HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110719_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
July 19, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the July 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler Marion.
Absent was Marianne Bramble. City Manager Diane Schleicher, Zoning Specialist Dianne Otto, and the
City’s consulting engineer, Downer Davis, were also present.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks asked for discussion on the Minutes of the June 21, 2011, meeting. Henry Levy
moved to approve as written. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Monty Parks recommended and it was agreed that agenda item three (Conceptual Site Plan) would
be moved ahead of agenda item two (Special Review) to keep both items from Kyle Pratt together.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Section 4-050(F). The petitioner
was Kyle Pratt. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said that Section 4-050(F) discusses Uses Permitted by
Right After Site Plan Approval. She said the request was to add “commercial amusements, including
amusement parks and other commercial games and sports.” Otto said that was the same verbiage was
included in Uses Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval for the C-1 zone. She asked the
Commissioners to keep in mind the request was for all C-2 properties; it would not apply only to the
parcel that Kyle Pratt needed this for. Otto asked that they also consider the other uses already allowed in
C-2. Rob Callahan asked if the highlighted strip on the Zoning Map being shown on the screen was the
only C-2 district. Otto said it was. Callahan asked if the addition of the use was the only way to take care
of this. Otto said the use that Pratt was proposing was not currently allowed in the C-2 district. She said it
did not need to be the exact verbiage as used in C-1, but there were no uses listed in C-2 that fit what Pratt
was proposing so something needed to be added to C-2 to address that. John Major said the next agenda
item was something that appeared to be environmentally friendly. He said the C-2 strip was completely
surrounded by R-something. He suggested modifying it to things that were environmentally like what was
being proposed; something not detrimental to the environment and included buffering of the residential.
Otto spoke of possible difficulty determining if a project was environmentally friendly. Major said it
seemed like it was going from nothing to everything. Demery Bishop, referring to paragraph one o f
Section 4-050(F), said uses in C-2 districts are intended for locations along arterial streets where the
negative impacts of traffic congestion, noise, and intrusions into residential neighborhoods would be
minimized. He said the C-2 area was surrounded by residential and a blanket approval of this Amendment
could lead to those types of issues. He suggested the Commissioners consider the ramifications of traffic
congestion and noise in a residential environment and how to minimize it to the benefit of the residents as
2
opposed to their detriment. Bishop said they needed to consider that more than a blanket approval. Otto
said they were considering a use to be added to other uses already in the C-2 zone; the same
considerations they were discussing would be true of other uses already added to the list of uses permitted
in C-2. She spoke against separating any use allowed after Site Plan Approval from any others on the list
by suggesting this particular use have requirements the other uses do not have. Henry Levy said he
worried about noise and light. Otto said lighting was a standard that was not to be addressed within the
Uses Allowed by Right After Site Plan Approval. She said a lighting ordinance has been drafted and
would be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future but would apply to any development. She
said what was being considered was whether this use should or should not be added to the C-2 district.
Levy moved they add it. Parks said they were not at motion yet. Levy said a motion takes precedence over
everything else. Otto said no, the Public Hearing process takes precedence over a motion. Parks agreed
and discussed that commercial amusements could include amusement parks and carnivals. He said C-2
was right in the middle of everybody’s neighborhoods. Otto said an attempt to address that concern may
be to consider whether the language should be simply “miniature golf course” rather than “commercial
amusements.” Bishop spoke in agreement. At the City Manager’s suggestion, Otto shared that a miniature
golf course would be allowed in C-2 if “under the supervision of the city” was removed from Section 4-
050(F)(g): “Parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities under the supervision of the city.” Major asked if
it would tighten the requirement if they moved it to Section 4-050(F)(2), Uses Permitted After Special
Review and Site Plan Approval because there would be additional items that would require scrutiny. Otto
said it would be additional scrutiny but it would not be contrary to what they would see on the Site Plan.
She said it would be an additional expense to an applicant to seek both. Otto said the Site Plan section in
Article 5 was currently under revision and if there were things they saw in Special Review that they
would like added to Site Plan they could do that when they address it. Major asked the status of that. Otto
said emails were exchanged between herself and the City Attorney; Staff was not prepared yet to address
that section. The Commission had no questions for Pratt. Parks asked for public input. There was none.
Diane Schleicher asked Parks if he wanted to ask the petitioner if he would object if the Text Amendment
was amended to miniature golf because he was the one who made the petition. Parks asked Pratt. Pratt
asked if “commercial games and sports” would be specific enough. Several Commissioners responded no.
Various uses that wording would allow were stated. Parks asked Pratt if there was an objection. Pratt said
not specifically. Parks asked if there would be a significant objection to amending the Text Amendment to
“miniature golf courses.” Pratt said no. Parks closed the Hearing and called for a motion. Major said
looking at a very specific use of a very specific parcel was much less of concern than not knowing what
the future may bring for unspecified parcels next to residential, and if somebody later wanted to come up
with something different they could take the same initiative and go through the process. He said he was
not comfortable with a blanket opening up to commercial uses and gaming activities butting up against
residential. He said that opened doors that may be hard to close. Bishop, supporting Major’s comments,
expressed that even though it currently applied to C-1, “commercial amusements” was shot gunning and
could possibly yield detrimental effects from a future perspective. He said he was not negating what has
previously been done under C-1. He said “commercial amusements” opened up a large category of
activities. Parks spoke of miniature golf courses in general and about noise and light. Major moved that in
Section 4-050(F)(1), beneath (a) through (k), add item (l) “miniature golf courses” as a Use Permitted by
Right After Site Plan Approval, and move the word “and” from (j) to (k). Callahan seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous. The motion that in Section 4-050(F)(1), beneath items (a) through (k), add
item (l) “miniature golf courses” as a Use Permitted by Right After Site Plan Approval, and move
the word “and” from (j) to (k) passed with a 5-0 vote. The Mayor and City Council would consider the
Text Amendment at their August 11 meeting.
Chair Monty Parks opened the discussion for a Conceptual Site Plan for 406 First Street, PIN 4-0003-
13-020, Zone C-2. He reminded everyone that this was not a Public Hearing. He said the discussion was
3
to aid and to facilitate the planning process on the part of a business owner. Dianne Otto reiterated it was
conceptual and Staff felt this project would benefit by going through this process while it was waiting for
the use to be allowed in the C-2 district. She said it was a very basic and incomplete proposal that Staff
discussed with the applicant and many of those topics and comments were included in their packets. After
giving the location as the Pirate Pedicab hut, Otto explained the project by saying the hut would not be
moved and parking had been delineated on the site plan by the applicant. She said Staff would require a
professional to design the site plan. Otto said a primary question that Staff had was buffering and the
intent of buffering. She said setbacks do not apply because setbacks address structures. She explained that
Section 3-160 defines buffering as open spaces, landscaped areas, fences, walls, berms, or a combination
thereof, used to physically separate or screen one use or property from another so as to visually shield or
block noise, lights, or other nuisances. Otto said the applicant would like the course to stretch entirely
within the boundaries so there would be folks using the course who would be in what would typically be a
buffer. She said Staff would like the Commission’s feedback, as would Pratt, on whether a buffer would
be required on this project. Otto said 3-160 was recently sent to City Council who considered it but did
not vote on it. She explained that Staff was again working on it to address issues with residential uses
bordering commercial uses and which use was to implement buffering. Otto advised the Commission to
consider this conceptual site plan under the current Section 3-160. Parks asked if buffering questions
should be directed to Otto or to the applicant. Otto said both. John Major said if he was considering this
more than conceptually he would be struggling to say that a buffer for the activities had been designed.
He said the flow of participants goes right through it and on three out of eighteen holes as the people play
they are going to have to go through the buffer, which makes it kind of not a buffer at all. Major said
some additional buffering of some kind might be called for. Otto said the property to the south was zoned
R-2, the properties on the east were zoned C-2 except for a small portion of the lot most to the south, and
the same was true on the west side. The zoning of the abutting lots was discussed. Parks asked if this was
the same situation that was behind the barbecue. Otto said no, there was no zoning district boundary
cutting the lots; they both were zoned C-2. Parks said it was houses. Otto said yes, it was the use. She said
the current Section 3-160 does not address uses, it addresses districts. Parks asked Davis what type of
buffering would be appropriate. Davis said he would abstain from buffering. He said his concern was on
the south where the greens were zero lot line. He said there was a 2-1/2-foot of fall from the back of the
lot to the right-of-way according to the topo provided, and according to visual observations that seem ed
correct. He said he was apprehensive about developing on a zero lot line. Davis said most properties when
they develop put in swales or something to convey drainage along their lots. He said he would envision
the greens to be slightly higher than adjacent areas, that may not be the case, but until he sees a detailed,
engineered drainage plan he would be very apprehensive to see the greens at zero lot line as drawn. Parks
said that seems to be the case on the western and the southern sides. Davis said the western side was not a
major concern because the right-of-way has roadside swales that carry drainage. Parks said the eastern
side was against the fence as was the southern. The group discussed fences and the drawing of the greens.
Davis said the seventh green did abut the western property line but as the land falls from the west to the
east that should not be a major concern. He said he would want to see it engineered. Davis said fourteen
and fifteen were his main concerns. Demery Bishop said the seventh abutted the eastern portion. Davis
agreed. He said there was a bit over a 1-foot of fall from the northeast corner to the northwest and about
2-1/2-feet of fall from the southeast to the southwest corner, or running from approximately green seven
to green fifteen. He said the seventh green did not give him major concerns because they could keep that
at grade, slightly lower than adjacent property, and that could work. He said fourteen and fifteen could be
problematic. Davis said he would be concerned how they could put a zero lot line and not affect the
neighboring drainage. Bishop said they have so many deliberations and discussions in regards to setbacks
and he knew that was not what they were talking about, but from the buffer perspective that had to filter
into this overall equation. He said it bothered him not only in the drainage perspective but also just the
fact they were considering conceptually something with absolutely no setbacks, not that that was the right
4
term, but something that was totally up against the property line. He questioned ingress/egress and other
issues. Bishop said from a conceptual perspective that was one of the issues he had and Davis was right
with concern of the drainage. He said that would have to be part of the package before it was considered
any further. Otto said Staff had called for that and could not have allowed this to go forward as Site Plan
Approval without it. She spoke of it being a situation of what could be done in a buffer; could people
using the miniature golf course be active in the buffers or were those buffers designed as open spaces and
not to be used by people. Otto said we address buffering with other commercial projects and have allowed
parking in buffers. Callahan commented the fence on the plan seemed to be an attempt to create a buffer
with a zero lot line. He said if they built this, at considerable expense, they were going to have prepared
soil, very expensive grass, mulch, and enhancements, none of which would increase runoff rates but all of
which might have a possibility of decreasing runoff rates. Callahan said the absorption capacity of the site
might actually be enhanced by what they were going to do. Davis said the applicant made some
statements to that; some engineers have told him it would be reduced. Davis said it may or it may stay the
same. He said he doubted it would increase. He said the most important thing was not the amount of
runoff; it was the direction that it goes. He explained that altering the direction of runoff was when the
phone starts ringing at City Hall so his concern was that the runoff be routed to Miller [Avenue] as it was
now. Callahan said as long as they do not really change the topo then drainage should not be an issue.
Davis agreed. Otto noted that at the bottom of Davis’ written comments she had stated that the plan that
was received was from 2007 and the datum used at that time was ’29 and now they use ’88 datum. She
said part of this development process would require that the existing topo be converted and then the plan
would show that the elevations are not increased or are decreased, however the design professional
designs it, so that when it is implemented it ends up with the topo needed to control drainage. Callahan
and Otto discussed. The fences were discussed and Otto apologized for not having noticed them on the
rendering. Tyler Marion asked if the City once had a golf course on the north beach. Callahan said people
have told him that Fort Screven had a course. Marion questioned if there were any buffers. He said for
historical reference perhaps that was something that could be useful. Diane Schleicher said it was
probably an officers-only course and the others were not allowed to complain. Henry Levy shared that
during World War I his father was a post engineer at Fort Screven and his main duties was keeping the
18-hole golf course that was in the dunes in front of Officers Row in good shape for the commanding
officer. Major asked about the climbing fence. Pratt confirmed everyone had received the narrative and
other documents he had prepared. He said the concept was a natural grass organic miniature golf course.
He explained the climbing fences in the interior would be 4-feet tall, the exterior fences would be 6-feet
tall, currently in place on lots 93 and 94 was an 8-foot wooden privacy fence, and the lot to the south
which was zoned residential but currently had a 3-story housing unit with an elevator that was a seasonal
rental also had an 8-foot privacy fence. He said his intentions were to extend the fence from lot 93 to
connect and fill in the gap on lot 92 and then on the inside of the privacy fences build a 6-foot climbing
hedge fence. He described the hedge fence as posts, similar to chicken wire for a backing, with landscape
material between for the vines to adhere to. Pratt compared it to an ivy wall at Wrigley Field. He
described being inside the course as being inside a garden. He said it would absorb sound rather than
refract it like a smooth-surfaced fence would. Pratt said he had adjusted the plan for the buffers and had
moved holes seven, fourteen, and fifteen. He said there were at least 10-feet between the holes and the
property line. He described having done a relief at the site of about eight of the holes. He said this project
was a large landscaping. Pratt explained that he intended to approach the surrounding businesses and
dwellings to request setting up rain barrel collection stations to recover water for the grass and
flowerbeds. He described the type of grass that would be used and that the project would not be
detrimental to Tybee’s WaterFirst motto. Pratt concluded by discussing water usage and drainage. Major
asked about chemicals. Pratt explained that the chemicals were included in the specs for the grass which
were in the packets. He also expressed he intends to approach local landscape companies for
recommendations on native plantings. Major said chemicals were a concern with our marsh and ocean.
5
Pratt agreed. He said it would be no different chemicals than what were put on residential lawns all over
the island. Major said that was scary. Major and Pratt discussed the fencing. Pratt said the residential
properties would never see the natural climbing hedge. Parks said it was an outstanding concept and if
handled right, and Pratt was going about it the right way, this would be a real addition to the island. He
said there were small holes within the holes. Pratt said those were flowerbeds. Parks asked if they were
intended for statuary. Pratt said no, the plan was trees and plants. Parks queried that there was no plan for
lighting so at dark it closed. Pratt said there was a twilight rate. Parks asked if that was something they
could mandate or was it something they could make conditional to the application. Otto said the city does
not currently have a lighting ordinance; standards for lighting were coming. She said if Pratt at a future
time after the proposed lighting ordinance had been adopted proposed lighting then he would be required
to meet whatever lighting ordinance was in place. Parks, Pratt, and Otto discussed the operation of the
business and lighting. Parks asked Davis about chemicals and the nature of the runoff. Davis said that was
not his level of expertise. Major added that it was a great idea notwithstanding the points raised. He asked
if a motion was required. Parks said no.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Special Review at 1011 and 1013 Bay Street, PINs 4-
0021-16-008 and 4-0021-16-008A, Zone R-1. The petitioner was Arnold Seyden. The other property
owner was Kirk Jones. Dianne Otto said the Special Review was for the replacement of an existing
crossover. She said on June 24 Staff received a telephone call that there was work going on at the
location. Otto said upon arrival she posted a Stop Work order as the work was not permitted. She said the
other property owner, Mr. Jones, was directed to contact DNR since they were in a DNR jurisdictional
area. She said upon receiving DNR’s Letter of Acknowledgment, which was included in the
Commissioners’ packets, Staff realized that rather than just deck boards the project included support
pilings and stringers. Otto said recently adopted by City Council was an ordinance, 3-100, that required
crossover projects in the dune areas that were more than deck boards and handrails to come before
Planning Commission and City Council for Special Review. Otto said this was communicated to the
petitioner who then applied for Special Review. Parks asked what percentage of the project was
completed when Otto arrived. She said she included in their packets photographs. She described what had
and had not been completed and estimated 50% was complete. Henry Levy said the building code
requires handrails on anything raised 3-feet above grade. Otto said Staff had worked with DNR on that
issue on other crossover projects and had taken the position that if DNR permitted without handrails
Tybee would not require them, however if handrails were depicted they were required to meet code so
either they do not exist or they are code -compliant handrails. Levy asked if they were required or not.
Otto said they were not required by the City of Tybee. Levy said they are required by the building code.
Otto said it was a use that Staff does not apply the International Building Code to. John Major clarified
the addresses of the properties as they were not correct in one of the documents. Demery Bishop asked if
the walk would end at the dune or cross over the dune. Otto said she would like the applicant to address
that. Seyden said he has been a resident of Tybee for sixty-three years and he had their job for about eight
years. He said his neighbor was renovating his house and had a permit to do that and in the process he
started doing his deck and then, of course, got a Stop Work order and said we are going to have to get a
building permit so Seyden came to City Hall to get the building permit but then he found out we have a
new regulation that came into effect in April and that it was going to cost an additional $500 and appear in
front of you guys. He asked permission to rebuild the walkway and he said they were going to stop at the
sand dune. He said it was going to be the same as what they had been there and they were not going to
disturb any vegetation and the pilings were going to be the same depth as the old walkway. He gave the
lengths of the walkway sections and the width. Henry Levy moved it be approved. Parks said as talked
about several times we have to do the Public Hearing part first. Levy said a motion took precedent. Parks
asked for public input. There was none. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy
6
motioned to approve. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous.
The motion to approve passed 5-0. City Council would consider the request on August 11.
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, 5-020, 5-030, 5-040, 5-050, 5-060, and 5-070,
which were previously approved, was next on the agenda. After discussion, Otto summarized the one
sentence of Section 5-100, Standards for Variance from the Flood Damage Control Regulations. Major
motioned to approve Section 5-100. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The
motion to approve Section 5-100, Standards for Variance from the Flood Damage Control
Regulations, passed with a 5-0 vote.
The final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Chair
Monty Parks explained that the Committee’s findings were presented to City Council the previous week
and it had been pushed to the City Attorney to finalize the ordinance.
Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and John Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and
the meeting adjourned.