Loading...
20120821_PC_mtg_min_.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Randi Bryan Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER John Major, Vice Chair Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the August 21, 2012 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Tyler Marion, and Randi Bryan. Mr. Park - The first order of business is the minutes of the July 17, 2012 meeting. Is there any discussion at this point? Do I have a motion? Mr. Callahan - I move to approve the minutes. Mr. McNaughton - I second the motion. Mr. Parks - Those in favor please raise your right hand. The vote to approve is unanimous. Mr. Parks - Are there any Disclosures or Recusals from anyone on the Planning Commission? [There were none.] SITE PLAN FOR 404 BUTLER AVENUE, UNIT 117 – EXTERIOR WALL Mr. Parks - The first order of business is a site plan for an exterior wall at 404 Butler Avenue – Ms. Otto. Ms. Otto - Yes, thank you Chair. This request at 404 Butler Avenue is for unit 117, which is located in the building named the Last Resort. The request is to install an exterior wall outside this unit which would create a physical barrier between the balcony outside the unit and the restrooms that are used primarily by folks that are at the swimming pool. Because this is a C-1 zoned property and because this is an exterior change to the structure, it does require site plan approval. In your packet are some photographs and plans that lay out the proposal. In this view on the screen [PowerPoint presentation] it shows the unit and the pink line where the proposed wall would be built. It would separate the public restrooms that are over here [referring to PowerPoint presentation] from the balcony of unit 117. This is a view taken from the west side of the swimming pool area. The folks that are at the pool can use the sidewalk to go up to those steps in the background and use the restrooms that are shown on the left. The unit 117 is on the right side behind those flowers and the doorway to go into 117. This is a clearer shot of the balcony [next slide]. That wall that is proposed for construction would be the same as the wall up there. What you would see down here is the same partition that the floor above it has to block that balcony. Are there any questions? 2 Mr. Parks - Are there any questions at this time for staff? I have a question, the proposed wall…[hesitation], is there a fire escape route or any safety restriction at all? Ms. Otto - There is not. It will be the same as all other units in that building. It has a front escape and it has a rear door that goes out onto an enclosed balcony which, as I said, will be identical to all other units in that building and that is not against our fire code in any way. Mr. Parks – Does this unit open into a hallway or...[hesitation] Ms. Otto – No, the unit runs all the way through the building from Butler side to the ocean side - that unit goes all the way through as does all the other units in the building so they have an exit on the Butler side and a balcony on the ocean side. Mr. Parks – Okay. Are there other questions for staff? [There were none.] At this point, is there somebody who represents this project? Sir, would you like to come up and introduce yourself. Tommy Clark approached and introduced himself. Mr. Clark - This was just one of the things we just didn’t see being an issue before but that unit just needs privacy from the traffic back and forth from the restrooms. I don’t have anything else to add unless you have any questions. Mr. Parks – Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? [There were none.] Thank you sir. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address this issue pro or con? [There were none.] This public hearing is now closed on the issue. Do I have a motion or discussion from the commission at this point? Mr. Callahan – I would like to make a motion for approval. Mr. Parks - I have a motion for approval at this time, is there a second? Mr. Marion - I second the motion. Mr. Parks - Those in favor? [Motion passed unanimously.] Thank you for your time gentlemen - when does this go to Council? Ms. Otto – The City Council will consider this on September 13th. TEXT AMENDMENT – SECTION 3-080 – OFF-STREET PARKING Mr. Parks - The next item on the agenda is a text amendment, Section 3-080 – Off-street parking requirements. Ms. Otto – Thank you Chair. This item has been before you previously; a version that you considered went to City Council. In that, there was a standard that would have required compact sized parking spaces be used at larger parking lots; lots of 51 parking spaces or more, would have been required to 3 have 30% compact spaces. This approach was after the City of Tybee participated in a survey that showed we could be more green or friendly to development by not requiring so much of the land to be used for parking spaces. However, when City Council heard it on July 12th, they approved it 4 to 3, the Mayor broke a tie vote in favor of it. At the second reading on August 9th, the ordinance was denied 4 to 2. The primary reason it was denied was the 30% requirement for compact spaces in larger parking lots and I think some of the basis for it was that, on Tybee, parking is at such a premium that even though the parking lots that would be required to have these smaller parking spaces, people tend to so badly need a parking place on Tybee they decide they're compact when in fact they don’t actually belong in a compact sized space but they're desperately seeking a parking place What you have before you tonight is the other items that were also in that ordinance but were more clean up issues used to clarify some things and remove some of the interpretations that have been made by putting additional language in. For example, the very last sentence had read that a church or a place of religious worship shall be exempt from all off-street parking requirements. That has just been clarified that a structure whose primary use is a church or a place of worship is exempt. As we know there is a location on the island that does hold a worship service but it is not it’s primary function so in a situation like that, should a new development come that proposes to have a worship service, but is not their primary function, they would be required to meet parking requirements and not use the exemption that they are a place of worship. The other changes in there are also of that type, to clean up some language and clarify some points. The item at the top of page two, that is in green, like all of the ordinances, this is open to your consideration. This aspect in particular I would like your feedback on. Since the decision by Council was not to require 30% of the spaces in a large parking lot to be compact sized, staff would like to know whether any compacts, an allowance up to 20% as the current ordinance reads, is still desirable or not in any sized parking lot. That is in green to request your special feedback on that. If it is determined that compact spaces are not an option, then I would also want to look at the table at the bottom of that page and perhaps strike the column that provides these sizes for compact spaces as there would no longer be any allowance for compact spaces in our ordinances there would be no need to be a listing of the sizes of those spaces. Do note that the ordinance that will be heard at City Council this Thursday evening about private parking lots, that ordinance does not allow compact spaces and City Council has been very specific about that. As you are considering this ordinance, again, your feedback on compact spaces, whether they are desirable or not desirable, whether it's an option or not an option, I would like to know your feedback on that. But all of these ordinances are up for discussion. Mr. Parks - Our purpose, with a text amendment, is to discuss and make recommendations and forward to Council? Ms. Otto - Yes, sir. Mr. Parks - So it is not an up or down, yes or no, but to forward with recommendations? Ms. Otto - Yes. Mr. Parks - At this point, do we have any questions for staff. Mr. Marian – Can you tell me on this particular green language, has there been any, on the compact cars, any kind of study that may suggest to the trends of the vehicle sizes that during the in-season come onto Tybee and utilize parking? It sounds kind of crazy but has there been…[hesitation], we can count cars, and produce numbers to that extent, and my point is for where I live and the corner that I’m on, I can bear witness to part of that parking situation on a daily basis and it seems to me that most vehicles 4 that I encounter, that are not utilizing regular spaces, the ones that are parking on grass, tend to be rather large vehicles - 4x4's, big trucks, king cabs, vans, and the list goes on and on. Has there been any kind of forward studies or any analytical information on the car types? Ms. Otto – No, not that I am aware of. Mr. Marian – Quite frankly, in regards to discussion tonight, I’m for excluding anything specific to compact cars because to me it is so hit and miss but that is just my personal option. Ms. Otto - I appreciate your feedback. Mr. Parks – Other feedback for Dianne at this point? Any questions? If we were to recommend, strike the need for compact, does that mean that parking lots can go back and redo their layout? Do we just allow them to strike their compact? Ms. Otto – Any previously approved parking lots that had been approved for compact spaces would continue to have that right. If they chose to come back and redesign that would be their option but they would not be required to do so. Mr. Parks - Okay, so if the compact spaces that they had built into their plan allowed them to meet the parking requirement for their operation and through a redesign, taking out the compact spaces, they fall short of parking spaces, what would happen? Ms. Otto – They would be advised not to seek a redesign and to stay with the current configuration. Mr. Parks - Okay, so would we ask them to appear somewhere, before you or us, for site plan and taking out the compact places? Ms. Otto – No. It would be if some change at that property that triggered a site plan review, then a review of the current parking lot would be conducted and it would be reviewed at that time and determined whether to enforce the new standards or allow them to continue their com pact spaces. There aren’t many, I can think of one that is a public facility, privately owned, but a retail facility that has compact spaces approved under the current ordinance, but again, unless they did something that triggered them to come back for site plan we wouldn’t re-look at their parking standards now. Mr. Parks – Okay, any other discussion at this time. I think the wording on F-2…[hesitation], I think this is the way we sent it on to Council the last time. Ms. Otto - It is. Mr. Parks - Although it is highlighted in red, we have already discussed this and passed it on. Ms. Otto - Removed was the 30% required for larger parking lots and then there was some that had been combined with the allowance of a bicycle rack as a substitute so that language was revised in this to separate it since it had been combined with 30% compact, but otherwise this is the same document you have seen before. Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion if there is no more discussion. 5 Mr. Marian – I make a motion to approve and I would like to note let's delete the compact piece. Mr. Parks – I have a motion to forward to Council, as written, with a recommendation that we end the compact spaces. Ms. Otto – May I clarify, are you referring to both the sentence in green at the top of page 2 and the column in the table that discusses compact sized spaces? Mr. Marion – Affirmative. Mr. Parks – Do I have a second on that? Mr. McNaughton – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a second. Those in favor of passing this on to Council with the removal of compact parking spaces, please signify. [Mr. McNaughton and Mr. Marian voted for approval - Mr. Callahan and Ms. Bryan were opposed - it was a tie vote.] Ms. Otto - Would you break that tie please sir? Mr. Parks - I'm going to vote in favor with deleting the compact cars section. Ms. Otto – Thank you Planning Commissioners. This will go to City Council on 9/13. Mr. Parks - At this time, unless there is additional business, I'm calling for a motion for adjournment. Mr. Callahan - I make a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bryan - Second. Mr. Parks - Thank you for your time. This meeting is adjourned. Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant