Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070319_PC_mtg 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop Charlie Brewer ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Barry Brown, Chairperson Sharon Marshall Sandy Chandler Bill Garbett CITY ATTORNEY Susan Hill Edward M. Hughes John Major Chuck Powell, Vice Chairperson MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Barry Brown called the March 19, 2007 meeting to order. Other Planning Commissioners present were: Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, Charlie Brewer, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Susan Hill, John Major, and Chuck Powell. Chair Barry Brown called for a motion on the Minutes of the February 12, 2007 agenda meeting. Sandy Chandler motioned to approve. Demery Bishop seconded. The vote was unanimous. Brown called for a motion on the Minutes of the February 20, 2007 meeting. Chuck Powell moved to approve and Charlie Brewer seconded. The vote was unanimous. Harold Yellin represented petitioner Chris Chandler for an event facility at 1126 Highway 80, PIN 4-0026-11- 023, Zone C-2. Sandy Chandler recused himself. Yellin said that an ordinance had passed to cover special events. He talked about there being 20 or 19 parking spaces at the site, depending on the final location of a marsh delineation flag. Yellin said that Lou Kietzman agreed to provide 20 spaces on his vacant lot, Tim Malins agreed to provide 20 spaces, and Tom Beytagh agreed to provide 28 spaces after 6:00 pm. Yellin said the total number of spaces available was 88 or 87; 20 or 19 spaces onsite and 68 spaces offsite. Yellin talked about the hours of operation varying by event but would not be earlier than 7:30 am or later than 1:00 am. He said the capacity of the structure was 186 as stated in a letter from Chuck Bargeron of the City of Tybee Island, based on 2,725 square feet divided by 15. Yellin said that events would comply with the noise ordinance. He said the only things they have had so far were a 3- to 4-piece band or a DJ. He said all sound systems would face away from residentially zoned districts. Referring to a letter from the Fire Inspector, Yellin said Chandler would comply with the three items. Yellin said all lighting was intended to be residential in nature. He said there might be tiki lights or holiday lights. He talked about a directional sign on Highway 80 but said it would not be permanent. He said there was a privacy fence in place as a buffer. Yellin said that, depending on the size of the crowd, there would be one, two or three people onsite to manage. He said the driveway was currently maintained by the three property owners: Alexander, Caldwell and Chandler. He said no pine trees would be removed. Yellin said that any time the parking plan changed they would comply. Chair Barry Brown called for questions. John Major asked about the parking. Yellin apologized for his calculations after it was determined there were 16 or 17 spaces onsite. Charlie Brewer asked about the parking being outside the marsh buffer but access/egress being through the buffer. Yellin said they could not prevent access to the property. Brewer said it was currently a residential use. Yellin said special events were probably going to be the most highly regulated use on Tybee. He said the property is zoned C-2 and as a matter of right, without Special Review, it could be a restaurant. Libby Bacon talked about Beytagh’s and Kietzman’s sites being for sale and asked what would happen if the new owners did not want to grant parking. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that should any arranged offsite parking not be available Chandler would have to produce evidence of another site. He said that if Chandler was given permission to use offsite parking it would be subject to him demonstrating to staff that the parking was available. Bacon asked if Chandler would be willing to put a cutoff time on music such as 11:00 pm. Yellin said that Chandler probably would be willing. The noise ordinance was discussed. Yellin and Mary Ann Dudley, manager of the Chandler House, agreed that live or amplified music would end at 11:00 pm. Demery Bishop talked about the offsite parking and the impact of daytime events. Yellin said most events at Chandler’s would be when the offsite parking sites were closed. He said if the offsite parking sites are open for business that parking would not be available for events. Bishop talked about the public safety aspect of the traffic ingress/egress of a large number 2 of people. Referring to Section 3-080 (D) of the Land Development Code, Brown asked Hughes if the driveway width needed to be 24 feet to accommodate two-way traffic because of the 90° parking angle. While Hughes looked at that, Brown asked Yellin if anyone would be sleeping in the facility. Dudley said that usually not but sometimes she stays there and she has had people who drink too much spend the night. She said there are two bedrooms. Brown asked about the location of the event tent. Dudley said they normally set it up over the driving pad because it is paved. Brewer asked about the bedrooms. Dudley said the brides and grooms use the rooms to dress and the rooms were also being used by a babysitter to care for children. Major asked about events. Dudley said most events are outdoors. She said they advertise events for 125 people. She said she would never put 181 people on the property. Major said the capacity calculation was based on the inside space of the dwelling, not the exterior space. Dudley said events take place on the decks upstairs or downstairs under the house. Referring to Section 3-080 (D), Hughes agreed with Brown about the 24-foot driveway width. After discussion, Yellin offered to change the two 90° spaces to one parallel space and to add two spaces on the driving pad. Hughes discussed the Special Review and Site Plan Approval processes. Dudley talked about a gate that opens to Caldwell’s easement. Brown said that easement was not shown on the plan. Brewer asked if trolleys and busses would be traversing the driveway. Yellin said they would park in the lane to drop people off. He said the parking space count did not include the lane on Highway 80. He said he would not want trolleys or busses coming up and down the access. Brown asked if the dwelling was a single-family house would the three parking spaces shown on the side of the house be used and accessed by driving across the buffer. He said the EPD has said not to use the buffer for driving or access. Major asked what the surface would be for the access to the three spaces. Yellin said grass. Susan Hill said that use of the site as a restaurant would require Site Plan Approval. She said that at the Chandler website there was function scheduled for 175 people and it said that rooms could be rented. Dudley said they allow the brides and grooms to stay when they have alcohol. She said they do not rent the rooms. She said she has no control of the website. She said they advertise for 125 people and 175 would be within their legal limit. Brown asked if they were required to have a liquor license. Hughes said the caterer would have the license. Bill Garbett asked if the caterer was the person that would always be there or would it be someone from the Chandler house. Dudley said a representative of Chandler house. The capacity calculation was discussed. Brewer asked if hotel/motel tax was being paid. Dudley said no, the bride and groom staying was a gift and it was not usually decided beforehand. Yellin talked about weddings being held at hotels. Major said it has been operational for about a year and there have not been any accidents or police calls. He asked if anything was going to change. Dudley said no, it was a valuable piece of property. Hughes clarified that with no sales of alcohol the caterer would not have an alcohol license. Brown called for questions from the audience. Bill Dowell asked if Chandler would have to report any change in offsite parking. Hughes said any change could alter the allowable occupancy until other arrangements were made. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Hill, Bishop, Bacon and Brown each told of their concerns. Brewer motioned to deny and said it was based on traffic crossing the buffer and traffic safety at the intersection with Highway 80. Yellin asked if the motion to deny was for Special Review or Site Plan Approval. Brown asked for clarity from Hughes and it was determined that the motion to deny was for Site Plan Approval. Garbett seconded the motion to deny. He said the offsite parking plan was a bad precedent. Brown called for a vote. Bishop, Brewer, Garbett, and Hill voted in favor of the motion to deny with Bacon, Major, and Chuck Powell voting against the motion to deny. Site Plan Approval was denied. Garbett motioned to continue Special Review. Major seconded. Hill asked about events planned at Chandler’s. Hughes said that events would not be stopped until the City process has concluded. Brown called for a vote on the motion to continue Special Review. Yellin questioned the Site Plan Approval and Special Review process. Hughes said Site Plan Approval and Special Review needed to be dealt with at the same time because there had to be a Site Plan in order to do Special Review. The group discussed the ordinances and the Chandler location. Brown called for a vote on the motion to continue Special Review. The vote to the motion was unanimously opposed. Brown called for another motion. Brewer motioned to review the Site Plan. Bacon seconded. Hughes recommended dealing with the conditions to impose to permit the use and then a Site Plan that will conform to those conditions. The vote on the motion to review the Site Plan was approved unanimously. During the ensuing discussion of conditions the following items were agreed upon by the Commissioners and Yellin: 1. Elimination of the three parking spaces on the side of the house, the addition of two parking spaces on the parking pad, the elimination of the two 90° parking spaces, and the addition of one parallel parking space at that location for a total of 15 onsite parking spaces. The number of offsite parking spaces was 68 for a total of 83 parking spaces. 2. If the owner of an offsite parking site should prohibit the use of parking spaces, Chandler must provide City Staff with a new parking plan. The parking plan will be updated with City Staff every six months. 3 3. No busses, trolleys, or other large vehicles allowed on the property. Busses and trolleys are not to leave Highway 80. 4. During all events certified law enforcement must be utilized to ensure safe ingress and egress to and from the Chandler property. 5. Placement of a rope to block the Caldwell easement. 6. Hours of operation of 7:30 am to 1:00 am. 7. A maximum capacity of 181 people including employees and support staff. 8. Compliance with the noise ordinance. All sound speakers to face away from residentially zoned property. No live entertainment or amplified sound after 11:00 pm. 9. Compliance with the building requirements of the Chatham County Fire Marshal and the City Marshal of Tybee Island. 10. Lighting will consist of regular outdoor house lighting. 11. All signage shall conform to the sign ordinance. 12. There will always be a designated manager at any event. 13. No pine trees will be removed or disturbed on the site. Powell motioned to approve the Special Review as amended. Bishop seconded. Hill said she did not know about the egress issue and maybe Council could address that. The vote to approve was unanimous. Brown asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to the Site Plan. Dowell asked if events could take place prior to the improvements required by the Fire Marshal. After discussion it was decided that Bargeron would obtain written requirements and provide them to Chandler. Brown called for a motion on the Site Plan Approval. Major moved to approve to include all of the provisions that were stipulated and the further stipulation that Bargeron get clarification from the Fire Marshal and that the petitioner comply. Yellin clarified that the motion to approve was for the Site Plan with 15 onsite parking spaces and with a rope across the Caldwell easement. Brown asked Yellin to clarify with the surveyor that there was enough room for the two parking spaces on the driving pad to be 18-feet long and not extend into the buffer. Powell seconded the motion. Brewer asked that the information for compliance with the Fire Marshal’s recommendations be available before the petition went to City Council. Brown called for a vote. The vote to approve was unanimous. [Sandy Chandler had recused himself]. Brown told Yellin the matter would go to City Council on April 12th. Paul Wolff represented a Site Plan Approval petition for a residential bed and breakfast at 8 Moore Avenue, PIN 4-0002-03-020, Zone R-1-B. Wolff said he had a 6-foot buffer and 6 parking spaces. He said if he had a sign it would be 4 square feet or smaller and be attached to the deck. Chair Barry Brown asked City Attorney Bubba Hughes if this was Special Review and Site Plan. Hughes said it was Site Plan only. Libby Bacon asked at what point Special Review happened. John Major said that no variances were being requested. Bacon said that Wolff had mentioned that when guests come to the home the kitchen is turned over to the guests, but the Code read that meals would be served. Wolff said if they are cooking on their own it is the same as a vacation rental. Bacon asked if that was still a bed and breakfast. Wolff said there were bed and breakfasts that have kitchens in the rooms. Demery Bishop asked if there was a fire and safety occupancy issue with this particular B&B design and if the premises could be limited to a set number of people. Chuck Bargeron said no. He said Wolff might have a smoke detector and extinguisher. Bishop asked if there were regulations that prevented large groups. Bargeron said not in Tybee’s ordinance. Charlie Brewer said he had never heard of anyone offering their kitchen. Wolff said the occupancy would be limited by parking, 1 parking space per 2 people, and he has 6 spaces. Wolff said the website says no more than 6 people and he has had parents with more kids than that – up to 8 or 9, but no more than 4 adults and the rest are kids and they normally have 2 cars. He said the off-street parking would dictate the occupancy. Bill Garbett asked if it was a residential use as opposed to commercial use for safety issues. Bargeron asked how many rooms there were. Wolff said 3 bedrooms, counting his, and a double futon in the living room. Bargeron said it was regulated as a private residence. Wolff said he has smoke detectors and fire extinguishers as required for B&B insurance. The exits were discussed. Wolff described and stressed that he was onsite whenever it was rented. Sandy Chandler asked if there were any liability issues to the owner. Hughes said there could be to the owner: his obligation was more than that of a regular landlord to a tenant. Wolff described his B&B insurance. Major asked if Wolff served breakfast. Wolff said he did not plan to. Brown asked if Wolff has been operating a B&B. Wolff said it has been a vacation rental. Brown asked Hughes if it was a boarding house. Hughes said it falls between the regulations primarily because there was only one kitchen in the structure. He said if there were two kitchens it would be a two-family dwelling. Brown asked if was originally built to have two kitchens. Wolff said no, there was a wet bar upstairs and a kitchen downstairs. Wolff said he has had a business license for 6 years and pays hotel/motel tax. Brewer asked about areas on the survey. It was discussed that Moore Avenue was a private 4 road. The locations of the parking were discussed. Density was discussed. Garbett asked Hughes to clarify that the use properly fell within the scope of a bed and breakfast. Hughes said the use is compliant with the ordinances in its current status. He said Site Plan Approval might clean up the status some. He said he does not know about the private drive issue. Hughes said there are a lot of ambiguous situations. Major asked if it fell within the residential bed and breakfast ordinance. Hughes said it does except for the kitchen, and he did not know if that removes it. Wolff said he was trying to clear up the gray issues although he has been operating legally. Brewer said it was backwards: at a B&B guests stay in a remote part of the house. He asked if Wolff lives downstairs when it is not rented. Wolff said they live upstairs. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the petition. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Sandy McCloud asked to speak. Brown reopened the Hearing. McCloud said she lives across the street from Wolff. She talked about another rental property on the street and she said there needs to be limits on how many people are allowed to stay. She cited noise as being annoying. The group discussed properties that are managed by rental companies versus those that are not. The differences between rental properties versus bed and breakfasts were discussed. Bishop asked if was appropriate to approve with a designated occupancy limit. Hughes said they could not impose conditions under Site Plan Approval. Wolff said he would like to keep the flexibility. Wolff asked McCloud if there have been complaints about his property. McCloud said people were screaming and cussing at frogs, and kids were trying to run down her cats with bikes. She then referred to the other rental property. She said she wished people would respect the one-wayness of the street. Sandy Chandler said they were addressing Wolff’s property, not the one across the street. Brewer said in the rental property industry occupancy was based on beds not how many cars can be brought on the property. Wolff said there are two bedrooms, a futon, and a couple of roll-a- ways for kids. He said he would like to keep the occupancy at 8. Wolff agreed to leave the website at a 6 person maximum. The vacation rental situation on Tybee was discussed. Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Chuck Powell motioned to approve. Major seconded. Susan Hill charged Wolff to follow the rules. Wolff said he would. Brown called for a vote. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Brown said Wolff could go to Council on April 12th. A proposed Text Amendment to the Land Development Code related to Special Events was the next item. The proposal was to apply Section 4-050 (F)(2)(b) of the Land Development Code, which is for Zone C-2, to Zone C-1. Libby Bacon said she saw no reason not to approve it in C-1. Bill Garbett recommended getting rid of offsite parking. Chair Barry Brown asked City Attorney Bubba Hughes if they could do that. Hughes said they could have a separate parking requirement in C-1 from C-2. He talked about the public parking within 1,000 feet being only applicable to restaurants. John Major said the Text Amendment read that the petitioner must present a parking plan and the parking plan may include public parking facilities. Garbett said he wanted to exclude offsite parking. Major said municipal parking was offsite. Chuck Powell said he thought they wanted to leave offsite parking in. Brown said offsite parking was a bad idea. Chandler asked if he was considering public parking to be offsite parking. Garbett said he did not. Major suggested changing the wording. Correcting his earlier statement, Hughes said the 1,000 feet only applies to expansion of commercial structures. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Text Amendment. Sandy Chandler asked for clarification. Brown said it was for someone in C-1 that wants to apply to be a special event facility. Powell said if the owner of a home in C-1 decided to turn it into a special event structure they are not going to find parking on the street and in the parking lots; they are going to need to address offsite parking. The discussion continued. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Garbett moved to approve the Text Amendment with the provision that the parking plan may not include offsite parking. Brown asked Hughes if public parking could be used as offsite parking. Hughes said no, they would either have to have onsite parking or other private parking. Sharon Marshall said public parking could not be reserved. There was no second to the motion. Brown called for another motion. Powell motioned to accept as written. Major seconded. The motion to approve carried with Bacon, Bishop, Chandler, Hill, Major, and Powell in favor, and Brewer and Garbett opposed. A proposed Text Amendment to Article 15, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control [SESC], of the Land Development Code was the next item. The group discussed the differences between the original SESC model, the currently adopted ordinance and the proposed Text Amendment. Regarding the references to trout streams, City Attorney Bubba Hughes said they could be eliminated. He said problems arise when it is attempted to modify a statewide model ordinance to fit Tybee’s situation because there are overlapping jurisdictions. He said only the director of the EPD can grant a variance so it was dangerous to take things out like the trout streams because the people used to dealing with it are used to seeing that. Chair Barry Brown said there has never been a comprehensive study done on saltwater marshlands according to the EPD. Garbett said there has been in 5 Maryland. He said there is understanding of soil erosion and the role of buffers, and soil and water behave much the same way almost anywhere. He said coastal marshlands are considered waters of the state although the original model SESC skimmed over that. Hughes agreed with Garbett. He said the new proposal was intended to make Tybee consistent with the model with respect to minor land disturbing, which the EPD is working on defining, and to the construction of single-family homes. He said the provision that was added about maintaining the buffer was to emphasize that there is still a buffer. Major said it did not say what could be done in the buffer. The others disagreed. Hughes referred to paragraphs 15 and 16 of Section IV of the proposed Text Amendment. He said that would not address everything that is permissible in the buffer without a variance. Major said that seemed different than what was said under the exemptions. Brewer said the bolded print contradicted what was written before it. He said that minor landscape activity should be allowed in the buffer. The buffer was discussed further. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Dick Smith said he would like to see the model and the proposed ordinance. Smith said his understanding of a buffer was to keep sedimentation from going into the waters of the state. He said the City needs to do GIS mapping of the stormwater system, which they have taken out of the budget the last two years. He said until the City can provide something for the public to comment on he did not know how they could ask for public comment. It was discussed that the materials were available at City Hall. Stormwater runoff was discussed. Larry Nesbitt said one of the problems was what was omitted from the model ordinance when the current Tybee ordinance was adopted in March of 2005: the two exemptions. He said in the proposed ordinance they were listed together. He talked further about the exemptions and the state model. He said he was confused as to why there were a lot of additional changes in the proposed Text Amendment. He said he would like Council to adopt the state model ordinance. The model ordinance, the current Tybee ordinance, the proposed Text Amendment, and related issues were discussed. Garbett moved that the state model be adopted. Brown clarified that would put the two exemptions back in. The group discussed that the DNR delineates the line, the EPD has jurisdiction over the buffer, and Tybee is the permitting authority. Garbett said the state model covers everything that is in the proposed Text Amendment. Chandler seconded the motion. Following discussion Brown said that the motion was to adopt the model state ordinance. Hughes clarified that Brown was referring to the current model state ordinance. Susan Hill asked if that was what City Council had asked the Planning Commission to do. Brown said no. The subject was discussed further. Brown called for the vote. Brewer, Chandler, and Garbett voted in favor and Bacon, Bishop, Hill, Major, and Powell voted against. The motion failed. Powell motioned to send the proposed Text Amendment back to the City Attorney and the City Council for clarification of some of the issues. He suggested it be written more logically and cleaned up. The differences between the model state ordinance and the proposed ordinance were discussed. Major asked if they could recommend that the exemptions be replaced. Brewer referred to the “Letter of Request to Planning Commission.” Powell restated that his motion was to send the proposed Text Amendment back to the City Attorney and the City Council for reconfiguration. Libby Bacon seconded the motion. Major asked if they could reincorporate the exemptions. Hughes said it was possible. It was clarified that the motion was to put the minor land disturbing exemption and the single-family construction exemption into the current Tybee SESC ordinance and send the remainder of the proposed Text Amendment back to the City Attorney and the City Council for cleaning up. Powell agreed. Bacon agreed as her second. Brown called for the vote. Those voting in favor were: Bacon, Bishop, Hill, Major, and Powell. Voting against the motion were Brewer, Chandler and Garbett. The motion passed. Bill Garbett motioned to adjourn the meeting. Demery Bishop seconded. The vote was unanimous.