Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110315_PC_mtg_min.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Marianne Bramble Rob Callahan Henry Levy John Major, Vice Chair Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the March 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, and Tyler Marion. Absent was John Major. City Manager Diane Schleicher was present. Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the February 15, 2011, meeting. Henry Levy moved to approve. Tyler Marion pointed out a misspelling of his name. Parks noted that there had been very strong discussion about the recombination of lots that was not included in the Minutes. Marianne Bramble seconded the motion. Demery Bishop abstained. The other four voted in favor of the motion. Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 502 First Street, PIN 4-0003-12-014, -015 and -016, Zone C-2. The petitioner was Tybee Village, LLC. The request was an amendment to a previously approved Site Plan to allow the addition of a shark statue. Dianne Otto said a retail store recently opened at the site. She described the proposed location of the statue and said it would be on a 14- foot square slab. She said that the statue would be 6-foot square and 17-feet tall. Henry Levy asked if there was anything in the ordinances to prohibit this. Otto responded no. Levy said it would be a real nice addition to Tybee. Marianne Bramble asked if it was a fish head or a whole fish. Otto referred her to a rendering and said it was a head. Rob Callahan asked the building height. Walt Rocker, representative of the applicant, said it was 32-feet. The rendering was reviewed. Levy asked if the shark would be square or rounded. Rocker said it would be rounded. Demery Bishop read a portion of the definition of sign from Article 2, the complete text of which is: any area or surface on which lettering or pictorial material is displayed for the purpose of directing attention to a profession, business commodity, service or entertainment message. Bishop said a shark head was in essence some type of pictorial material. He then read one of the varieties of signage, “Commercial Message,” as defined in Subsection (f) of the sign definition: any sign wording, logo, or other representation that directly, or indirectly, names, advertises, or calls attention to a business, product, service, sale or sales event or other commercial activity. Bishop said there are requirements in the Code for sign approval and sign usage. He asked if the shark would fall under that type of interpretation. Otto said she had not considered it in that light; she would need to review the Code to understand whether it would fall under that. Bishop and Otto discussed. Rocker described that people could stand inside the shark for photographs. He said there would be a fence along the southern, eastern and western boundaries of the property to help with the privacy for the residents behind the building. Otto asked engineer Mark Boswell if the drawing being referred to was his. He replied that it was not. Otto asked the height of the proposed fence. It was determined to be 8-feet. Callahan asked if the applicant was asking for approval of a fence. Rocker said yes. Otto said the site plan 2 was dropped in the office in her absence; she asked Rocker a number of questions by email and did not receive responses prior to preparing the packet. Rocker said he did not realize he was presenting this until yesterday. Bramble asked Otto what questions she directed to Rocker. Otto said the initial question was who signed the application. Parks said that was a good question because it was illegible. Otto said in the email she encouraged Rocker to provide a narrative to be included in the packet. Parks asked if they wanted Rocker to come back next month. Bishop said if there were unanswered questions that Otto posed to the applicant that would be germane to their decision then it would be important to have those responses; otherwise they are making an incomplete, or perhaps inaccurate, decision. He said if it was considered a sign per se there are additional requirements. Parks asked for public input. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy motioned to approve. There was not a second to the motion. Parks asked for another motion. Bishop motioned to deny the current application as presented with two stipulations: the questions posed by the City were to be answered, and the questions raised concerning the sign portions of the LDC were to be answered and those responses presented to the Commission for further deliberation. Callahan suggested adding that if a fence was part of the request that it be added. Rocker said he thought it was. He said that because of Otto’s questions he did not think they were on the docket for tonight. City Manager Diane Schleicher asked if it was Bishop’s intent to deny or to table. Bishop said to deny as presented with the stipulations. Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was 4-1 with Levy opposing. The motion that passed was to deny the current application as presented with two stipulations: the questions posed by the City were to be answered, and the questions raised concerning the sign portions of the LDC were to be answered and those responses presented to the Commission for further deliberation. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for Administration and Enforcement, other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-010, 5- 030, 5-050, and 5-070 which were previously approved. The petitioner was the City of Tybee Island. Parks called for public input. There was none. Commissioner Henry Levy said that the sections that had not been approved seemed nothing but housekeeping items and he did not see anything wrong with approving all of them right now. He so moved. The motion died for lack of a second. Section 5-060, Public Hearing Requirements, was considered. Dianne Otto commented that the language formulated at the prior meeting related to campaign contribution disclosure was now incorporated into the document. Levy left the dais. Demery Bishop moved to approve. Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was 4- 0 with Levy not voting. The motion to approve Section 5-060, Public Hearing Requirements, passed. Section 5-040, Application for Permits or Actions Under this Land Development Code, was considered next. Otto said that at prior meetings the section had been approved but was later reopened and then Subsection H had been approved but the remainder of Section 5 -040 was not voted upon. After explanation from Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, and Otto regarding not requiring the engineering of a site plan to have full concurrence prior to consideration by the Mayor and Council due to the expense to the applicant on a plan that may not be approved by the Mayor and Council, Subsection C, item 11, was reworded to: The City’s engineering consultant or his designee will review a site plan prior to the Mayor and Council acting upon a zoning decision. Otto assured the Commission that concurrence was always required prior to permitting. Davis commented that the change would also save Staff the time of reviewing multiple submittals prior to approval of a site plan. Otto noted that it would reduce the desire of applicants to seek conceptual site plan approval. To address comments from the Commissioners, Davis stated that the City would be protected under the proposed revision. Marianne Bramble said everything should go back to the elected body no matter how minor. Davis recommended that Subsection G, item 2(a)(5) and item (b)(5) be changed from mean sea level datum to North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). Parks called for a motion. After discussion it was decided to take no action and review with the proposed changes at the next meeting. Next to be considered was Section 5-020, Permits or Actions required by this Land Development Code. Otto said that at the prior meeting Subsection F was approved 3 and Subsection I, item 1, was approved but the balance of the section was not. Referring to Subsection H, Bishop asked if there was a section elsewhere dealing with recreational vehicles on private property for commercial purposes. Otto requested the opportunity to research. No action was taken on Section 5-020. Otto said that the language for Section 5-041, Lot Recombination, which was discussed at the last meeting, was now included in the Article 3 document. She said this was proposed by the City Attorney given the abolishment of the administrative approval of subdivisions. She said this would clarify that Staff could administratively do recombinations. Parks said he has a reoccurring nightmare where somebody that owns four contiguous lots puts them together and challenges our 35-foot height based on being allowed to add an extra foot for every foot they go up. He said the LDC does allow going above 35-feet if you add a foot to the setback. Levy said he thought it was 2 -feet. Levy said it would be a very skinny building. Parks said it depended on how many lots were combined. Levy said the structure he lives in is 44-feet high but some of the setbacks are 30-feet and the smallest one is 14-feet so it does not look out of place because it has so much land around it. Otto said that at the time a recombination would be considered there would be no requirement that the owner provide building plans. She said recombinations are commonly done to reduce taxes. She said any request for a variance from the 35-foot height limit would require approval at the time of the variance request, not at the time of the recombination. The discussion of Article 3 ended. The next item was discussion of Municipal Code Section 2-21 and Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, item 12. These both included the sentence: An abstention shall be counted as an affirmative vote. Chair Monty Parks opened the Public Hearing. Dianne Otto said that the topic was raised by Commissioner Henry Levy at the prior meeting. She said any change to the Rules of Procedure or to the Charter required Council approval. She said if it was the Planning Commission’s desire to have City Council review one or both of those it could be placed on a future Council agenda for consideration. Otto said we do not generally have abstentions, we have recusals. She said Levy expressed that he may desire to abstain but he did not want that to count in the affirmative for the motion. Levy moved to petition City Council to allow us to abstain in the true meaning of the word. Demery Bishop said abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. He said historically an abstention vote is considered to be an oxymoron because an abstention is simply a refusal to vote and is not counted in either way. He said that abstention and recusal are not interchangeable and/or synonymous. Bishop said an abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual’s ambivalence about the measure but in no sense of parliamentary law should be counted as a yea vote or a no vote, but simply a non -vote. It was agreed that an abstention does maintain a quorum. Rob Callahan seconded Levy’s motion. Otto asked that the motion be restated . Levy said than an abstention be part of a quorum but be neither a yea nor a nay vote. Otto asked if the request was for Council to review both the Charter and the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Levy said he did not care what they do; he moved that for the Planning Commission. Bishop said there needed to be continuity. Parks agreed it should be Council also. Levy said you can affect the same thing by just walking out of the room; that means you have recused yourself, you are still counted as a quorum but your vote does not count. Parks said a recusal would affect quorum. Levy disagreed. Otto agreed with Parks. Marianne Bramble agreed with Levy that an abstention is not nay or yea, and she agreed with Bishop that the request for change should be for both Council and Planning Commission. Levy amended the motion to include Council. Callahan seconded the amended motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion passed 5-0 that an abstention by a City Councilmember or a Planning Commissioner be part of a quorum but be neither a yea nor a nay vote. Chair Monty Parks said the final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Henry Levy asked if Council had not already approved it. Parks said yes. Levy asked why they were hearing it. Parks said that at every meeting there would be an update on the progress; this 4 was the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the LDC. Dianne Otto provided the names of the seven people that were appointed to the committee by Council. She said the remaining opening would be appointed at the Council’s next meeting on March 24. The names of three ex officio members were provided by Otto. She said the meeting times would be determined soon. Henry Levy said that in view of the fact that the City furnishes lunch to the Beach Task Force and in view of the law that no alcohol shall be in City Hall, he makes a motion that the Planning Commission petition City Council that all laws and ordinances, rules and regulations, be suspended and they provide the Planning Commission with beer and pizza. Chair Monty Parks asked if Staff would like to take that under consideration. Parks asked for a second to Levy’s motion. Dianne Otto said that Levy seemed sincere on this regard; he raised the same topic at the end of the last meeting. She said she would put it in the Minutes of this meeting. Marianne Bramble asked that Levy repeat the motion. Levy said he moved that they petition City Council, in view of the fact that they provide nourishment and drinks to other public committees, that all rules and regulations, laws and ordinances be suspended and they provide us with beer and pizza. Bramble asked if it would be during the meeting. Levy said yes. Bramble asked what kind of beer. Levy said her choice. There was not a second to the motion. Levy said there was no spirit in here. Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn and Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned.