HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130521_PC_Minutes.pdf
1
LANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Tyler Marion, Vice-Chair Dianne Otto, CFM
David McNaughton
Monty Parks, Chair CITY ATTORNEY
Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
May 21, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the May 21, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners
present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tyler Marion.
Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the April 16, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the
minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Mr. Bishop made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Marion
seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Are there any disclosures or recusals?
Ms. Otto – I need to disclose that I am a property owner on the south side of Laurel Avenue which is item four on
tonight’s agenda. My role tonight is representing this project to the Planning Commission, my normal job with the city,
but I will not be participating as an owner of the property.
Site Plan Approval – Brian Curran – Two storage containers – 1002 Hwy. 80
Ms. Otto – I was notified this morning that this item has been withdrawn, however, it was advertised. If there are any
public comments I would encourage you to hear them. The tenant of the two containers on the lot has agreed to
remove them voluntarily from the island along with the metal building.
Mr. Parks – Is there a group formed by Council to address storage containers on property?
Ms. Otto – Following the recent consideration of the containers at 211 Butler, which was denied by City Council, there
was a request by a Council member that an ordinance be considered to prohibit storage containers as a means of
warehousing. I have not seen a draft of a proposed Text Amendment.
Mr. Marion – In the past year, how many storage container requests have we encountered?
Ms. Otto – This would have been the third. The first was approved behind The Wearhouse on McKenzie Street. The
second request was 211 Butler and this third request at 1002 Highway 80.
Mr. Marion – Each occurrence we saw two containers being requested?
Ms. Otto – That is correct. The first two were for forty-foot containers like you see on a ship or truck. This latest request
was sixteen-foot in length, mini pods, which are not as large as the shipping containers like the other requests.
Mr. Marion – Did they cite any reasoning for it, for example, relocating merchandise?
Ms. Otto – I had been working with the owner of the lot who had a tenant that had these containers. He was receiving
income for the use of his land from the tenant. The tenant was not aware he had violated any regulat ions by having
these units long-term on the island. Occasionally, you will see pods on the island for people that are moving but this
2
long-term use would have been subject to site plan approval. Once it came to his attention that this was not allowed
and would be required to be anchored, he spoke with the supplier who did not want their equipment permanently
anchored. He has chosen to find storage elsewhere rather than having these units.
Mr. Parks – Are there other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anyone from the public that would like to
address this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. There is no motion or action required as it
was withdrawn.
Site Plan Approval – DeSoto Beach Properties – New construction of mixed use building – Lot 46 Pine Street
Ms. Otto – This was recently purchased by DeSoto Beach Properties. It is zoned C-2 and is a vacant lot, most commonly
referred to as the lot behind the ice machine. The ice machine is on First Street, there is a privacy fence, and behind that
is this vacant lot on Pine Street. The new owners are requesting site plan approval to construct a mixed use building
with the ground floor being a private laundry. DeSoto Beach Properties operate multiple vacation rentals and have had
a vendor providing their linen service. This would be for their use only where they would take the soiled linens from
their properties, have them cleaned, and returned. The request for the second floor is two tourist homes, which are
comparable to bed and breakfast inns, and would be used for vacation rental purposes. The applicant’s agent, Gary
Sanders, is here tonight to provide input on the submittals that are in your packet. It is adjacent to a commercial use
which is Oceanfront Cottages. Lot 47 is also vacant and, as I understand it, still for sale. The proposed layout in your
packet shows the laundry, storage areas, and access stairs to the second level. There are two parking spaces at the front
of the property for the front second-story unit. At the rear of the property, there are two parking spaces for the rear
second-story unit. There is one parking space here [referring to PowerPoint] proposed for the laundry. The agent and I
disagree on the required number of parking spaces for this commercial property. The calculation per code is one space
per every two hundred square feet of commercial gross leasable area. I consider that to be anything other than porches
and stairwells and that would include the laundry and storage areas. My calculations, based on two different square
footages I was provided, are either four or five spaces for the commercial portion plus two per unit for each residential.
You do not see that level of parking provided on the property. This is a rendering of the front [referring to PowerPoint]
if you were on Pine Street.
Mr. McNaughton – There isn’t any definition of a tourist home in our code, correct?
Ms. Otto – That is correct.
Mr. McNaughton – Will this fall under a hotel?
Ms. Otto – No, it falls more under commercial bed and breakfast than it would hotel or motel. In a commercial bed and
breakfast, it is not required that the owner live there. This would be operated somewhat the same way as a vacation
home but it does not have the physical presence of any DeSoto personnel on the premises.
Mr. McNaughton – Would these homes be commercial or residential?
Ms. Otto – For use purposes, residential.
Mr. Marion – Is this going to be year round, six months, fifty-one percent of the time?
Ms. Otto – I don’t know the answer to that question but we can ask the representative when he comes up. It would
certainly be eligible to be used year round.
Mr. Marion – You said you disagreed with the parking and the formula used. Did they have a reasoning or basis for that?
Ms. Otto – The interpretation of commercial gross leasable area, I believe, is where we parted ways.
3
Mr. Bishop – There seems to be some discrepancy over the zoning aspects, the C-2 versus R-2 and the setback issues. In
reviewing the code, I was confused as to whether the upper levels would be required to conform to the R-2 zoning
requirements.
Ms. Otto – My interpretation is that it does need to conform to the R-2 because it is a residential use. The only area not
compliant would be the access stairs that are further over than they should be from the ten-foot property line. The
City’s Consulting Engineer, Downer Davis, is here. There are comments in your packets from him if you have any
questions.
Mr. Davis – The narrow drive access and maneuvering area to the rear entrance was my concern. I don’t know if the
police chief or fire chief had any comments on this; I recommended they look at it just because of the narrow lane and
the access to the rear unit.
Ms. Otto – The police chief responded that he had no issues. I did not receive a response from the fire chief.
Mr. Davis – I have a concern about parking in the rear; the front spaces are no problem. This is the commercial space
[referring to PowerPoint] obviously lined up with the laundry. This space is a concern because if people drive down
here, they are not going to be able to turn in there. They would have to pull forward, back in, and pull forward to back
out. I was concerned about this being the driveway for non-commercial drivers being forced to drive out of the
driveway. If this was somehow flipped and was for commercial, someone making the trip over and over to deliver the
laundry, I wouldn’t be worried about them backing out of the driveway. They might want to square off this corner to
pull forward and have more maneuvering area. This project doesn’t have the appearance of drainage problems so the
drainage design has not been submitted or reviewed; we just need to get through the use and the layout.
Mr. Bishop – The concern you had on parking – dialogue has not ensued to change or make it consistent with your
recommendation?
Mr. Davis – I’m not here to tell you that backing out is absolutely prohibited, I’m just saying I don’t think it is a good
idea. It’s a sharp turn and a very narrow driveway.
Mr. Callahan – Dianne, you said eight or nine spaces are required, correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes. The four shown for the two residential units are accurate. The calculation for the commercial space,
again I was given two different square footages, is either four or five spaces where one has been provided. The
conversation did occur that this particular use did not have need for more than one service person for the laundry. That
is not the way our code calculates the parking requirements; it’s based on square footage, not use.
Mr. McNaughton – On the first page at the bottom, it says the lot is smaller than the requirement for the construction of
a duplex in R-2. This is C-2 isn’t it?
Ms. Otto – It is C-2. When you develop residential in C-2 you use the R-2 standards for setbacks.
Mr. McNaughton – Does the lot size apply in residential?
Ms. Otto – There is no specific reference – it only says to use R-2 setbacks. It doesn’t say whether the minimum R-2 lot
size applies or doesn’t.
Mr. Parks – Do we have a representative from the public?
Gary Sanders came forward and introduced himself. I am the architect for the project. The tourist homes are ill-defined
in the code. It is allowed in C-2 but it doesn’t give much definition about what they are. My clients’ ultimate goal is to
4
service their laundry with their staff so there is no public interaction with this laundry space. As far as parking, we do
not need the parking and I purposely made the laundry room exactly two hundred square feet so we wouldn’t be
required to provide any more parking. The storage that you see [referring to PowerPoint] is like any other building that
Tybee has. The laundry room will require commercial floodproofing which is allowed in commercial applications and the
storage will not. It’s not leasable space in that there is no sign, no public exposure, and it’s on a dead-end street. It
would probably be considered more like a light industrial use rather than a commercial but the code doesn’t provide for
that either. Regarding the one space that is a little problematic to get into, I sent an alternative today that would
substitute bike racks for that. We are allowed one bike rack substitution to replace a parking spot.
Mr. Parks – This is a disagreement between the number of parking spaces required with one being eight or nine and the
other being five.
Mr. Sanders – Yes, sir. I think it is defined by what is the commercial space and I purposely made it two hundred square
feet. My client would be more than happy to put that in writing for your records. It is simply so DeSoto can do their
laundry. We purposely put it to the rear of the property, which is adjacent to the fence and the ice machine.
Mr. McNaughton – How many people will be working at the laundry at any one time?
Mr. Sanders – One and not full-time.
Mr. Parks – The reason for my concern is five years from now they sell the property.
Mr. Sanders – It’s not a truly viable commercial property because of the access. Nobody would buy it that wanted to
have a business that would survive. It’s ideally located for this use. I took a lot of time to make it where the residents
didn’t have a feel of any kind of commercial activity going on.
Mr. Bishop – This whole structure, the laundry is a very small part of the building?
Mr. Sanders – Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop – The bulk of the second floor is residential, correct?
Mr. Sanders – Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop – I didn’t see anything in our packet - was there a plan for the second floor?
Mr. Sanders – We’re still working on the interiors and it is largely based on what happens here tonight.
Mr. Bishop – The laundry room on the first floor would be a small part with parking to accommodate the upstairs and
the employee for the laundry.
Mr. Sanders – Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop – There is more living space in residential than there is in commercial?
Mr. Sanders – I would say it is seventy-five percent residential.
Ms. Bramble – The two apartments, in each individual unit, how many people will they accommodate?
Mr. Sanders – Two bedrooms, one bath.
5
Ms. Bramble – Regarding the laundry, their housekeeping is going to bring their laundry to the DeSoto on Butler, load it
into one vehicle, and then one person will bring it to the laundry, correct?
Mr. Sanders – Yes.
Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Do we have any other members of the public that
would like to address this?
Jim Boyle came forward and introduced himself. I’ve been a resident on Tybee for twelve years and a resident on Pine
Street. I support this project. As most of you know I’m a prior member of the Planning Commission. This is a good use
for this property. It is right across the street from me; I can look over it and see the ice machine. I hear your concerns
about the proper site allocation and I’m sure the owner will try to make it work. I do support the request.
Mr. Parks – Is there anyone else that would like to address this issue? [There were none.] Are there any other
questions? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing on this issue. Do I have a motion or discussion
from the commission?
Mr. Bishop – I recommend approval with specific qualifications being the R-2 setback requirements apply to the second
floor and the engineering parking concerns be addressed satisfactorily to staff and the engineer’s satisfaction.
Mr. Marion – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor please signify [Bramble, McNaughton, Bishop, and Marion in favor. Callahan opposed].
Site Plan Approval – New construction of commercial building – 37 Meddin Dr.
Ms. Otto – Conceptual site plan for this location was considered by the Planning Commission in December 2012. This is
now returning for official site plan approval. The site is the North Beach parking lot, which is City property. This is a City
building ultimately, being constructed by a nonprofit organization. The packet contains the renderings which have not
dramatically changed from the conceptual plan that you had seen. There are two options for parking lot layouts that
have been prepared by the design firm. There are a number of other documents relating to utilities, drainage, and
various items. The same people who represented this to you in December are here to answer your questions as well as
the City Engineer and the Public Works Director.
Mr. Marion – Something that piqued my curiosity is the parking. I vaguely remember 212 spaces; did anyone
contemplate the aspects of a raised garage?
Ms. Otto – I’ve not heard that conversation related to this project. Years back when this was first conceived, and I
believe it was discussed at the conceptual site plan, there was to have been parking beneath the building so no use of
the existing parking would be lost. It was short sighted on the conceptual drawing that there would not be piers
supporting the structure above. If you’ve been in parking garages you know how disruptive they are for a flowing
parking pattern when you’ve got to deal with piers that are supporting the structure. At conceptual, we discussed that
the site plan would not have the parking provided on the ground as had been discussed years before.
Mr. Marion – We are in peak season now and once this is built it is going to draw a huge crowd. Parking is going to be
crucial. A peak day at the beach and a peak day at the Marine Science Center, I see that parking lot getting very full.
Ms. Otto – Which occurs now on a typical summer weekend. The Option A plan before you has provided 212 spaces, 6
handicap spaces, 5 van accessible, and 5 bus spaces. Option B has 259 spaces, 6 handicap spaces, and 4 van accessible.
Any redesign of the parking lot would not be the Marine Science Center; it is not what you are approving tonight.
6
Mr. Bishop – When you go to the Tybee Museum and you are on top of that building, the parking plan on Option A
and/or Option B, if you look at that from the perspective of recognizing the parking issues from a planning perspective, it
seems that would be something that we should consider in an elevated structure that would double these parking
spaces and potentially allow for revenue. On any day at North Beach parking lot, it is almost impossible to park. When
we add this structure, we are going to increase those problems and this is an elevated structure. Why would we not
consider an elevated parking application to the elevated structure as far as making all of that section more conducive to
public use and better use of the facility?
Ms. Bramble – As far as parking, when the Marine Science Center is finished, if they are going to have an event with kids
and groups, is that reserved just for them? Are they going to stop people from going in there when they have an event?
Ms. Otto – No, it is my understanding this is still a City of Tybee public parking lot. They would have a couple of parking
spaces designated for their employees but beyond that this is public parking.
Mr. Parks – Is there anybody at this time that represents the applicant?
Anthony Cissell of Kern & Co., LLC, came forward and introduced himself. I would like to briefly run through the
previous presentation. You have seen a copy of this book [referring to the book produced by Kern & Co., LLC]. We’ve
been working with the Marine Science Center for approximately a year. There was a conceptual plan that originally
proposed a very large building which you see [referring to PowerPoint]. That is the existing lease agreement with the
city for the project which encompasses about a 20,000 square foot footprint building; that was the conceptual design
that was done several years ago. This is the plan that anticipated parking underneath the structure. The reality is a
couple of different concerns, the parking and the fire separation issues. The structural piers that would have to go in
place would prohibit some of the parking movement. The reason we moved away from that as we started this new
design was safety of children and users around and underneath the building. This is an educational facility; it does have
large groups of children coming and going from it. The idea of cars moving underneath in the same space where
children were going in and out of the building started to become an idea that some of us were not very comfortable
with. The building is significantly smaller than what was proposed several years ago. That envisioned about a 20,000
square foot footprint; the building is now about a 5,000 square foot footprint. As the size came down and became more
in scale with what the Marine Science Center has now, this is about a twenty-five percent increase over their current
square footage. With some tweaks to the parking layout and taking advantage of some of these agreements with the
neighboring property owner, we could keep the parking count where it is without going underneath the building and
maintaining a safe perimeter. This is one of the most beautiful sites on Tybee Island; the point is an incredible space.
We did extensive study on solar orientation. Sustainability with this project is critical. We looked at prevailing wind
patterns in the sense of how we could passively cool the building. This particular diagram [referring to PowerPoint]
indicates the DNR line, the Shore Protection Act line, and we’ve coordinated extensively with DNR to ensure we are
keeping our project within that line. We went through an extensive process of public engagement. We held a charette
last year and had about 150 participants over the course of the three days. We’ve had many technical meetings with
City departments and staff to get input on the project. What you see in the last part of the book is the conceptual
design as it stands now. The building is basically two volumes that are bisected by the lobby. Each volume has
accommodations of dry and wet galleries along with education spaces. Here you can see the conceptual elevation of the
project [referring to PowerPoint] with the masthead having a sweeping roof form and a lower slung mast back towards
the fort. What we have done since then is move forward with the engineering of the site plan. We’ve done some
further development on the details of the building itself in conjunction with the site plan.
Mr. Parks – What do you think the occupancy will be?
Mr. Mike Neal introduced himself. As best as we can calculate, it is about 110. It’s a very small building; it’s smaller than
it looks. The occupancy of the current facility is about 100. This is only about a twenty to twenty-five percent increase
over that. Much of the increase is exterior space so you get into some specific load calculations there.
7
Mr. Parks – What do you think the draw will be – how many people will be standing in line? I see this as a huge
attraction. I wonder if we’re underestimating the impact this is going to have on that area.
Mr. Neal – That is what we are trying to avoid is the impact on that area. That is why the building is the size it is. If the
building was 20,000 square feet, and we were attracting people and taking away from the parking, then we would have
a major impact on that. We are trying to live within our boundaries as an island and know that we have limited
resources such as parking. This is not a grandiose thing like Georgia Aquarium coming down and building something.
This is a project that is part of Tybee. We know there will be times that people won’t be able to get in but that is the
same as when people drive down to this island on a holiday weekend and there won’t be parking; it’s a fact of life. The
island is only so big; it’s not getting any bigger.
Mr. Parks – Is there expansion possibilities for this?
Mr. Neal – We will look at possibilities as time progresses.
Mr. Marion – You stated what the interior occupancy rate was, what is the threshold for the entire campus?
Mr. Neal – All of the outdoor space is controlled through the lobby of the Marine Science Center so that actually falls
within that 110. To address the parking concern, one of the things that drove the project was our understanding of the
two different user groups that are using the Science Center. There is a weekday and a weekend demographic. Most of
the Marine Science Center’s programs that are bringing in large loads of children happen during the week and are
largely done by bus. There is a bus drop incorporated into the plan and we’re in conversations with the lighthouse to
explore shared use of their bus parking. It is quite possible that the buses will drop off and park somewhere else. The
weekend demographics are the same users that are going to the beach; they are using the parking lot in any case
because they are there for a dual purpose.
Mr. Bishop – What kind of numbers are you seeing during off-season for the Science Center currently?
Mr. Neal – At the current location, I believe our visitation rates are 48,000 throughout the year with the off-season being
December and January. Some of our peak season is not the summer season in that school groups tend to travel more in
February, March, and April.
Mr. Bishop – I think it is going to be such a boon to Tybee that we are underestimating to what degree this is going to be
in popularity and in total groups coming simply because of what it is offering. Not only in the sense of student groups
but also in the sense of all age groups and the opportunity to learn.
Mr. Marion – Is it thirty-five feet high?
Mr. Cissell – The height limit for the area is actually thirty-five feet; we’re just below that at thirty-four feet and six
inches.
Mr. Marion – Can you tell me what you have planned for the slope of the roof?
Mr. Cissell – We’ve got two different roof types. We’ve got a green roof to manage runoff on that mast and to help with
the passive heating and cooling of the building. The other alternative is for solar panels. There have been some
exploratory conversations about some grants that might make solar available. The second mast here [referring to
PowerPoint] that is closer to the dunes and beach, has a much more swooping, what we refer to as a ‘sail’ roof form,
and the idea here is that it is actually pitched towards the middle from both corners to collect rainwater into a cistern at
this low corner to reuse in the building and in the landscape.
Mr. Marion – Tell me about the breakaway wood planks and the space behind them.
8
Mr. Cissell – This is an elevated building; the finished floor is twelve feet above grade. We are in a velocity flood zone
and all of the construction on the ground floor, with the exception of the actual ground piers, is designed to be break
away. In the event of a storm surge, all of the wood paneling and the doors that access some of the storage area
underneath is designed to break away. There is some limited use in terms of storage as long as it is within the guidelines
which cannot be a pollutant or hazardous material. There is a very small footprint where some useable space is
underground, such as the staff entrance at the rear of the building, which would require a stair to come down through
there. We also take another egress stair down through this end of the building to accommodate two points of egress.
Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody else from the public that would like to address this issue? [There were none.] Do I
have any other questions? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion or
discussion?
Mr. McNaughton – I move that the site plan be approved.
Mr. Callahan – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion to approve the site plan as presented, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Map Amendment and Text Amendment – Amend zoning from C-2 to R-2 – South Side of Laurel Avenue
Ms. Otto – This is a Map and Text Amendment to the Land Development Code. This is a request by the City to rezone
what is now C-2 to R-2 zoning. These lots are located on the south side of Laurel Avenue which runs between McKenzie
Street and Polk Street. In your packet is the letter that was mailed earlier this month to the affected property owners.
In a correlating table are numbers that were assigned by staff to each lot to help us speak in clear terms about each one.
I have disclosed that I am one of the affected property owners but I am not representing myself, I’m representing the
City before you tonight. The reason R-2 was chosen as the proposed amended district is that under the Land
Development Code, when residential is developed in C-2, the R-2 setbacks are the prevailing required setbacks. R-2
does allow for duplexes which a couple of these lots already have. I have three submittals that I’ll need to read into the
record at some point through this process and there are audience members that would like to address this.
Mr. Parks – Questions for staff? [There were none.] Do you want to read those into the record?
Ms. Otto – All three of these were received by email. The first one was received yesterday and is signed by Ken Wade,
who is the owner of 1006-A Laurel Avenue. On the diagram, [referring to PowerPoint] that would be the lot numbered
16; this is a duplex unit. Mr. Wade has asked that I read his letter.
“To All Planning Commission Members. From Kenneth Wade, property owner, PIN 4-0026-07-024, 1006A Laurel Avenue.
I am a previous planning commissioner two terms for the City of Tybee. Regarding rezoning my property, it is with regret
that I cannot come to the scheduled meeting because I am out of town working. I am opposed to any rezoning of my
property. I have watched as previous planning and zoning commissions have taken away my personal property rights
over the years and am appalled at this rezoning. The reason the property is zoned C-1 [it is actually zoned C-2 Dianne
Otto stated] is because of its proximity to Highway 80. Every day and every night I listen to cars on the busy street.
When the traffic backs up it affects me directly. I am surrounded by commercial property. Why would I want to change
my zoning and lose more rights? I purchased this property because of the zoning. I run a small business from my home.
I would suggest to any of my neighbors who do not want to live in a C-1 zone to simply move to an R-1 zone or better yet
back to the town from where they came. Do not rezone my property. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Wade.”
Ms. Otto – The second email was received yesterday. It is from Patricia Fischer, 1102 Laurel Avenue, which is number 7
on the map.
9
“Hi Dianne, I am not able to attend the planning commission meeting on May 21st and am sending this email to you so
that my opinion can be made part of the meeting record. I own property at 1102 Laurel Avenue and am opposed to
changing the zoning from commercial to residential for the following reasons. The change would devalue my property.
My property is worth more as commercial than as residential. The change would restrict my use of the property. It
would limit any future plans I may have. I purchased my property with the knowledge that it was zoned commercial. I
also feel that the property owners on Highway 80, on the back side of these lots, should be notified of the proposed
change also. The zoning change has a big impact on them in terms of potential future development. Thank you, Patricia
Fischer.”
Ms. Otto – To comment on her last paragraph, she suggested that the property owners on the back side be notified. As
is customary for public hearings, the process is that the property is posted with a large orange public hearing sign. That
was accomplished for this by posting a public hearing sign at each end of Laurel Avenue – one at Polk Street and one at
McKenzie. The notifications to the abutting property owners will be mailed tomorrow. The notification that is published
in the Savannah Morning News will also be transmitted tomorrow.
The third letter that was submitted is from Joseph Shields, 1008 Laurel Avenue, which is lot 14. This is a duplex that is
paired with number 15. He wrote:
“Dianne, I wanted to follow up on our phone conversation from yesterday and say that as a resident of the south side of
Laurel Avenue, here on Tybee, I am in favor of the proposed amendment to change the zoning on that part of the street
from C-2 to R-2. I will not be in attendance at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting or at the City Council meeting on
June 13th. But certainly you have my permission to use this email at either meeting if you see fit. Thanks so much for
taking the time to talk with me. Sincerely, Joseph Shields.”
Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody that would like to address the commission?
Robert Schafer came forward and introduced himself. My wife is Maria Solomon, and we own number 17. The ‘X’,
which I will call 18, is ours but it is not being considered. We are also opposed and appalled that this would be
considered. This is family property that has been in the family for forty to fifty years, and has always been commercial.
We definitely see it as down zoning and a loss of property rights for it to be made residential. I don’t understand what
the reasoning is as to why this would be done. Ms. Otto stated this was a request by the City and it has something to do
with the use of the property - so if someone has built a home on a C-2 lot, they have to adhere to the R-2 setbacks. It’s
definitely our position that if somebody bought property that was commercial and put a home on it, they had to have
known that’s what they were doing. I think it’s definitely a loss of property rights. Who knows what will happen in the
future in what we may want to do. The lots in front of that on Highway 80 are also in the same family so that makes it
doubly important to us that those lots remain commercial in the back because this could all be sold as one block or used
as one commercial venture in the future. In my opinion, this would arbitrarily prevent that. I am against this rezoning.
Linda Inveninato came forward and introduced herself. My husband is here with me. We own the Highway 80 lots
directly in front of number 10, 11, 12, and 13. We bought a house on those lots twenty-eight years ago. At that time it
was undetermined what those properties were going to be. We attended the meeting that made those properties C-2
and we were in favor of it. I attended the charette and it was our understanding that they felt it should be left as it is
and enhanced. The lane between 7 and 8 should be developed, things made a little prettier in the area, possibly renew
some vegetative buffers while this area is still being determined. During the real estate bubble, trailer homes were
moved, trees were cut, residential homes constructed in C-2 via your permitting processes. City officials signed off on
single-family homes put on C-2. If some of the south side Laurel homeowners are now dissatisfied, I ask, did they use
due diligence in their purchase. Tybee officials have the power to reject any future business that might be too noisy,
disruptive, odorous, or in violation of regulations. Tybee has the power to stop current businesses from such behavior.
I’ve been told on several occasions, by two local and well-respected realtors, that my home is located on the wrong side
of the street. Due to all of that uncertainty, it has become necessary to understand what the officials are planning for
my area. To help make that clear, I ask the following questions: Who has proposed the zoning change? What is their
10
reason? What is the positive impact for the south side of Laurel? What is the positive impact fo r the C-2s that would
abut it? What are the negative impacts for this proposal? What changes would the C-2s be required to make? I believe
that until all property owners involved understand the full consequences of this proposed change and its impact on
future development, this issue should continue to be researched.
Tony Petrea came forward and introduced himself. I have been a resident here for many years and am a general
contractor on the island. I’m here representing the Solomon family and their lots as you heard were 17 and 18. There
are two lots directly to the south facing Highway 80, which would be the one in front of the ‘X’ [referring to PowerPoint],
the one in front of 17 and the ones in front of 16 and 15 for a total of four lots. These lots are C-2 for a reason. In the
future if these lots are developed and someone decides to do something of a commercial aspect there, a ninety-foot
depth, according to the meetings that were held last year, is not going to be sufficient for a commercial lot. It would
behoove the owners of the front lots and the back lots to have the square footage as far as depth. At the meetings, they
said the preferred depth of a commercial lot is 140 plus feet. All of these lots that face Highway 80 are 90-foot deep.
Can they be used for some type of commercial business? Of course, but we need more commercial business on the
island and I think that is why it came to light at the meetings. I definitely think this is something that needs to be looke d
at a little closer before a decision is made to change these commercial lots to residential.
Mary Ann Fahey came to the lectern and introduced herself. I am a property owner at 1013 Laurel Avenue which is
opposite of number 10. I love Laurel Avenue. It’s a very quiet, quaint, peaceful street. It has its problems with people
cutting through as it is a very short street. I don’t live here year-round but I’ve been here for about twelve years. I think
we have enough in place now to keep things the way they are. I’m opposed to changing the zoning. I agree with what
was said earlier about a business that has to be approved. If there is a problem with noise, traffic, parking, and issues
like that, that is something that you are good at addressing; we have some good leaders in this city. I’m truly opposed to
changing the zoning.
Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else that would like to address this issue? [There were none.]
Mr. Bishop – Was there a decision made as to which way to go from the group that attended the charette?
Ms. Otto – The final report that came from the charette, I believe it was held last March, was for the entire C-2 corridor,
which runs from where you come off the four-lane down to the curve, was not to rezone any of the properties. City
Council, at their January workshop, received the report, but having heard from property owners who felt they were not
represented in the charette final report. They opted to begin review of certain areas to determine, one by one, if any of
these should be rezoned. If you recall, you dealt with Eagles Nest first. The next area after Laurel that has been listed
for potential rezoning will be the lots in the North Wave vicinity where you come off the four-lane and on the right hand
side, across from Breezy Point. There are lots there that did not know they were commercially zoned until there was a
billboard proposed for one of the vacant lots there. They expressed interest at that time in being considered to change
their zoning to residential. This action did come from the Mayor and Council. This is not a devious action in any way.
This was discussed long before the charette was ever held that there were those on Laurel that felt one way or the
other. The City was approached by a couple that were going to prepare a petition for submittal for Laurel Avenue
rezoning. The City Manager and I met with those two individuals and explained that the proper procedure is a Map
Amendment and it is a $500 process. To rally that type of support in the neighborhood of who is going to pay for this, it
fell by the wayside. After Eagles Nest was dealt with, Council wanted the next area to be Laurel Avenue south side.
Mr. Bishop – What is the detriment versus the benefit for the rezoning?
Ms. Otto – Comparable to Eagles Nest this would match the residential zoning with the use, what it has been developed
as. All of the lots, except 17, have been developed as residential. It would bring the zoning in line with the actual uses.
11
Mr. Bishop – In C-2 you can develop as a residential and may also have a commercial involvement. If it is not changed,
there is no direct detriment to the current or prospective property owners because they would be involved or should
use due diligence in order to determine their current zoning, is that correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes. The only forecast that I could predict, if this was approved, it would give the relief that the Eagles Nest
residents sought; that assurance that there would not be commercial development next to them.
Mr. Parks – Are there any other questions? [There were none.] At this time I would like to close the public hearing. Do I
have a motion or discussion?
Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to not approve changing the zoning from commercial to residential as proposed.
Ms. Bramble – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor of not approving the proposal, please signify. [Those in favor were Bramble, McNaughton,
Bishop, Marion. Opposed was Callahan.]
Mr. Callahan – Motion to adjourn.
Ms. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – Meeting is adjourned.
Meeting ended at 8:55 PM
Minutes by Jerris Bryant