Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110920_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 September 20, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the September 20, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, and John Major. Zoning Specialist Dianne Otto and the City’s consulting engineer, Downer Davis, were present. Commissioner Tyler Marion was absent. Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the August 16, 2011, meeting. Rob Callahan moved to approve. Henry Levy seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Demery Bishop disclosed that over 35 years ago he represented some legal interests that Paul Weber [item 1] was involved with. He said it would not be prejudicial to his decision making. Chair Monty Parks opened the Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval for Lot E-1 Solomon Avenue, PIN 4-0026-01-001, Zone C-2. The petitioner was Paul Weber. Dianne Otto said the lot was vacant and the request was for a V-shaped billboard. She explained the applicable section of the sign ordinance had been compared to the application and the request met all the standards. Otto said it was compared to the Recommended Development Strategies for the Arts, Eats and Eco -business Character Area and those results were in the Staff Report. Henry Levy asked if it was surrounded by residential property. Otto said it was surrounded by property used as residential but zoned commercial. Demery Bishop asked about Section 6-080(A) which states signs were to “be downlit wherever possible.” Otto explained that Weber’s engineers’ opinion was uplighting would result in less light pollution. Bishop confirmed the zoning and discussed Section 6-080(F)(5) of the Land Development Code [LDC] referencing the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act which restricts construction in the marsh and obstruction of the marsh view by signage. Bishop discussed his onsite visit and explained there were residences and buildable lots to the north of the applicant’s property. He asked if the request conflicted with Section 6-080(F)(5) and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Bishop noted the City’s ordinance incorrectly cited O.C.G.A. § 12-5- 288(b)(4) instead of (b)(7). He read (b)(7): “Construction of structures which constitute an obstruction of view to adjoining riparian landowners, including signs…” Otto asked Bishop which lots the billboard would obstruct. Bishop said he saw a stick in the ground which he assumed was where the pole would be. He said on the lot immediately north there could be a possibilit y of an obstruction of the marsh on the south side of Highway 80. Otto explained her reasoning for concluding the billboard would not be an obstruction. John Major said he read the City Attorney’s interpretation that a V-shaped sign, with a sign on each side, was one sign. He said the ordinance says there can only be one sign on a commercial vacant lot. Otto read Section 6-080(C)(2), Computation of Area of Multi-faced Signs, “When two identical sign faces are placed back to back, so that both faces cannot be viewed from any point at the same time, and when such sign faces are part of the same sign structure and are not more than 42-inches apart, the sign area shall be computed by the measurement of one of the faces.” Major said that section was outside the 2 specific reference to signs on vacant lots in commercial zones in the LDC. Otto said it was under Design Standards for all signs. Major asked if the faces of the proposed billboard were back to back. Otto said yes. She noted the illumination standard was not in the billboard section but it also applied. Major read, “The sign with a back exposed to view in whole or in part shall have the back of such sign covered, screened, or painted…” He asked if there was one back to be covered or two. Otto said two. Major said there were two backs but only one front. Otto said for computing the allowed square footage of the sign only one face was to be measured and the other can be identical to that computation. Rob Callahan offered that the detail of the billboard showed a separation of 4-feet at the short end of the V-shape and at the long end 10-feet. Otto said in discussions with the applicant 42-inches was stressed. Callahan related the proposal did not meet item 10 of the Recommended Development Strategies, “Establish noise and sight buffers between commercial uses and adjacent residential areas.” Otto agreed. Bishop asked if there was marsh view obstruction. Otto said in her view there was not. They discussed. Marianne Bramble asked if the area was a mix of residential and commercial. Otto said the area was zoned C-2. She said there were residential uses and the commercial uses were further to the east. Bramble said she had issues with the illumination and the downlighting. Otto said Weber would speak to that. Weber said the engineers said downlit would be more intrusive but he would be glad to do it. He said the signs would be no more than 42-inches apart; the architect apparently made an error. Weber said he used to own half the adjacent property; a very good friend requested he sell his half. Weber assured the owner of the adjacent property was very supportive. Weber said his plans were to put a privacy fence between the two lots. He said he is a real estate appraiser and anyone building on the lots would have to get way up in the air because it is in a velocity zone. Weber explained that the lots have not sold because of what it would cost for engineering. He discussed they would be under the 35-foot limit and the sign would be 25-feet. He said there would be no obstruction. Weber said he certainly does not want to do anything contrary; he loves Tybee and will do whatever is proper. He said he is not a sign person; he was approached after he bought this lot by Dick Estes who has built more in Chatham County than anybody in the last fifty years. Weber said Estes assured him the sign would have a single pole design and be superior to the other two- sided signs that have three and four wooden posts supporting them. He said to the eye this would be a much cleaner look. Weber restated he would be glad to downlight if the Commission wanted. Levy confirmed with Weber that he would have no objection to downlighting. Levy said that someday Tybee Island was going to have a dark-sky ordinance that would stop all light going up. Weber expressed in the future he would build his house on the lot. Parks asked if it was to be the type of billboard that revolved or was in motion. Weber said no. Bramble asked the amount of wattage. Weber said one light. Bramble asked the wattage. Weber said he did not know. He and Bramble discussed lighting. Bishop and Weber discussed the 25-foot total height and that the face would be 7-feet by 14-feet, 98 square feet. Weber said he did not want to do anything that was going to look tacky that would hurt Tybee. Major confirmed with Otto this was Site Plan Approval under the current ordinance. Major read, “This site plan approval process is intended to provide the general public, planning commission, and mayor and council with information pertinent to how a new development will affect the surrounding area and the city as a whole. Where no variance is necessary for the intended project , or development, there is no evaluation process or set of regulations other than what is required to be shown on the site plan and listed upon the application. Where no variance is requested, the site plan requirements are intended as a tool for public information.” Major asked Otto to interpret and tell the Commission their options. Otto said under the current Site Plan ordinance their options were limited. She said it was an information gathering, Public Hearing process, however, it does not allow the imposition of any conditions on approval or denial. Major asked if they do have approval or denial options. Otto said yes. Bishop asked Weber if it was his opinion that the proposed sign would not constitute a marsh view restriction. Weber said no. He and Bishop discussed. Parks called for public comment. Ed Rutledge, president of North Wave Homeowners Association, said he was representing its residents. He said they are against the sign because it will have an effect on the views from some of the residences in the subdivision of the marsh. He said this is a residential area; the lot may 3 be zoned commercial but it is entirely surrounded by residences including the property of the applicant. He asked what they were going to do with the trees. Beth Kamin, resident of Sandy Shores subdivision, said she was speaking for the members of the subdivision. She said they are concerned for the same reasons that had just been mentioned by Rutledge. She said this was strictly a residential area; there was nothing commercial about the area. She said it was beautiful, it was serene, it was Tybee. She said they have so many billboards starting to the east of them and from there it takes on a completely different feel. She spoke of the danger a billboard was going to impose at the intersection; there was no stoplight, a billboard was a distraction and a safety hazard. Dave Birdwell, resident of North Wave, said there were already two billboards within 200-feet of this location on the other side of the highway. He said we are going to take this residential area which is a really nice area, homes valued probably from $400,000 to $2 million, and at the very entrance of this residential neighborhood we are going to stick a 7 by 14 billboard sign up so Weber can have whatever he wants out of this project . He said that was ignoring the needs and the responsibility efforts of the neighbors that live in this neighborhood. He said he also would like to challenge the comment made about the marsh view. He said there was definitely going to be a marsh view hindrance for the people who build on those two lots that have Solomon [Avenue] addresses. He said there may be some question about people’s view in North Wave but the two lots, regardless of your issues about building, are going to be looking right straight out at a sign. He read Section 6-009(F), “Protect property values by minimizing the possible adverse effects and visual blight caused by signs.” He said the adverse effects can be economic because people do not want to move into a neighborhood whose entrance has a 7 by 14 billboard in front of it, or it could also be visual blight, and most of us agree that billboards rank way up there on visual blight, particularly in the City of Tybee. He said this looks like Weber made an effort to make it better designed than some of those they have been shown, but it was still going to be a sign, it was still going to be a 7 b y 14 brightly lit sign right at the entranceway of a residential area and surrounded by residential occupants. He said that was not where a billboard sign belongs on Tybee. He said there are plenty of opportunities for other areas for billboard signs but i t certainly does not belong at the north end of the island which has always been the beautiful part of leaving the island, looking at the marsh and the natural growth, unobstructed until you get to the bridge. He asked them to carefully look at the site and look at the needs of the individuals that live in the surrounding neighborhoods. John Duncan, resident of Sandy Shores, said Weber said he did not want this sign to be tacky; well, billboards are tacky by definition. He spoke of a visit to a town in Vermont where they do not have any billboards and their signs are small. Duncan asked Tybee to put an end to all future billboards. Jeff Cramer, 405 Tenth Street, said his brother owns two lots on the other side of the house next to this property. He noted the sign had right-of-way on the front and on the side and was not abutting residential property on two sides. He said there was a sign across the street from it directly on the marsh. Suzanne St. Pierre, North Wave, discussed that she has seen accidents on Highway 80 where vehicles make a left turn onto Teresa Lane and she spoke with a girl involved in an accident who said she was watching the blinking sign where it says slow down. She said if they have a blinking sign and another billboard they were going to have more accidents. She suggested checking with the police on how many accidents they have there. Janet Rutledge, resident of North Wave, said she would like to make an emotional appeal; we do not need any more billboards on Tybee. She said they are coming up to an election and she knows the Planning Commission is not elected but some of them are running for City Council and we do not need any more billboards on Tybee. She said there was a reason they call it the redneck Riviera; don’t we want to change that. She said please, no more billboards especially in a residential neighborhood. Ed Rutledge said the site plan was incorrect. Indicating the lot where the billboard was proposed to be, he said in back of it were two lots. Otto pointed out that the plan Rutledge was referring to was a SAGIS parcel map, not a survey. Rutledge’s comments as he spoke at the screen without a microphone were not loud enough to be recorded and are not included in these Minutes. Otto noted a full survey was in the Planning Commissioners’ packets and the PowerPoint slide was of Lot E-1 only. Major asked the front setback in C-2 and the location of the right- of-way. Otto explained the billboard was setback 15-feet on the south and west since both abutted rights- 4 of way. Weber said he loves the trees and plans to plant more. Parks asked if Site Plan required the existing trees to be shown. Otto said if they were proposed to be removed they would want to see those but all the trees were staying. Parks asked Weber whether his submission to the DOT [Georgia Department of Transportation] included any traffic study. Weber explained they have not received final approval. Parks asked if the DOT permit has a traffic impact study attached to it. Weber said he was sure it does. Otto said she did not know. Weber said he has been told with the sign 25-feet up in the air, higher than the comparable double-sided signs on Tybee, this would be safer in the sense that people would see it further away instead of looking at it as they get right on it. It was discussed that the two billboard would meet the 42-inch requirement. Weber said he appreciated their consideration and concerns. Keith Gay, resident of North Wave and businessman, said Weber was a good business guy. Gay said he was also one of those tacky billboard owners and struggled when they did their billboard and they kept it because it was an important part of that project but this was an improper placement of a billboard. Gay said this was entirely a residential area. He said they have battled on many occasions as to the use of C-2 and residential, and there have been many, many cases where people have wanted to put commercial entities in a C-2 area that was residential that would not cut mustard. He said he appreciates Weber’s interest in creating an economic engine out of this piece of property but it was an incorrect choice of location for a billboard under any circumstances; this was residential. He said there are places for billboards on Tybee; we do have billboards and he was not saying they could not have additional. Gay said it was a very controversial issue but it was not appropriate to place a billboard in the midst of an all-residential area, not different than it would be to put another commercial entity in that lot; even though it was zoned C-2 it was still residential. Parks closed the Public Hearing. Levy motioned to table and to recommend City Council rezone this area to the use it was already being used, that is, residential. Major seconded and recommended moving to deny and then doing the second part of Levy’s motion. He said whether or not the rezoning occurs he would move to deny. Levy asked if they have the right to deny. Major said according to Staff they do. Otto confirmed. Levy rephrased the motion to deny and recommend City Council rezone this area to comply with the use, that is, residential. Major seconded. Bramble said she could not see a billboard there at all and she agreed with Levy’s statement earlier that we will soon have a dark-sky initiative, and said there were too many loopholes in this submittal to even go forward with it. Bishop concurred with the motion and added he was still of the opinion that a pproval would be in conflict with Section 6-080(F) which prohibits obstruction by signage in the marsh view area. He said the other requisites of that code section have been met and discussed, and he could not see how this would be inapplicable. Callahan said if they were going to recommend changing the zoning of that one lot from C-2 to R-something, there was a whole line of adjacent lots that need to be changed because they are all C-2. Parks agreed. Major asked if a rezoning had to begin with the residents requesting it. Otto said that would be one approach; Staff can also recommend Map Amendments. Parks asked if Major was suggesting a motion to ask the residents to start a proposal. Major said he was just throwing out that that was one approach. Parks called for the vote and it was unanimous. The motion to deny and recommend to City Council that they rezone this area to comply with its use as residential passed with a 5-0 vote. The Mayor and City Council would hear the request at the October 13 meeting. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment of Article 7, Tree Removal Regulations. Parks said Commissioner Tyler Marion had accepted the task of researching additional information. Marion was not at the meeting. Dianne Otto said at the prior meeting the motion was to have Marion do some research on mitigation fees of tree ordinances of other municipal ities and other coastal communities. She said she has not received any of Marion’s findings. Otto reminded the Planning Commissioners that City Council sent this to them with a directive to look at three items : whether pine trees should be added to the significant species list, a review of the fines, and whether the mitigation of $50 per inch was adequate. John Major shared that the State of Georgia has a website that includes the tree ordinances of every city in Georgia that has an ordinance. He moved, Council’s request 5 notwithstanding, they hold this for a month and look at some of those other ordinances. Major offered to forward the website address to the others. Parks closed the Public Hearing. No action was taken. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a proposed Text Amendment to be Article 18, Lighting. Dianne Otto said there was feedback at the last meeting that had been incorporated into the document. She reviewed those revisions. Her final comments concerned the animated sign section of Article 6 which had been included in the Commissioners’ packets in response to a question at the prior meeting. John Major asked the difference between luminance and illuminance. Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, said those terms deal with the metric system and we use the foot-candle system. Marianne Bramble asked if illumination and wattage would be the same. Davis said no, wattage has to do with the power of the light based on how far it is from the ground. He said if you take a certain bulb and put it close to the ground you can get quite a reflection, you can get quite a foot-candle rating on it, whereas if you put it higher and shield it, light is going to be dispersed more and is not going to illuminate the ground as much and the foot-candle effect on the ground is not going to be as high. Referring to the standard in the proposed ordinance, Davis explained that the maximum rating within the property of 30 foot-candles is what he is used to seeing and the not to exceed 0.1 foot-candles at 10-feet beyond the property line was within reason of what is used in other areas. Davis said he does not have major problems with the ordinance; it is pretty briefly written and is comparable to what he has seen in other areas. Henry Levy said he proposed to City Council three or four years ago that we comply with the Dark-Sky Initiative. He spoke about the Milky Way and about some of the principles of the Dark-Sky organization. He said he likes the requirement that signs shall be black with white writing. Levy said they ought to see if we can get Tybee to qualify. After further comments by Levy, Demery Bishop said it seemed that has a tremendous amount of merit. He asked to what degree the proposed ordinance met some of the initiatives. Davis said there were similarities. He clarified his earlier statement by saying that illuminance was light coming from the source, like a streetlight, and illumination was the reflection, such as off a sign. He said those are adjectives describing light, not units of measurement. Davis spoke of research he had done on the Dark-Sky Initiative. He said the proposed ordinance was commercially friendly and the Dark-Sky Initiative does accomplish a dark sky. He concluded by saying it was a question of what they were trying to seek: the Dark-Sky Initiative or the standards that others go with locally. Parks said it was fair for them to suggest a motion that included a Dark-Sky Initiative. Speaking of the Commissions’ tasking and maintaining the natural setting of Tybee, Bishop added perhaps they need to attempt to marry the two as much as they can. Levy said for years there was disagreement between the Dark-Sky Initiative and the Illuminating Electrical Engineering Society but they have come together and have some recommended ordinances. He said he would like to get a copy and urge Council to incorporate them in our ordinances. Bramble said the proposed ordinance hits on a lot of points for our lighting issues but it was said that it was commercially friendly. She spoke about the lighting at 211 Butler Avenue. She suggested tabling. Levy discussed light on dark paving versus white rock. Major asked if the Text Amendment would replace any existing ordinance. Otto said no, it was new. Major asked if it would apply retroactively to existing lighting. Otto said no. Levy said the Dark-Sky Initiative gives three years to comply but the limit could be set to whatever they want. Major suggested going with the proposed ordinance immediately and follow up later with something more. Parks suggested forming a subcommittee. Levy agreed with Major and so moved. Bishop disagreed and suggested tabling and putting a sunset of a certain amount of time for the Commission to review the Dark-Sky Initiative. Levy withdrew his motion. Major suggested that if the sun sets then the proposed ordinance becomes effective if they have not recommended something different. Bishop concurred. After discussion of various times, Parks proposed 90-days. The Dark-Sky Initiative model ordinance would be forwarded to the Commissioners by Otto. No action was taken. With no objections, Chair Monty Parks switched the order of the final two agenda items. He opened a Public Hearing for a proposed Text Amendment to be Article 17, Shore Protection. Dianne Otto told 6 the Commissioners the ordinance went to the Mayor/City Council on September 8 and they asked that it be sent to Planning Commission. She directed them to two sentences highlighted on page 2 that the Mayor/City Council found to be subjective and wanted revised or clarified. She mentioned the work of the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee, that Committee’s Chair Monty Parks, and the City Attorney which had resulted in the proposed ordinance. John Major said he understood Council’s concern with the two sentences. He suggested deleting them and always basing setbacks on 10-feet from the landward toe of the most landward sand dune. He said if there was no dune on which to base it then we do what we have to do which was basically what it said now. Otto said she did not have cause for concern with that. Major asked if a definitive response on the 18 -foot setback from seawalls had been received because it was not addressed in th e ordinance. Parks summarized information he had received from City Attorney Bubba Hughes who had expressed that the seawall setback was not applicable to shoreline protection; the 18-foot seawall setback was meant to define a different area of operation than setback. Major said if that was the case he would recommend they state in the Shore Protection ordinance that any Charter reference to the seawall was not applicable to this ordinance and that setback lines are to be established as stated herein. Henry Levy asked where the seawall is. Major explained that with his suggestion of stating in the ordinance that the seawall setback was not applicable it did not matter where the seawall is. Major further summarized his points. Otto read two paragraphs of the letter the City Attorney had written to Parks regarding the seawall. Following discussion which included identification of a misspelling of “ordinance” in subsection (11), Repealer, Major motioned to approve with the two highlighted sentences deleted and a request that the City Attorney provide language dealing with the irrelevance of the seawall as it pertains to this ordinance. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Article 17 with the two highlighted sentences deleted that deal with where there is no dune and a request that the City Attorney provide languag e dealing with the irrelevance of the seawall as it pertains to this ordinance passed with a 5-0 vote. The Text Amendment would be placed on the October 13 agenda of the City Council. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for proposed Text Amendments to Article 5, Procedures for Administration and Enforcement. Dianne Otto listed the four sections to be considered. Section 5- 160, Enforcement, was first and Otto said it clarified Staff roles. Demery Bishop motioned to approve. Major seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-160, Enforcement, passed 5-0. The redundancy of “in Tybee Island” which had been struck from Section 5-170, Other City Actions Affected by the LDC, was discussed. Bishop motioned to approve Section 5-170. Major seconded and the vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-170, Other City Actions Affected by the Land Development Code, passed with a vote of 5-0. Otto directed attention to Section 5-151, Subdivision of Duplex, and discussed Staff procedures for processing a duplex subdivision. Major and Otto briefly discussed and Major motioned to approve. Bishop seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-151, Subdivision of Duplex, passed with a 5-0 vote. Section 5-155, Design Standards for Maritime District, was next. Otto reiterated it applied to the Maritime District only and emphasized the 25-foot buffer width. Bishop motioned to approve and Major seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-155, Design Standards for Maritime District, passed with a 5-0 vote. In response to Major’s question of which sections would be considered at the October meeting, Otto said Sections 5-110 through 5-150. She agreed to provide only those sections rather than the entire Article 5 document. Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn the meeting and Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting adjourned.