Loading...
20080528_PC_mtg_min 1 06/11/2008 11:10 AM PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop James P. Boyle PLANNING & ECONOMIC Sandy Chandler DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR John Major, Vice Chair Brannyn G. Allen Anne Miller David Postle Chuck Powell, Chair CITY ATTORNEY Whitley Reynolds Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2008 – 7:00 p.m. Chuck Powell called the May 28, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were: Demery Bishop, James Boyle, Sandy Chandler, John Major, Anne Miller, David Postle, and Whitley Reynolds. Absent was Libby Bacon. Chuck Powell clarified that there were no Minutes or Disclosures. The first order of business was a Shore Protection Ordinance. If adopted it would repeal Land Development Code Section 5-010.J, Shore Protection with Variance Clause. Chuck Powell asked for comments from the Commissioners. David Postle said that it appeared the ordinance would eliminate the Tybee Shore Protection Line, which in many areas was more restrictive than DNR’s, particularly on the north end. He said he would like to walk the three zones. James Boyle said that he would like to know the science of it. Whitley Reynolds said that he would like more time to go over it and to walk the sites. He said that he was reasonably comfortable with the east zone. He said it was fuzzy exactly what the south zone would do to those properties. Reynolds said that where there was no dune or seawall, a 250-foot setback from the high water mark could be very damaging and they needed to find out where that might exist. He asked if constructing a house and mowing a yard damages the shore. Anne Miller suggested that they get together and walk it. She said the 250 feet was a concern. Sandy Chandler said that some of the literary constructs were very verbose and misleading and could be streamlined. He said he had problems about ownership and property rights. Demery Bishop said that the issue had been ongoing, he had not had a chance to completely review the proposed ordinance and he had numerous questions. John Major spoke about the map and the ordinance. He suggested defining the eastern, southern and northern areas and then talking about them. Chuck Powell commented that he had a problem that the document was not made available for the public to look at, and the colorization of the map was confusing as was the naming of the zones. He said the consensus was that they had not had time to look at the document. Powell said that he had been told that regardless of their action it would go to City Council on the 12th. He asked City Attorney Bubba Hughes if that was true. Hughes said that would be up to Council. He said that at Council’s request it had been advertised as a Public Hearing for June the 12th. He said that on any sort of Text Amendment in the Land Development Code there had to be at least one Public Hearing before each body. Hughes said that there could be revisions after that. He said that the ordinance was obviously a work in progress. He said the point was to get something on the table, get input and go forward. Powell asked if it would go forward whether the Commission recommended it or not. Hughes said that it had been advertised and City Council would conduct a Public Hearing but that did not mean that they would act on it. Major said he did not see this on the City 2 06/11/2008 11:10 AM Calendar or the marquee. Brannyn Allen asked if he did not see the meeting or the ordinance. Major said the meeting. Staff gave an explanation of the forms of advertisement for Planning Commission meetings. Options for handling the ordinance, the timing of receipt of the materials and the Public Hearing process were discussed. It was decided to hear from the public and have another meeting. Powell opened the floor for public comment. Ed Cawley asked if the ordinance change would allow construction on Battery Backus. Lou Off said that the City needed to let people know when something was going to affect their property. He then discussed specific lots on the north end of the island. Next to speak to the Commissioners was Jim Burke who said they were trying to change ordinances to suit their individual needs and that was wrong. He said that if something was going to come concerning the beach, it ought to come from the Beach Task Force. He told the Commissioners that they do not really know anything except their own individual thoughts and wishes. Powell said that he would appreciate it if speakers would not attack the Commission. Ric Hogan said that the City did not employ anyone who understands the science and the City was therefore not competent to delineate the proper shore delineation for a property. He said that the DNR hires people with those backgrounds that make them qualified to make shore delineation rules. He said it should be left to the competent people of the DNR. Powell closed the Public Hearing. The Commissioners decided to meet June 5. Powell asked about notification to the public. Hughes said that the notice required under the ordinance was related to the meeting of the Mayor and Council, and that had been done. He said that Staff would make an effort to publicize the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Due to scheduling conflicts, it was decided that the meeting date would be Wednesday, June 4. The North End Parks and Public Overlay Ordinance agenda item was considered next. Citing the short time since receipt of the materials, John Major suggested handling the other agenda items the same as they had the Shore Protection Ordinance. Demery Bishop and James Boyle agreed. Chuck Powell asked for public comments. There were none. Powell asked if there should be a motion. Bubba Hughes said there should be. Powell asked for a motion to delay the Shore Protection Ordinance. Dave Postle so moved and Bishop seconded. The vote in favor was unanimous. Powell then called for a motion on the North End Parks and Public Overlay Ordinance. Bishop motioned to delay action. Anne Miller seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous. Anne Miller motioned to delay action on the South End Overlay Ordinance. Demery Bishop seconded and the vote in favor was unanimous. Chuck Powell asked for public comment. Penn Myrick asked if the overlay map was available. Brannyn Allen said that the description was included in the ordinance but maps would be available at City Hall the next day. Bill Blakey asked what the ordinance was designed to do. Allen said it was born of the streetscape project that was recently completed along Tybrisa and the Strand. She gave the boundaries of the area that the overlay impacted. She said the idea was to assist businesses and act as an economic development generator for the area that the City had recently invested in. Allen said the ordinance made special provisions for signage, sidewalk cafes and displays of merchandise. She said the most critical component of the ordinance was requiring the businesses to use two City-provided trash compactors that had been installed in the area. Allen said that the South End Business District Policies and Procedures were adopted by City Council in January. The next item was a proposed ordinance to rezone from R-1 to EC the accreted property abutting or near the Lighthouse Point Condominium property, Van Horn Street and the waters of the State. Chuck Powell asked if the City was requesting the rezoning. Brannyn Allen said yes, as a component of the Shore Protection Ordinance. Whitley Reynolds asked who owned the property. Powell spoke of the Commissioners needing more information. He asked for public comment. Ric Hogan said that it was technically a violation to have a Public Hearing on the same day that the property was posted. He asked who originated this action. Bubba Hughes said it came up in the context of where the line on the coastal 3 06/11/2008 11:10 AM protection area should be. He said that at one time the Lighthouse Point Condominium Owners Association claimed ownership, the City claimed ownership, and Captains Row claimed ownership. He said that given the nature of the property it was not felt that it made much difference who owned it; if it was zoned EC it could not be developed. Hughes said that to his knowledge there were no plans by any of the potential owners to develop it, but the ordinance would alleviate defining where a line was. He said that the property does not have a PIN. Hughes commented about the Zoning Procedure Law, explaining that the Public Hearing that was advertised and the official Public Hearing was the one before the Mayor and Council on June the 12th, and there was greater than 15 days and less than 45 days notice of the posting so the City was in compliance. Hogan said maybe. He spoke about case law related to accreted property establishing that it accrues to the benefit of adjacent property owners. He asked on what basis would the City be able to make a claim that they have an ownership interest. Hughes said that it accreted to the right-of-way and was public property and it arguably belongs to the City. He said his point was what difference does it make, given the nature of the property it was not available to be developed and the proposed ordinance would put that issue to rest. Hughes said that he did not want the City to spend the money to find out who owned it when the property really could not be used anyway. Hogan posed another question to which Hughes suggested that he and Hogan meet later. After the two discussed the situation further, Kathy Fabricant spoke and then Jim Fabricant. John Major asked if the issue was that the City was trying to take ownership or rezone it. Hughes said rezone it. Further discussion was followed by Powell’s call for a motion that the item be moved to June 4th. Postle so moved and Anne Miller seconded. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous. The next item was a Land Development Code Text Amendment for Article 11, Planning Commission. Chuck Powell explained that the proposed changes were to Section 11-100, Meetings. The proposal would: change the date of the Commission’s monthly business meeting from at least nine days to at least sixteen days prior to the scheduled City Council meeting, change the time for the meeting from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and eliminate text related to agenda meetings. David Postle recommended clarifying that at least sixteen days prior to the City Council meeting was referring to the first Council meeting of the following month. Whitley Reynolds asked about distribution of packets to which Brannyn Allen clarified that that issue was addressed in the Rules of Procedure, not the proposed ordinance. James Boyle made a motion to approve, including the Council meeting reference change. Postle seconded. Powell asked for public comment. Freda Rutherford spoke of a change made in the past that decreased the time between when matters were considered by the Planning Commission and then went to City Council. She said that the Commissioners would not have been under the gun tonight if they had known that the items were not going to Council until the first meeting in August. She spoke in favor of a six-week timeframe. John Major said that the strongest advantage to having agenda meetings was if something was not provided it gave a petitioner an opportunity to get it before the regular meeting. He asked if they eliminated the agenda meeting and the Commission did not have all of the information, would they tell the petitioner to wait a month or would it go to City Council with a recommendation that the petitioner come back a month later. Voting in favor of the motion to approve, including the Council meeting reference change, were Bishop, Boyle, Chandler, Miller, Postle, and Reynolds. Major voted in opposition. The motion to approve with one change passed. Brannyn Allen pointed out a wording change in Subsection B of the proposed ordinance. The change was explained and discussed. Major moved to approve Subsection B as written. Chandler seconded. The vote in favor was unanimous. The motion to approve Subsection B passed. Powell spoke of the terms of office not being stated clearly in Article 11, Section 11-040. Hughes agreed and said a change would require another Text Amendment. The final item was Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission. Chuck Powell suggested that the last sentence of item 2.A would be more properly placed elsewhere in the 4 06/11/2008 11:10 AM document. Following discussion of other sections, item 7 was changed to include that members of the Planning Commission may question a petitioner following the presentation by the Zoning Administrator. It was agreed to change item 9 to read that if the Zoning Administrator were unable to present a petition at a City Council meeting, the Chair or his/her designee would present. The word abstain in item 12 was changed to recuse. Added to item 12 was that an abstention shall be counted as an affirmative vote. Powell said that he would entertain a motion to adopt the Rules of Procedure with the amendments. Demery Bishop so moved. Sandy Chandler seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve with amendments passed. City Manager Diane Schleicher spoke of a conflict the evening of Wednesday, June 4, with respect to use of the City Hall auditorium. After discussion it was decided that the Planning Commission would meet at 7:30 p.m. on that date. After discussions about additional drafts of the ordinances, the availability of the overlay maps to the public and the Public Hearing process, it was asked if there would be an agenda meeting on June 9 to which Brannyn Allen responded that there would not be an agenda meeting on that date. The meeting adjourned.