HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100817_PC_mtg_min
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Randi Bryan PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER
Jay Burke, Chair Jonathan H. Lynn
Rob Callahan
John Major, Vice Chair CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Vice Chair John Major called the August 17, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Planning Commission members present were Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, and Monty Parks. Absent
were Demery Bishop, Randi Bryan, and Chair Jay Burke.
Vice Chair John Major asked for a motion on the Minutes of the July 20, 2010, Planning Commission
meeting. Rob Callahan corrected “obliviously” to “obviously.” Monty Parks moved to approve the
Minutes with correction. Callahan seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous.
Vice Chair John Major asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 3 Thirteenth Lane, PIN 4-0007-
06-004A, Zone R-T. The petitioner and property owner was Kenneth Grainger. The request was to reduce
the rear setback to 3-feet and the west side setback to 4-feet, 7.5-inches for construction of a set of stairs.
The required setbacks were 20-feet in the rear and 10-feet on the side. Jonathan Lynn noted that a revised
narrative and survey had been received since the Staff Report and Planning Commission packets were
issued. He explained the request. Major asked if the deck was existing. Lynn said that the stairs would be
part of the deck, and there would be some additional deck built to accommodate the landing for the stairs.
Lynn noted that the existing 9.72-foot setback on the rear was less than the required 20-feet. Major asked
if it was a substandard lot of record. Lynn said that in terms of setbacks, it was. Major and Lynn
discussed. Grainger said that he was trying to get a staircase to come off the existing deck so he would
have a fire escape in the back if needed. Major and Grainger discussed. Rob Callahan asked if the Fire
Department had been consulted. Lynn said that for single-family residential units there was no
requirement to have more than one means of egress from the structure. Major, Grainger, and Lynn
discussed the proposed stair configuration. Callahan asked if construction had started. Grainger said yes.
Major asked if he was asked to stop construction. Grainger said yes. It was discussed that Grainger
purchased the property last year. Major asked when the lot was created. Grainger said he did not know but
the house was built in the early 1980s. The lot was discussed. Marianne Bramble asked if Grainger lived
there full-time. Grainger said that they live there in the summer. Callahan asked if there was a second-
story staircase in the front. Grainger said yes. Major asked if safety was the primary motivation. Grainger
said yes. Monty Parks asked if other methods of fire escape were explored. Grainger said they looked
everywhere and could not come up with anything. He said that if the stairs did not come down in the
backyard it would take up parking that they could not afford to lose. Parks asked if the stairs would be
constructed of wood. Grainger said yes. Parks and Grainger discussed. Major called for public input.
There was none. Major closed the Public Hearing. Bramble moved to approve. Major seconded. Voting in
2
favor were Bramble and Major. Callahan and Parks voted in opposition. There was a tie vote (2-2) on the
motion to approve. The request would be heard by City Council on September 9.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 515 and 517 Butler Avenue,
PINs 4-0005-03-003 and 4-0005-03-004, Zone R-2. The petitioner and property owner was Pamela
Gallup. The request was a variance from Section 3-050, Obstruction to Visions at Street Intersections, for
a fence. Jonathan Lynn said that the owner obtained a permit for a fence, constructed it, and Staff
determined the fence did not pose a vision hazard. He explained that the fence was less of a vision hazard
than cars parked along Butler Avenue in front of the house, however, the ordinance was brought to Staff’s
attention so Gallup was informed that she had a couple of options. Lynn said that she could either remove
the fence from the vision triangle or apply for a variance. Major and Lynn discussed. Monty Parks asked
if anything had been put in place to prevent this from happening again. Lynn explained that language and
an illustration included in proposed revisions to Article 3 would clarify interpretation of the ordinance. He
said that if the City enforced the letter of the ordinance throughout the island there would be no fences
along Butler Avenue and some owners would have to ask for a variance for their houses or tear down part
of them. Parks asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this would they be opening a
floodgate of future requests for variances on obstructions. Lynn said that he did not believe so. Parks and
Lynn discussed. Major said that Gallup’s application said it was an 8-foot privacy fence. Lynn said that 8-
foot was the maximum height of a privacy fence. Major and Lynn discussed the 4-foot fence at Gallup’s
property. Major asked, if the variance was denied, who would be responsible for the cost of bringing the
fence into compliance. Lynn said that it would depend on the situation. Rob Callahan asked if the fence
was too high or too close to the intersection. Lynn said both; it was within the 25-foot obstruction line and
taller than 3-feet. Callahan said that on Sixth Street approaching Butler Avenue there were bushes that
were at least as bad an obstruction, if not worse, than Gallup’s fence. Lynn said that was correct and there
are some locations where there are actually homes. Gallup explained the planning she went through prior
to permitting. She said that the reason she went with the 4-foot fence was because her dogs weigh 110-
pounds. She said that she spent $13,000 for the fence. Gallup spoke about a letter she received from the
City that said she had 10 days to remove the fence. She said that she was told that the City does not
enforce this ordinance unless somebody complains. Gallup said that she understands the public safety
issue but there are tons of people not in compliance. She explained that she spoke with Mr. Carter, who
made the complaint that it was too high, and the issue is the corner of the fence, so she spoke with the
man who put the fence up, and there is an option to make the corner two sections go down to 3-feet but it
would require a good bit of labor. Gallup said she was willing to compromise. Lynn said that if that
happened there would be no need for a variance. Major explained Gallup’s options. Andy Carter, 605
Lovell Avenue, said that he agreed with Gallup; she was trying to do the right thing. He said that he could
not see around the corner, the rules said a 3-foot fence, it was not a 3-foot fence, and it was not legal.
Interpretation of Section 3-050 was discussed by Carter, Callahan, Major, and Lynn. Rusty Fleetwood
discussed that the ordinance required a lot of interpretation and changes to the wording would help. Major
closed the Hearing. Parks moved to approve. Marianne Bramble seconded. The vote was unanimous. The
motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. City Council would consider the item on September 9.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code
Article 3, General Provisions. Major offered options of either submitting Article 3 to City Council with
the comments attached that came from members of the Planning Commission or the Commission could
go through the comments and if anybody wished to vote up or down on each of the comments or get
clarification or speak to them, they could. Jonathan Lynn said that when it does go to Council it was going
to be from the Planning Commission as a whole so if it does include the comments it would be just a
whole list, not person specific, of comments from the Planning Commission. Major, Lynn, Marianne
Bramble, and Monty Parks discussed. Major recommended that when it went to Council that Lynn
3
prepare a clean copy and a copy with the changes. He said that there were two sets of comments to go
over. Rob Callahan asked if that was all of the comments received. Lynn said he received comments from
two Planning Commissioners. After discussion of how to proceed, Major suggested adding wording to
allow compact cars only or handicapped parking only to the section about obstructions at intersections.
Lynn commented that he did not know how that would be enforced and it would require a lot of signage.
After Major and Lynn discussed, Bramble asked if was possible to paint the yellow lines further. Lynn
said that it would cause the loss of parking spots and that would need to go to a different committee.
Major suggested that the language for a detached accessory structure did not express the intent: it should
not reduce the requirement for parking versus it should not reduce the amount of parking required. Lynn
and Major and the others discussed. Major noted a “principal” versus “principle” revision. Lynn said that
had been corrected in the latest version. Major suggested that Section 3-080(B)(5) regarding private docks
include not allowing parking in the marsh or in the buffer between the street and the marsh. The topic was
discussed. Lynn told Major that his next comment regarding adding “single-family” to 3-080(C) had been
included. Major asked whether Section 3-080(D)(5)(b) should be changed from “crew” to “crew
member.” Major suggested “with a permit” be removed from Section 3-100. He also spoke about the 10-
foot setback requirement from the landward toe of the landward-most dune. Lynn said that the first permit
in those areas was not a City permit; Staff would require a permit from DNR. The group discussed. Major
next verified with Lynn the 65% of the setback being greenspace requirement in Section 3-165. From
Section 3-130, Major asked how people with buildings of historic value would get exempted from
building codes. Lynn explained the National Register of Historic Places requirement and the types of
codes that may be exempted. Major spoke of Section 3-190 next. He said that engineered drainage plans
seemed a little extreme for a hot tub on a deck. He asked Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, if
he had ever seen a drainage plan for a hot tub. Davis read wording in that section, “…unless the City Staff
determines that due to the size and method of construction it is not necessary.” Davis said that just that
afternoon he was in the Community Development Department and reviewed a plan that was going to need
a drainage plan. He and Major discussed further. Davis recommended the wording of the section remain.
Major asked if Section 3-200 addressed placing a deck or patio within a marsh buffer. Lynn said that if
Staff determined it was within a buffer it would be required to go through DNR to get permission. Major
asked about “wetland protection district” in Section 3-240. Lynn explained that a definition for that would
be added to Article 2 in the future. Major said that Rusty Fleetwood had forwarded to him some
comments that had been earlier sent to Lynn and Council. Major commented that Lynn had said that the
comments had been incorporated to the extent possible. Major and Lynn discussed. Callahan suggested
that the sentence in Section 3-020 that began with “Any nonconforming structure which is damaged by
fire, flood, …” be amended to where if it was destroyed more than 50% than it should not be allowed to
be rebuilt in a nonconforming manner; it should have to be brought into compliance. Major said that a lot
of people would view that as a public taking. After he discussed further, Bramble said that she was okay
with Callahan’s suggestion. After further comments from her, Lynn said that if that language was added it
would reduce the amount of property in a lot of cases. He spoke of substandard lots of record and other
factors. Callahan commented on the “same nonconforming ground footprint” language of the last sentence
of Section 3-020. He said that demolition should be a case where there should be a requirement to
conform. Major said that, again, it would get into the public taking question. Callahan said that there are a
lot of cases where setbacks are not maintained so if a house was demolished to build a nice, new house
certainly the setbacks should be maintained. Major said that if he understood the City Attorney, a
substandard lot of record is the definition of a hardship for requesting setback variances. Major and Lynn
discussed and agreed that the definition of a hardship would be addressed during upcoming revisions to
Article 5. It was agreed that all of the comments and the Minutes from this Public Hearing would be given
to City Council. Callahan next asked for a definition of “substandard.” Lynn said that in Callahan’s
comments he provided the definition: a single lot which is an area less than required by these regulations.
He said that was on the list to include in Article 2. Major suggested that Section 3-040 be amended to
4
include consideration for variances where there are environmental, safety, or historical considerations.
After Major discussed that further, Lynn suggested that would be in Article 5. Major and Lynn discussed.
The section related to the next comment on Callahan’s list could not be located in the document. He
suggested adding a subparagraph (8) to Section 3-070(B) stating, “No temporary detached structure would
be allowed on a residential-use side of a commercial lot where commercial and residential uses are
adjacent.” He said that would decrease the inherent conflicts between commercial and residential uses.
The other Commissioners agreed. Callahan read the last sentence of Section 3-070(E) regarding kiosks.
Major asked if they were saying it was okay to put a kiosk on a residential lot. Lynn said no, a kiosk could
not go in a residential area. Major asked where you could put a kiosk. Lynn said in C-1 or C-2 area. Major
said that it would not hurt to say that. The section was discussed. Callahan said that for Section 3-
080(C)(3), if the speed limit was above 30 mph they may want to restrict that. Lynn said that the only
parts of the island where the speed limits were above 30 mph were Highway 80 and that comes under
DOT regulation; the DOT regulates those driveway openings. Callahan agreed. He asked about the
“driveway maintenance schedule” in Section 3-080(C)(5). Davis said that the City would be adopting
over the next six months a coastal stormwater management manual with specifications specific to Tybee
and in the basic manuals they have recommendations for maintenance of different pervious-type
materials. Major asked if that document should be referenced. The issue was discussed. Callahan moved
to Section 3-080(D)(4) regarding hotel rooms with kitchens. He suggested that parking be related to the
number of people that could sleep in a place, not whether it had a kitchen or not. Lynn discussed it being
common for municipalities to base parking requirements for hotel units on whether there are kitchens or
not. Callahan skipped the next item on his list. He then asked why a sentence about handicapped parking
had been deleted from Section 3-080(D)(5). Lynn referred him to Section 3-080(A) which covered such
parking for all zoning districts. Davis said that cities do not have the authority to enforce the ADA. He
recommended changing the wording to “Georgia State Accessibility Code.” That distinction was
discussed. Callahan said that there was confusion with the asterisks of the table at Section 3-090(B).
Callahan, Lynn, and Major discussed Section 3-090(C). Under Section 3-110, Callahan asked if
manufactured homes were restricted to certain zones. Lynn replied no. Manufactured homes were
discussed. Comment 17 on Callahan’s list was referenced and Lynn said that it needed to be added. Major
said that comment 18 was done. For Section 3-150(A), Callahan asked what “open areas” were and where
the 24-foot size came from. Lynn said that it came from the old ordinance. He said that he would interpret
“open areas” to be vacant lots. After discussion Lynn suggested “open areas” be changed to “unimproved
lots.” After discussion, a suggestion of “no vehicle greater than two axles” was rejected. No consensus
was reached on wording for that section. Paragraph (B) of that section regarding trailers at construction
sites was discussed. No changes were made. Callahan moved to Section 3-170(A)(6) and suggested
“parking” be added to the list of offenses. Lynn clarified that no customers are allowed at home
occupations. After discussion of that, setbacks for decks and patios in Section 3-200 were considered.
Callahan said that his suggested rewording did not do what he intended. For Section 3-230(C)(1) Callahan
suggested that they make it very clear that lights that are burning from inside a house as well as outside
can cause problems. Major said that he liked that. The two of them discussed it. Callahan recommended
deletion of “wherever possible” in Section 3-230(D)(1). Major asked for public input. For Section 3-050,
Fleetwood recommended eliminating a definite height limit and instead saying that it shall not obstruct
vision at the intersection. He said that the owner could choose to use wire. Regarding Section 3-160,
Fleetwood said that since he wrote his comments on buffer requirements where a commercial use abuts a
residential use in a commercial zone the ordinance had been reworded so that the required buffer was not
less in width than the required setback for the property. He said that he had no problem with that width;
he did have a problem with buffers not being site and use specific. He asked if a proposed commercial use
next to a residential use required Site Plan review. Lynn said that in a commercial district it would require
Site Plan. Potential Site Plan situations were discussed. Referring to Section 3-050, Andy Carter, 605
Lovell Avenue, said that if it was going to say from the centerline of the street, it almost negated the
5
ordinance. He explained his interpretation of the intent of the ordinance. Lynn said that for most of the
island, 25-feet from the centerline would work; Butler Avenue was the only one where the centerline
would not pass the parking lane. Carter said that it would be different in every circumstance. Discussion
followed. Carter said that there is a house that advertises sleeping 23 people on the south end of the island
and he did not see anywhere where Article 3 was addressing the parking for that. Major said that the City
does not really have regulations that apply to rental properties other than what applies to traffic and
nuisance and noise. For the section on manufactured housing on open lots, Carter said that if he put a 3-
foot fence around it, it was not an open lot. Major said that it would be reworded to “unimproved.”
Bramble spoke about boat trailers and boats not being included in Section 3-150. She asked if that was
storage. Lynn said that it was. There was a discussion about the intent of the ordinance. Major closed the
Hearing and requested a motion. Callahan moved to send the comments along with the revised ordinance
to City Council. Bramble seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed
with a 4-0 vote. The Text Amendment would be considered by City Council on September 9.
Jonathan Lynn said that he would be emailing Article 5 to the Commissioners. It was decided that their
comments should be submitted to Lynn by September 7.
Rob Callahan moved to adjourn. Monty Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous and the meeting
adjourned.