Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130618_PC_Minutes.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Tom Borkowski Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Rob Callahan Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion, Vice Chair David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Tom Borkowski was sworn in as a Planning Commissioner by Mayor Jason Buelterman. Chair Monty Parks called the June 18, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Tyler Marion, and Tom Borkowski. Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the May 21, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Tyler Marion made a motion to approve as written; Rob Callahan seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.] No disclosures or recusals. Minor Subdivision – Robert King – 2 Beachwood Court Ms. Otto – This is a minor subdivision located at 2 Beachwood Court. The property had been two lots until 2004 when they were combined into one lot to reduce the cost of property taxes. The request now is to convert back to two lots. In your packet is the recombination plat that was used in 2004 to record the two lots into one and also the proposed re- subdivision. Mr. McNaughton – Are there minimum lot requirements for the Planned Unit Development zones? Ms. Otto – The lots, as they existed in the original Planned Unit Development, or PUD zoning, is identical to what this action would do. It would return it to that prior lot size. The standard R-1 lot size requirements do not apply to this PUD. Mr. Borkowski – I have a question, from a standpoint of changing the zoning, not zoning but how these lots were combined to reduce taxes. Now the market is better, he decides he wants to sell it and now it's going back to what it was before. To me, I just have a question as to what if everybody on the island wanted to do that same thing? Let's say there is a condition in the market and they want to do something similar, to me it is a moral thing. Not a moral thing, it's a question that just came up in my mind. It was facilitated to reduce taxes now he wants to sell it and if he decides two years from now that he wants to go back again to reduce taxes because he has a problem of some type, do we do that again? Mr. Parks – In terms of the Planning Commission, we don't know the intent of the re-division - whether it is to sell or whether it is just to have two lots. If they meet minimum lot size, and they are within the rules of the Land Development Code, I think that the property owner has that right. If it falls under the category of a lot that is too small, then we get involved. I think your question would apply to that. I think the first question is are these big enough? That's one of the key ones in this case and if they fall there then he has that right. Are these lots big enough? 2 Ms. Otto – The sizes that these lots are being returned to are the original lot sizes for the Oceanside Dunes PUD. He is not asking for something that was not in existence at one time. Any actions this body took that were somehow contrary to the PUD’s covenants would be between him and that entity. The City is only looking at its regulations and does his request meet those and for the Planned Unit Development, yes, it does. Mr. Marion – This is essentially restoring it back to what it used to be. PUD or not, have there been any improvements on the smaller lot? Ms. Otto – I’m not aware of any development on it. Mr. Marion – Have there been any improvements in the infrastructure as far as utilities or sewers? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Marion – The intent is to keep it as is for that smaller lot. Ms. Otto – As a single-family lot in that PUD. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that would like to speak on this? Whitley Reynolds came forward and introduced himself. I did a survey for the owner; he could not be here tonight. Does anyone have any questions? [There were none.] Mr. Parks – Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this? [There was none.] I’m going to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion or discussion? Mr. McNaughton – I make a motion to approve. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – All those in favor of approval please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Variance – City of Tybee Island & Michael/Karen Leonard – Polk Street right-of-way and 318 Polk St. Ms. Otto – This is for a zoning variance. The applicants are the City of Tybee Island along with Michael and Karen Leonard. The location is the right-of-way of Polk Street on the south side of Highway 80. A portion of that is City right- of-way and the remainder is the Leonard’s driveway at 318 Polk Street. This same request was before you and that approval has since expired. The previous approval was before the Planning Commission in March 2012 and it went on to be approved by the Mayor and Council. Our variance longevity in the ordinance is twelve months. During the time it has taken to process this with the State for the necessary DNR permit for the project, the variance expired and the request is that it be re-approved for another year. We are very close to having this heard by the State and it is anticipated that this won’t occur again as they should be able to accomplish this with a second variance approval. It is expected to go, probably in August, before the Board that will be voting on it for the State permit. Mr. Callahan – Why is it taking so long? Ms. Otto – Downer Davis is with us this evening and I think he could best answer the process this has had to go through and where we are headed with it. Downer Davis came forward and introduced himself. The reason it is taking so long is because I have never worked on a project like this before and nobody else involved in it has either; it’s a very unusual project. We are merely trying to elevate a roadway that is not improved, so the residents have a safe way to get to their house. It does not fit any 3 pattern that the DNR has seen before. It has taken us awhile to work through the matrixes of the Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and DNR. We probably would have already been in a meeting, however, we realized rather late that our own permit had expired. At one time this driveway was going to be raised to the minimum height for a roadway in our specifications. Now it is being raised about a foot less to address the concerns by some of the review agencies. We’ve been catering to their concerns, we have addressed them, but our own permit expired and that is why we are back. Mr. Callahan – The design that is attached, is this different from what we saw last year? Mr. Davis – It’s within the same parameters. The height of the roadway may be slightly lower. I can’t remember if we already lowered it down to an elevation of 6.2 or if we were still proposing to go to an elevation of 7.5, but over the last couple of years, we have lowered the elevation and lowered the amount of fill that would be used to raise the roadway. If anything, it is less impact than what you previously approved. I’ve been working with this since 2006, it went dormant from 2007 to about 2010, and we’ve been picking up steam since then. Mr. Callahan – Is the amount of fill what the DNR and the Corps are objecting to? Mr. Davis – I don’t know that they are necessarily objecting to anything. They are raising concerns and justifications. We’ve had to give them a cost analysis for what it would cost to put a bridge in. This project is not promoting development. It is merely to promote safe, one-way traffic to allow someone to get in there or to get a fire truck there should the house catch on fire. At high tide, you could have enough water that a fire truck or an ambulance is not going to get through. These people have paid their taxes through the years. The City is trying to assist them with safe access to their property. This is not a development, not a project, this is merely maintenance. Mr. Callahan – You mentioned a bridge. So there have been other alternatives that have been looked at? Mr. Davis – We’ve looked at plenty of alternatives with the difference in cost of maybe $40,000 compared to a million dollars. It’s not hard to figure out which one the City can afford. We’ve given some alternatives but there comes a point of feasibility. I don’t think the City of Tybee is prepared to work with residents at a million dollars a hit. We’re trying to come up with a reasonable alternative. It’s a travel way now, vehicles are running down it daily, and it’s below grade of what it was five or ten years ago. It continues to erode with each tide and the longer we wait the worse it gets. Time is of the essence. Mr. Callahan – This design is what will go before the Board? Mr. Davis – The design is what Tybee is proposing and will go before the Board with consideration of other alternatives. Mr. Callahan – You are asking for approval of a variance, correct? Mr. Davis – Tybee granted itself a variance because the entire roadway is all within the jurisdictional area of the DNR. The Coastal Resource Division has flagged it. When you leave Highway 80, within 50 to 70 feet, you are in their jurisdiction and you don’t exit until you are past the tall timber gates that are towards the end of the road at the Leonard’s property. We have to go before them and treat it as if we are in the marsh. It is technically running through the marsh and we are giving ourselves a variance to place fill in a marsh. It’s nothing different than what we did before except it might be less fill than what we were proposing. Mr. Callahan – I’m concerned about why it is taking so long. Ms. Otto – There was a required comment period of sixty or ninety days when the property was posted and anyone who had an interest could submit comments to the State. Tybee Island had an opportunity to respond to those comments with another deadline. It’s a lengthy process, much more than the couple of months that Tybee has residents go 4 through to get to Planning Commission and City Council. Their public notice period is much longer which contributed to it. Mr. Marion – What is the original composition of that road? Is it shoring up the road or just adding fill? Mr. Davis – It would be fill and rock to stabilize it. We’re coming up with a steeper slope and doing it with a mixture of #57 stone and seeding it with about 10% oyster shell. If you mix oyster shell with limestone, it is about as productive as putting in pure oyster shell because the calcite that is in limestone and the oyster shell blend together and create about the same habitat for oysters and other marine life that pure oyster shells would. It would protect the dirt from floating away with the tide more so than our previous designs. Mr. Marion – If granted, what is the estimated time of completion of this? Mr. Davis – If we go before the Board in August and get approval, then it is up to Public Works to fit it into their budget and timetable. I can’t give you Public Works schedule but when the meeting is finalized in August that should be done as far as the permit. It would then be up to us for the work. Mr. Marion – Once the work is complete, it shores up the safety factor for the residents? Ms. Otto – It is still anticipated that at a very high spring tide there would still not be accessibility. On the general day- to-day normal high tide, it will be accessible. Mr. Parks – Is there a representative for the applicant that would like to speak? [There was none.] Ms. Otto – Mr. Davis had a conversation with Mr. Leonard and he is aware that this action is before you this evening. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address this? [There were none.] I will close this public hearing. Do I have a motion or discussion? Mr. Marion – I move to approve. Ms. Bramble – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of approval please signify. [Bramble, McNaughton, Marion, and Borkowski – approved / Callahan – opposed] Text Amendment – Section 4-050(L), Maritime District Ms. Otto – This Text Amendment, in Article 4 of the Land Development Code Section 4-050(L), is the Maritime District’s outline of what particular uses are permitted within that zone. Maritime District on Tybee Island is located to the extreme west. When you are coming to the island and have crossed the Lazaretto Creek bridge, to the north and south are the properties zoned Maritime District. There are four owners with one of them being the City of Tybee; three others are owned by private individuals. As currently written, this section of the Land Development Code says there is a list of uses permitted by right. This is being brought to your attention because there is a conflicting ordinance in Article 5 that would require Site Plan Approval. That section is 5-020, Permits or Actions Required by this Land Development Code, subsection (B) Site Plan Approval. It reads, “All land development activities other than residential one and two- family structures, regardless of the zoning district, must present a site plan of such development to the planning commission for review, and to the mayor and council for approval prior to the issuance of any land development permits.” For C-1, which is not what we are discussing, it also says, “all land disturbing activities require site plan approval.” It was staff and legal’s opinion that by having Section 4-050(L)(1) state that the following uses were permitted by right was somewhat misleading to those who would read only that section and believe that there was no 5 review required for any of their projects. Staff has proposed adding, Uses permitted by right after Site Plan Approval. Also inserted here you will see the words Special Review. That is more discretionary if you choose to add that additional layer of review for these uses in this zone. The Site Plan Approval part of the sentence would make this requirement match the requirement in Article 5. As you are aware, Site Plan Approval is when those items are brought to you and if all of the required components of a development meet the code, there is no allowance for requiring special accommodations or requests. If it meets the code, it’s to be approved and is strictly a process to bring attention to the public that this is occurring. With Special Review, that gives this body, and the mayor and council, the authority to impose certain conditions if they desire. Staff is asking that the text, Use permitted after Site Plan Approval, be added to match Article 5. If you desire to also require Special Review that would allow any such developments to also have that layer where the City can have input on what a development looks like. Mr. Parks – We took out two sections that were reserved for special interests or reserved for future use and came up with a number two. Is this in the current wording? Ms. Otto – The only proposed change is the one sentence. Instead of reading, Uses permitted by right, that was changed. For some reason, in the ordinance, the second paragraph in the ordinance is numbered as 3 with there not being a paragraph 2, so there is a minor cleanup to make this last paragraph as number 2 because there is not one. Mr. Parks – Whose idea was the Special Review? Ms. Otto – It was staff. If you look through Article 4 at the various other listings of what are uses permitted by Special Review, uses permitted after Site Plan Approval and Special Review, it seemed to match more closely the development in that particular zone. An example, because only commercial type activities are allowed in the Maritime District and not any residential uses, if you go to C-1 in Article 4, there is a category of Uses permitted by right after site plan approval. Those are the residential uses allowed in C-1 along with gift shops, restaurants, and other retail stores. When you get to the second category in that zone, it’s Uses permitted after special review and site plan approval which would match what this is. The items listed there would be bars, stores selling liquor, and dwellings for special events in order to have that extra layer of review. It’s basically the same in C-2, as far as how those are handled. In the Neighborhood Marina district, the uses permitted by right after Site Plan Approval are boat launching facilities, bait shops, and retail sales of boating provisions but the list for uses permitted after Special Review and Site Plan Approval are again the alcohol sales, bars, package stores, restaurants, water craft and equipment rental, watercraft sales, dry dock storage, wholesale, and retail seafood sales, and machine repair shops. The thought by staff was that given the parameters for other zoning districts and the uses that are being listed in the Maritime District, that Special Review seems to match more closely with how the other zoning districts were established. The thought was, by saying Uses permitted by right, that it was misleading knowing that there is a section in Article 5 that is quite contrary to that by requiring it to have Site Plan Approval. Mr. Callahan – This ends up saying that nothing is permitted by right in the Maritime District, correct? Ms. Otto – Correct. It matches the other areas that require Site Plan Approval and there are no commercial developments allowed anywhere without Site Plan Approval. Mr. Callahan – I thought almost every zoning district had some uses permitted by right. Ms. Otto – The residential, and in C-2 when you want to build residential, there is no review. Even in C-1, review of residential is required. Mr. Callahan – Your argument for the change basically is these being commercial type facilities. Ms. Otto – Yes. 6 Mr. Callahan – You think to match up with the rest of the commercial zoning that these uses need to have Special Review and Site Plan Approval. Ms. Otto – Definitely Site Plan Approval. Section 5-020(B) states that all commercial development requires Site Plan Approval. The intent here would be that someone reading this and not knowing that these two sections are contrary to one another, it would make Section 4-050 match what is already required in Section 5-020(B). Mr. Marion – You are just looking for continuity with the language. Ms. Otto – Yes. I refer people to our website to look up information about their particular projects and I wouldn’t want someone to read Section 4-050, as it is currently written, and think there isn’t a Site Plan Approval component to what they want to do, when there is. It is in a completely different area in the code. Ms. Bramble – If wording was included about adding provisions, is that where they can restrict the lighting since we don’t have a lighting ordinance? Ms. Otto – No, the restrictions could only be to code. If you recall, there are a number of examples, when 211 Butler development was here, in a C-1 zone, they asked for a development that had access from both Butler Avenue and from Third Street. When that came to City Council they approved it with the condition that the Third Street access could not be developed. Site Plan Approval process doesn’t allow that type of standard or any conditions to be placed on it. If it was something that the developer said was a good idea and I’ll do that, that wouldn’t be an issue. When it is something that is a hardship to the developer or that doesn’t fit what their design or plans were for the property, the City doesn’t have the right, by our codes, to impose conditions like that. By adding the different sections we refer to in Article 4 about the different types of developments that require Site Plan and which ones require Site Plan and Special Review, it would for this district, by including Special Review, allow the City to have that input on what a development could be rather than having to approve whatever is proposed if it meets the code. Mr. Borkowski – If you look under (G) where it has the Marina district, and you have uses permitted by right after Site Plan Approval, they are boat launching facilities, bait shops, and retail sale of boating provisions. That’s in the Marina district and this has bait shops and boat launching facilities which seem to be inconsistent. Ms. Otto – I’m looking at (G) with you. In subsection 3, there are the few items that are just after Site Plan Approval and the more intensive, or perhaps items that the neighborhood may have input greater on, they require both Special Review and Site Plan which again was the restaurants, the liquor stores, bars, the more intense uses other than just being a marina and bait shop. Mr. Callahan – Are you suggesting we split these up? Mr. Borkowski – This is to add consistency to the code, is that correct? It seems like that should be cleaned up too. Ms. Otto – That is an option. Mr. Borkowski – You can combine 3 and 4 and use Special Review and Site Plan Approval and then you have that consistency and it not allow for controversy. Mr. Parks – I was hoping that you would say Special Review because this is a delicate area on the marshes. It’s environmentally important, a major tourist attraction, and just the general importance of this area to the island welfare and of the community. Ms. Otto – That was certainly understood. 7 Mr. Parks – I can see where the Marina area should be brought into line also. Can you bring it to us? Ms. Otto – I can. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Ms. Otto – I will work on this and bring it back at your next meeting. Text Amendment – Section 3-090 (A) & (B), Schedule of Development Regulations Ms. Otto – At your seat this evening was a modified version which is the one I’ll be speaking to tonight. It has yesterday’s date at the bottom. This version followed after your packets went out. The prior version had language “not permitted” and the City Attorney felt that was somewhat confusing to people who may be reviewing this table. In November of last year, at that meeting we discussed that there were no minimum lot sizes for some zones and it was questioned why. There was an action that came through, a residential use in a C-1 zone, and it was questioned how properties in that district were dealt with if they were subdivided. What is before you is table A which has no substantial change to it. It lists, for the various zoning districts that are residential, what minimum lot sizes are in effect. This is open for discussion and changes but staff is not recommending any changes to that table. For the minimum lot area column, for each district it lists what minimum lot sizes are required. If an applicant was working to subdivide a large tract of property, for example in the R-1-B zoning district, the requirement would be that single-family lots have a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet. Because R-1-B does not allow two-family or multi-family it states that those are not permitted. So it goes with the other lot sizes in those different zoning districts. Table B in the Land Development Code is a similar schedule but this one is for commercially zoned property. The reason that some of these are “not applicable to allowed uses” is because the situations don’t match the need for minimum lot size. For example, C-1(A) is a category where the uses proposed are retail stores, restaurants, and bars. So in C-1(A), there is no minimum lot size proposed. If somebody was dividing their property, it would come to the Planning Commission and then City Council for the typical subdivision and it would be at those two bodies discretion what lot sizes would or would not be allowed. When you get down to C-1(C), which is the section that does allow residential to be built in the C-1 zone, there has to be a square footage of 1,125 square feet per unit. This would add to that if it is a single-family lot, it would be required to have 4,500 square feet. Obviously that lot size, if proposed for multi-family development would be three or four units, but this is the standard if you are going to build a single-family home in C-1 you need to have a lot size of at least 4,500 square feet. The same for TBR, which is the section of the code that allows residential to be built in C-2. It would put into place the same minimum lot sizes as are currently required in R-2. This is completely open to your input, changes, or dismissal if you have no interest in going this direction. Mr. McNaughton – What is the reason there is no minimum lot size in the Planned Unit Development and should we be considering that? Ms. Otto – There is no longer allowed any new Planned Unit Developments. There was a period in time where that was allowed in the Land Development Code, but the PUDs that currently exist are the only PUDs allowed. If for some reason in the future the Land Development Code is altered to again allow PUDs, I would believe that a minimum lot size would be in line to be established at that time. The way the Planned Unit Developments were organized back then, each had its own proposal for townhomes, single-family homes, or whatever was being designed for it. Each one went through its approval process. It was offered that this is what we want to do on this property, this is what we are proposing for this section, and it was a very different process for a PUD then what we are currently under. Mr. Callahan – Do we have a section in 4-050 that deals with C-1 (A), (B), and (C)? Ms. Otto – Yes. Not in Article 4. It’s in 3-090. Article 4 is the zoning districts and it tells you what uses in each zoning district are uses permitted by right, uses permitted after Special Review, or uses permitted after Special Review and Site Plan Approval. You have to go to Article 3 to locate the standards for development in each of the zoning districts. It 8 provides the required setbacks for each of those, the island wide 35-foot height limit, as well as these minimum lot sizes in these two tables that we are discussing tonight. Mr. Callahan – The only definition we have of C-1 (A), (B), and (C) is these notes? Ms. Otto – Yes, the small asterisks immediately after the commercial table. Mr. Callahan – It defines C-1(A), for instance, is retail use and food/beverage service. Ms. Otto – Yes. Then you would go to the table for C-1(A) and see the required setbacks, height limit, and if there is or is not a minimum lot area for it. Mr. Parks – I think the concern was if you came before staff or the Planning Commission with a C-1 or C-2, and you had some residential in there, that we didn’t recommend or specify a lot size and you could possibly come in with a substandard lot size within the island. This seems to fill that loophole. Ms. Otto – It does for residential development. We’ve still not addressed, if you want it investigated, commercial development. Everything that has been listed would be applicable to single-family, duplex, and multi-family residential units. Ms. Bramble – Why aren’t we investigating commercial here? Mr. Parks – I think it would be appropriate, however, it wasn’t the request to Dianne [Otto]. It was a request to review the residential aspect of this. I think putting a lot size on the commercial would require much more investigation. It seems to me there are some small lots that are being used commercially on the island already. I think things like private parking lots might fall under that, or other uses. I think that would be a large project. This seems to plug a possible loophole in the residential section. Mr. McNaughton – I move that this be approved as suggested. Mr. Parks – Would you like to specify a date? Mr. McNaughton – Section 3-090 dated June 17, 2013. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Parks – All those in favor, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion for adjournment? Mr. Callahan – Motion to adjourn. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Meeting is adjourned. Meeting ended at 8:00 PM. Minutes by Jerris Bryant