he was told he had to take the stairs down. Ellzey said he had finally had a survey made and it showed the stairs are 3 feet over a 10-foot setback, which Anderson thought was a 20-foot mitered corner. Ellzey said Bargeron asked how many days it would take to take the stairs down and Ellzey told him it would take 60 days. Ellzey said two hours later Bargeron brought a letter to the house. Ellzey said he had a problem agreeing but he signed the letter. He said that was why he was here for the variance. He said he has $8,125 in the stairs plus putting up his contractor friend and six children while they built the stairs. Barry Brown showed Ellzey a drawing and Ellzey verified it was the one he turned in when he applied for the building permit. Brown said everybody should have a survey prior to doing any building. He said he knows it creates a hardship in some cases. Referring to the drawing, Brown said Ellzey had 30 feet from the edge of the porch to the property line. Brown said he did not know if anyone has the authority to give permission to build on the right-of-way. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos asked for someone from the City to address that. City Manager Diane Schleicher said she asked Ellzey to come before the Planning Commission to ask for a variance to modify the stairs. She said when she spoke with Ellzey she understood that tearing down the stairs before a Hearing would be a hardship because if Ellzey was able to get a variance to build into the side yard, but not in the right-of-way, it would be more inexpensive for him to modify the existing stairs then to tear them down and rebuild. She said she would recommend that Ellzey modify the stairs if the Planning Commission recommends the variance and City Council agrees so that the stairs did not encroach in the street. She said the middle ground would be to recommend a variance to the setback. She said the City would have to abandon the right-of-way and she did not think that was what was on the table. Tsoulos asked for clarification. Schleicher said Ellzey would have to rebuild the stairs so they stay on the property. She said she did not want Ellzey to have to tear out the stairs until this due process because there may be something that is salvageable of the stairs so he has less of a loss. She said the permit was issued in error and even thought it was issued in error it does not mean that the permit stays. Tsoulos said it has been tested in the courts that a building permit issued in error is not a valid permit. Tsoulos said the variance is to have the steps to the property line but it would require Ellzey to modify the steps. Schleicher said that was correct. Tsoulos asked Ellzey if he understood. Ellzey said he did. Charlie Brewer asked if the street adjacent to the property was subdivision or City property. Schleicher said Polk Street belongs to the City. Chuck Powell asked if the City bares any responsibility for the cost. Schleicher said no; there are court cases that indemnify the city for those types of errors. She said visually it is very deceptive because the improvements on Polk Street are only to the extreme right hand side of the road so one would think there was room if they were given Ellzey’s hand drawn document saying he had 30 feet. Ellzey and the others discussed options while looking at the drawings and a photo. Tsoulos asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Fran Harold said she was president of the Shipwatch Dunes subdivision association when Ellzey applied to them with his design. She said their architectural review committee approved the design. She said it is their understanding that the City only owns a portion of Polk Street. She said it is actually Polk Extension. Harold said she hopes Ellzey can keep his stairs. David Postle said before he bought his home his property had to be surveyed. Ellzey said they could not find the survey. Postle said Ellzey acted in good faith and two City employees with appropriate expertise blessed it. Postle said the court may cover the City’s tail for these kinds of mistakes but it sets real hard with a lot of citizens. He asked if you can not trust your City officials, who can you trust. Postle discussed the costs and said the City ought to fund their mistake. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for a motion. Brown motioned to continue to find out the legal repercussions from the City Attorney for the steps in the right-of- way. Brewer seconded. Sandy Chandler said he sympathizes but they can not rubber stamp a mistake. He said he would like Ellzey to make arrangements to reconfigure the stairs so they are within his property. Chandler told Ellzey he bares part of the blame for the hand drawing being incorrect; he showed 30 feet on that side to the property. Ellzey said he gave that in good faith. Tsoulos told Ellzey the Public Hearing was closed. Chandler said whether the City can reimburse Ellzey is an entirely separate issue. Susan Hill said it is a hard situation. She said it is important that a person get a survey when they are building on their property. She said the steps on the hand drawing do not represent the steps that were actually built. Brown said he 4 wants clarification from the City Attorney to know the City’s liability if the stairs are left in the right-of-way. Schleicher said she talked with the City Attorney and the City does not have the right to give a variance to build in the right-of-way; they only can give a variance in the setbacks. She said the only thing they can consider is allowing Ellzey to be zero lot line or back; they can not leave the steps as they are unless the City abandons a portion of the right-of-way, and that is a different process. She said the reason why she supported Ellzey moving this Hearing forward was rather than having him tear down his stairs he was asking for a variance for the setback only, not to build in the right-of-way. Tsoulos said the motion to continue may not be appropriate. Brown said the thing to do would be to motion to allow the steps to go in the setback but not the right-of-way. Brewer asked the cost of the process for abandoning the right-of-way versus the $8,000 Ellzey has incurred. Schleicher said there would be costs of surveys, lawyers, hearings, but the outcome is not anymore certain than this Hearing. Brewer asked if the City should investigate that cost. He said there seemed to be some culpability where the City guided this homeowner into making these financial decisions. Brewer said it is a matter of economics now. Tsoulos asked Brown if he wanted to withdraw the motion to continue. Brown motioned to table. Brewer seconded the motion. Schleicher requested a time limit. She said it would be quite significant because an error was made to give someone land. She advised caution. Tsoulos asked Brown for a timeframe. Following discussion, the deadline was set as the agenda meeting on October 9, 2006. Three voted in favor of the motion to table: Brewer, Brown, and Chandler. Voting in opposition were Bill Garbett and Hill. Abstaining was Chuck Powell. He said he did not understand the issue; the City Manager said they do not have the authority to leave the stairs where they are. Kindrick had recused himself. The motion to table carried. Schleicher said the Planning Commission has the authority to give Ellzey a variance to modify the stairs so he can stay within his own property. She said the stairs are violative on two issues: setback and right-of-way. She said when Ellzey came to her he was distressed that he would have to tear it down because the Code that says you can not get an after-the-fact variance. She said it is technically an after-the-fact variance built with a permit so they are overlooking that issue to have it heard. Schleicher said Ellzey was applying for a variance only for the setback and he understood he would be modifying the stairs. She said Ellzey did not want the whole stairs tore out because he thought he could save some money by modifying it. Tsoulos said the motion was to ask the City to check into the possibility of other options, which might include the abandonment of the right-of-way. Schleicher said Ellzey probably should quantify his cost for modifying the stairs so they can compare. Citing her involvement through a committee, Chair Lawanna Tsoulos recused herself for a Zoning Variance from the Land Development Code Section 3-090, Schedule of Development Regulations at 201 Fifth Avenue, PIN 4-0004-13-002, Zone R-2. Vice Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Petitioner Robert Groover said he is asking for a setback variance. Groover gave history of the project: City Council member Mallory Pearce wanted to do a land swap to preserve the Sally Pearce nature trail. Groover said in doing the land swap the line behind the first set of duplexes was an arbitrary line placed when they walked the site and put in some pegs. He said the buildings were not in place at that time. He said now the line is less than a foot off of the back of his building. Groover said it slipped through the cracks; no one is at fault. He said they need the variance granted to get the Certificates of Occupancy for the building. Bill Garbett asked if Groover was going to move the property line. Groover said they have looked at this from two angles. He said one angle would be a property swap, but here he is asking for a variance. He said it would be quicker, easier, and less expensive for everyone involved. Garbett said the deck is across the property line. Groover said it is a cantilevered deck; the footprint is within the line. Barry Brown asked how far it was into the setback. Groover said less than a foot. Brown said 10.3 feet. Gene Kindrick asked if the property behind the building belonged to the City. Groover said that was correct. Charlie Brewer asked if he had discussed a land swap with the City. Groover said they had a discussion at a Council meeting but have not moved forward. He said that is a 6-month plus project. Sandy Chandler asked if the property line was drawn under the terms of the land swap. Groover said that was correct, it was recorded. Chandler said if they give the variance the house will be over the property line and the better way to go would be to move the property line. Kindrick verified with Whitley Reynolds, the surveyor, that the corner of the deck is over the property line. Chuck Powell said this is the same as the last petition; they are being asked to approve encroachment into City property and they can not do that. Groover said this is a setback. Powell said the line is going to have to be redrawn. Brewer said the previous issue was that the resident was given approval but in this one the project was laid out improperly. Groover said no, the points that were established on the field walk were not transferred to the plat where the proposed houses were. Chandler said the property was not cleared. Brown asked about the process to have the line changed. Groover said it would be a land swap. Brown asked if the deck was a lay out problem. Groover said the subdivision plat was preliminarily approved and then the land 5 swap occurred. He said they built the house where it was approved to go. He said they did not overlay the land swap onto the approved plat. Gene Kindrick asked if the deck could be redesigned to bring it into the property. Groover said if it could be he would have done that by now. He described it as roofed and screened. Brown asked how much of the deck is in the rear setback. Brewer said all but about two feet. Brown asked if anyone in the audience cared to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Brewer motioned to deny. Kindrick seconded. Garbett said they need to strongly encourage the City to expedite the land swap process. The motion to deny passed with Brewer, Garbett, Susan Hill, and Kindrick voting in favor, and Chandler and Powell opposed. The petition will be heard by City Council on October 12. Charles Vonashek presented a Site Plan Approval for 106 South Campbell Avenue, PIN 4-0003-04-006, Zone C-2, to convert a residence into a restaurant. Vonashek said he has adequate parking and needs to relocate one palm tree. Chuck Powell asked about a buffer where the site abuts lot 32. Vonashek said he is grandfathered and according to Zoning Administrator Dee Anderson only 10 feet is required. Vonashek said he has 16.41 feet and they are going to put a 6-foot fence up with bushes. Powell asked if that would compromise the parking place in the corner. Vonashek said no. Charlie Brewer asked about the angled parking; cars would have to back the entire way out. Vonashek said that was correct but the most that would be parked at any time would be five or six cars. Barry Brown asked if the landing and steps would remain. Vonashek said yes and there would be access with rails. Brown asked about the cars backing out. Vonashek said the cars could turn around; they do not have to back all the way out. Brown asked about the distance between the building and the 18-foot parking spaces. Vonashek said 14 feet. Brown asked the distance less the steps. Vonashek said the steps were 32 inches. Brewer commented on the two parking spaces behind the employee parking; one was about 11 feet in length, not the required 18 feet. Vonashek said since he has 10 tables he is only required to have 10 parking spaces, and he has 15. Brewer asked about the square footage of the dining area. Vonashek talked about the number of tables in each room. Brewer said the Ordinance calls for the total square footage of the dining area. Brewer and Vonashek agreed that all seating was inside the building. Brewer said there needs to be 15 square feet per person. Vonashek said that is new construction, not preexisting. Tsoulos asked Chuck Bargeron to address that. Bargeron agreed with Vonashek that it was one parking space per 4-top table. Brewer read the Ordinance that referred to square footage. Vonashek said according to Anderson the square footage requirement is for new construction. Bargeron said there is a section about internal changes. Brown asked if that meant existing under the same use. Bargeron said it is the district use. Tsoulos asked Bargeron if Vonashek had adequate parking. Bargeron said that is one of the main reasons why Vonashek has to have a Site Plan because of the change of the use from residential to commercial. He said Vonashek has to address parking; his seating arrangements and the occupancy load of the building – the Fire Marshal will establish. Tsoulos asked if Vonashek met the parking. Bargeron said Anderson had not indicated otherwise. Powell said it did not seem to meet the requirements of the buffer. Vonashek said he is 6 feet over the required 10 feet. Powell cited the Ordinance. Vonashek said Anderson told him that as long as he puts a fence up he will meet the buffer requirement. Brown said a fence does not meet the vegetative buffer requirement. Vonashek said they would put plants next to it. Tsoulos asked Bargeron if Anderson was referring to a clause that states if a 20- foot buffer can not be met then there could be a 10-foot buffer. Bargeron said Anderson made a reference to that. Powell said it is in Section 3-160, and even if that is true they still need to see a plan for the 10-feet of trees and shrubbery that would be planted to create the buffer for the resident. Vonashek said there are trees and shrubbery already there. Powell read the Ordinance. He said they should have the buffer plan before being asked to approve. Brown said it is an existing building but is being converted from residential to commercial. Vonashek said there is nothing in the regs that says he has to bring a plant design; it is not a requirement to go in front of City Council. Powell said even if they go to the 10-foot buffer of vegetation it would eliminate two parking places shown on the plat; one of the required employee parking spaces and one of the diagonal. Vonashek said he agreed with Powell but he still meets the required parking. Brown asked where the dumpster was. Vonashek distributed a handout and described a 5 feet by 5 feet fenced enclosure on Linton Street. He said they will be totally concealed and they would have no effect on anybody. Tsoulos asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. David Miley said he lives on Linton Street and he was one of the nobodies this was going to effect. He said to but a restaurant in a residential neighborhood was unconscionable. He said he completely opposes it. Miley said Linton Street is a private, dead end street that is not wide enough for two cars and is not owned by the City and has no lighting. Rusty Fleetwood said he owns property on South Campbell Avenue. He asked the name of the restaurant and if it would serve alcohol. Vonashek said he has not gotten a name and 6 the restaurant would serve beer and wine. Vonashek explained the concept of the restaurant and said it would be a fine dining experience for a set price, and there would not be more than 6 to 8 cars at any time. Fleetwood told the Commissioners it is a C-2 district but when a beer and wine license is required it must come under Special Review. He said it will start a change on Linton Street. He said in a couple years if it does not go great, it will have established precedence. Fleetwood said Linton is not a private street; it is a public street. Vonashek said he has been the owner of Skippers for twelve years and he guarantees the new concept is going to work. He said no one is going to pay $60 to$70 a chair and go crazy. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for a motion. Powell made a motion to deny. Brewer seconded. Brown said it needs a buffer adjacent to the property. The motion to deny passed with six voting in favor and Bill Garbett voting in opposition. Tsoulos told Vonashek he has the right to go to City Council on October 12th. Tom Sullivan presented a Major Subdivision Final Plat Approval request for GSHP Properties, Inc. at 1318 Solomon Avenue, PINs 4-0026-02-027 and 4-0026-02-028, Zone C-2. This was not a Public Hearing. Sullivan said they completed the infrastructure but not the as-built survey. He said the reason for that is they incorrectly assumed that the swales could be completed as a final stage of grading. He said the swales are now complete and the as-built will be done before the Council meeting. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos called for questions. There being none she called for a motion. Gene Kindrick motioned to approve. Barry Brown seconded. The motion to approve passed; the vote was unanimous. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos introduced a proposed Text Amendment to the Land Development Code Section 6- 040 (L), Exemptions; Signs Not Requiring a Permit, dealing with sandwich-board signs. City Manager Diane Schleicher said there was some use of sandwich signs that the Code did not allow for. She described situations: a business off the beaten path, real estate open house directional signs, and community events. Schleicher said the signs could only be out during the activity or event. She said this proposed Text Amendment went to the Economic Development Committee and got mixed reviews. She said if the sandwich signs got out of hand the Ordinance could come back to the Planning Commission; the law is not static. Barry Brown asked if the 5-foot setback rule applied. Schleicher said no, the sandwich signs would be allowed on the sidewalk as long as they did not create a vision clearance or impede the ability of someone to use the sidewalk. Brown asked if it was on a first-come first-serve basis. Schleicher said no permit would be required so people would be putting the signs up as they need them. Tsoulos said the writing of the proposal does not address them being on the corners. Schleicher said they are most often used on a corner but they can also be used in front of a business. She said with this language the signs could be in front of a business during the hours of operation. Tsoulos asked if every business could do it if they so choose. Schleicher said they could but she is thinking they are going to be for the back businesses. She said it also would benefit special events and allow sandwich signs for real estate open houses. Brown said the size could be 3 foot wide and 4 foot tall on both sides, and that would be a pretty big sign. Schleicher said it is not a slam dunk ordinance but it has worked in other communities. Tsoulos said it does not address that it is on City right-of-way. Schleicher said language could be added. Brown asked if it was limited to one sign per business. Schleicher said if the Planning Commission wanted they could put restrictions. Charlie Brewer asked if the size would be obstructive. Gene Kindrick said the Text read that the signs can not be obstructive. Brown brought up enforcement issues. Schleicher said they could require a permit but without a fee so they could check the site to make sure it is appropriate. Tsoulos and Schleicher discussed the language. Schleicher said there could be pitfalls with this. She said in practice it has worked in other communities however there is a lot going on in Tybee so it may be something that needs to be worked on. She said it was an effort to give the small businesses visibility and help special events. Sandy Chandler asked about language that would restrict it to the right-of-way. He asked about Tybrisa Street and if Schleicher was speaking about an area like that. Schleicher said no, C-2. She said they could limit it to one per business and one per event, and require a permit but not charge for it. All agreed that sandwich boards could not go in the DOT right-of-way on Highway 80. Brown talked about other potential locations. Schleicher said the signs could be in residential districts; it is not restricted to commercial. She said the size could be reduced. Keith Gay spoke as a representative of the Economic Development Committee. He talked about the C-2 district and he said the sign issue is more critical than they understand. Chuck Powell said the residential people pay taxes too and should be protected from having commercial signs on their properties. He said he would like to see this proposed Text Amendment limited to C-1 and C-2 commercial areas. Brown said the proposal needs to be fine tuned. Susan Hill said there were signs for a wedding in the right-of-way all weekend. She asked how the Sign Ordinances can be communicated to non-Tybee people. Tsoulos asked if a subcommittee of the Economic Development Committee, the Planning Commissioners and Staff could be 7 formed to work on this. Keith Gay said he is in favor of the City Manager’s proposal with some refinements before it gets to City Council. Tsoulos asked Gay if the Economic Development Committee would be willing to participate. Gay said absolutely. Tsoulos called for a motion. Brown made a motion to continue. Chandler seconded. The motion to continue passed; the vote was unanimous. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos opened a Public Hearing for a Land Development Code proposed new ordinance related to the Buffer. She referenced “A Coastal Riparian Buffer Ordinance for the City of Tybee Island, Georgia” handout the Commissioners received dated August 24, 2006, and prepared by Emily Franzen, Sandra Glaze and Trent Myers of the University of Georgia. She said the document was put together after a meeting of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Division, and the University of Georgia. Susan Hill suggested a subcommittee be formed to discuss it. Bill Garbett said they had asked the DNR for what would be allowed in the 25-foot buffer, and what they got was a 75-foot buffer. He said the handout refers to the Coastal Riparian Buffer Guidance Manual which is not completed. Tsoulos discussed the makeup of a subcommittee. Barry Brown suggested a public workshop. Charlie Brewer said they had a workshop at the state level and there needs to be a workshop at the local level. Tsoulos asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition. Ron Calloway asked questions: who requested the study; why Tybee needed a secondary riparian buffer ordinance; if all riparian buffer lands have been identified; have all property owners been notified; and how can the Planning Commission deal with this without a Public Hearing. Tsoulos asked City Manager Diane Schleicher to comment. Schleicher said as an agenda item the ordinance was sent to the Planning Commission by the City Council but its origination predates her tenure. Chuck Powell said he was at the meeting on June 29 and he does not recall anybody suggesting a 75-foot buffer. Following discussion amongst the Commissioners, audience member David Postle said if tonight’s meeting is typical he recommends Dee Anderson and Chuck Bargeron be required to attend meetings so they can provide information. He recommended that a representative from the DNR attend in an advisory capacity. Postle said the ordinance recommending a 75-foot barrier would be the political death of anyone on City Council that would vote for it. He said he strongly supports maintaining the 25-foot buffer. He said the DNR told him that the City determines the size of buffer it wishes. He said the Coastal Environmental Protection Department has the final say concerning the marshes. Postle said the recommendation to form a study group is the kind of action the public expects. Larry Nesbett said he is a member of the Tybee Residents and Property Owners Association and they would like to see this issue tabled, a committee formed and Public Hearings held. Whitley Reynolds said the DNR flagged his house and he pulled 75 feet from the DNR line, and it would make his lot worthless if it was vacant. Referring to the model ordinance, he said it probably needs to go in the trash. Carrie Efird said the ordinance would make her and her sister’s land unbuildable. She said she is willing to be on the committee. She said the model ordinance makes everyone nonconforming and creates hardships. Efird said stakeholder notification is lacking. City Manager Diane Schleicher clarified that Zoning Administrator Dee Anderson was normally at the Planning Commission meetings but was not present due to illness. John Major said a workshop with citizen input is the way to go and he would participate. Tom Sullivan challenged everyone to call their elected officials tonight and let them know where they stand on this issue. He said the model buffer ordinance is ridiculous. Larry Nesbitt said he talked with the EPD division of the DNR and the gist of the conversation was that Tybee is unique because the lots are small and irregular therefore great care should be taken to adopt an ordinance that can work for Tybee. Tsoulos asked for a motion. Sandy Chandler motioned to table for thorough study involving the citizens and state. Gene Kindrick seconded. Garbett said they need to wait for the Coastal Riparian Buffer Guidance Manual. Brewer recommended beginning the selection process of a study team. He recommended the chair of the team be a Commissioner. Powell asked if they could recommend it be limited to studying the 25-foot buffer. Tsoulos said there needs to be a deadline. Brown said a minimum of 6 months. Dick Smith suggested 60 days after the Manual. The timeframe was discussed further. Powell said 6 months. Larry Nesbitt said he would like his association to have two or three representatives on the committee. Chandler amended the motion to table for a committee to study the 25-foot buffer for 6 months. Kindrick seconded. The motion to table passed with a unanimous vote. Chair Lawanna Tsoulos said the Planning Commission needed to appoint an Ethics Board liaison to replace Susan Hill. Barry Brown nominated Charlie Brewer. Bill Garbett seconded. The vote was unanimous. Gene Kindrick motioned that the meeting adjourn. Chuck Powell seconded. The vote was unanimous.