Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150120_PC_MINUTES.pdf PLANNINGCOMMISSION Demery Bishop. Vice Chair Ron Bossick Marianne Bramble Julie Livingston John Major Tyler Marion, Chair David McNaughton CITY MANAGER Diane Schleicher PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Courtney Reich CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 2015 Chair Marion called the January 20, 2015 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Ron Bossick, Julie Livingston, John Major, Marianne Bramble and David McNaughton. Chair Marion asked for consideration of December 16th, 2014 meeting Minutes. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Livingston and seconded by Commissioner McNaughton, vote to approve was unanimous. Chair Marion asked if there were any disclosures or recusals. There were no disclosures or recusals. Old Business No Audio for 20 minutes. New Business Commissioner Julie Livingston made reference to a list she received from a citizen as he would like her to forward to City Council regarding safety concerns and speed limit signage. Commissioner Bishop recommended it be sent to the City Manager first for her recommendations. It could then be sent to mayor and council for their review. Ms. Reich stated she will forward to the City Manager. Variance – Lot 10 Robinson Avenue; Mack Kitchen; Zone R-1; PIN 4-0002-08-005 Courtney Reich approached the Commission to explain the variance request from Mack Kitchens. Ms. Reich then gave a short presentation of the property. Mack Kitchens approached the Commission to address questions or concerns. Commissioner Livingston confirmed that Mr. Kitchens is asking for the same variance as in the past. Mr. Kitchens confirmed. Commissioner Livingston asked Mr. Kitchens if it is his desire to sell the lot with the variance intact so the petitioner buyer could see that it was a buildable lot. Mr. Kitchens confirmed and stated that he is looking at the value of the lot as he is the owner. Chair Marion gave a brief history of the property as there have been two variance requests in the past. Commissioner Major asked if the variance conveys with the sale of the property. Chair Bishop confirmed and the variance would be in place for one year. Commissioner Bramble asked Mr. Kitchens if he was still in partnership or was he the sole owner. Mr. Kitchens responded that he is no longer in partnership. Being there was no one wishing to speak for or against this item; Chair Marion closed the public hearing. Commissioner Major made a motion to approve. Commissioner Bishop seconded. The vote was 5-1 to approve. Commissioner Bossick voting against. Ms. Reich stated this will be heard by mayor and council on February 12, 2015. Text amendment – Land Development Code Article 3 Section 3-080(C) Ms. Reich approached the Commission and stated this next item on the agenda is a text amendment for consideration of driveway width pertaining to Land Development Code, Article 3, Section 3-080(C). Chair Marion asked Ms. Reich to explain why this has come before them tonight and was there any specific direction. Ms. Reich responded that the basis of this request stems from a site plan amendment for Lewis Avenue. The owner had improved the right-of-way with stone and had to apply for an after-the-fact site plan approval as it violated the provision of off-street parking requirements. She then explained the Code and requirements for the driveway and the history of the Lewis Avenue driveway. Chair Marion confirmed that the after-the-fact site plan approval was denied solely due to the existing rock. Ms. Reich responded that it was her understanding that it was denied as it was contrary to the Code. Commissioner Major stated that at the November 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting the Lewis Avenue request was heard and the vote was unanimous to approve. Mayor and council then voted to deny and recommended that the ordinance be sent to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Commissioner Major explained that he attended that meeting so he could capture the thoughts of mayor and council. He found Mayor Buelterman’s comments interesting as he questions why the ordinance was in place as council did not have consistent answers. He would recommend language: “That if a property owner wishes to improve the City right-of-way, with approved materials, a permit, without creating any safety problems or without being in violation of any other City ordinances which include the 65% greenspace and anything else that would apply, without interfering with City parking, staff would be able to permit”. This would also be with the understanding the City still has the right-of-way and can improve. Chair Marion asked if mayor and council are wishing the Planning Commission to draft new or modified language. The Commission concurred that the City Attorney should draft appropriate language rather than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bishop stated that his packet does not include a text amendment only the current ordinance which puts the Commission at a disadvantage to draft an ordinance. He continued by stating the discussion from the City Council meeting was not included which would include direction to the group. Commissioner Bishop made reference to the Code, Sec 3-080, as there are a number of questions that exist within the ordinance as it is currently written that does not in any way refer to the City setback. He feels that in order to adequately discuss and make recommendations to council for a text amendment for Sec 3-080, the Commission needs to have additional information provided for this Planning Commission to review. In this way, there will be a correct, valid and a genuine, more effective and efficient review of the existing ordinance. Commissioner Bishop stated that within the ordinance there are references to residential district parking requirements that includes residential off-street parking. Within the ordinance there is also a reference to off-street parking in certain areas and then in other areas it simply addresses parking spaces, not off-street and not city right-of-way. He then discussed his issues in attempting to discuss what would constitute a valid text amendment to an existing ordinance without those types of information being provided in advance. Ms. Reich responded that minutes have not been completed from the previous city council meeting; therefore she could not provide them to the Planning Commission. Chair Marion asked Ms. Reich if mayor and council have provided her a timeline as that would be of interest not only to him but to the Commission. Commissioner Major stated that he does not agree with Commissioner Bishop as it is his understanding that mayor and council would like the Planning Commission to craft language as text amendments have to start somewhere. He is not proposing that the Commission draft any text amendments or write ordinances but try to present ideas that agree with mayor and council. In that way the City Attorney would be able to draft an appropriate text amendment or ordinance. Commissioner Livingston agreed and explained her reasoning for voting against the Lewis Avenue agenda item at the previous Planning Commission meeting. There was a similar situation on Jones Avenue and the owners had to take up the gravel. She feels there needs to be consistency on the Island. Commissioner Major stated that he researched the ordinances and could not find one that addressed the City right-of-way in regards to the Jones and Lewis situations. He would recommend a specific ordinance to address this type of issue and not have parking or other instances included. It would be his recommendation that the Planning Commission draft a short ordinance which would also define the City right-of-way. Commissioner Bishop stated that in the total consideration of these items the Planning Commission should be considering other pertinent items so the Commission does not have a shotgun approach to a text amendment that has an impact on all the citizens. He would like to know what instances are in the community so the Commission has all the information needed to make a determination. A discussion ensued regarding the crafting of a proposed ordinance. Commissioner Major reminded the Commission that mayor and council did put a time limit of 60 days for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He would like the Commission to forward recommendations to staff for the February meeting. Commissioner Bishop concurred and would like consistency in recommendations and decision making. Chair Marion tasked staff with collecting information and present at the February meeting. Ms. Reich asked if the Commission is looking for staff to present an ordinance for their consideration or just additional information from mayor and council. Chair Marion responded that they would like any internal supplemental information that might be available to include Commissioner Bishop’s recommendation. Commissioner Major asked Ms. Reich if she is working with the City Attorney and staff, as in the past, they would present recommendations to his office and he in turn would craft an ordinance for their approval. Ms. Reich confirmed and will work with the City Attorney to craft a new ordinance in the few months. Commissioner Bramble questioned if she needs to recuse as she has a small business and is restricted with parking. Chair Marion does not feel this would be an issue. Being there was no further discussion or public input the public meeting was closed. Commissioner Bishop made a motion that this item be continued without a deadline, requesting that staff provide the Commission with answers to some of the questions previously raised along with any additional input the City Attorney might have so the Commission can make an educated and rational decision on a potential text amendment to Sec 3-080. Commissioner Livingston seconded. Discussion: Commissioner Major recommended that staff bring recommendations to the Commission for the March 2015 meeting. Commissioner Bishop amended his motion to include the first hearing of the proposed ordinance at the March meeting. Commissioner Livingston accepted the amended motion. Vote was unanimous. Text Amendment -Land Development Code Article 18, Lighting [the proposed Article 18 also would delete the then redundant Section 3-230, Turtle Nesting Protection. Ms. Reich approached the Commission stating this is a consideration for a new ordinance pertaining to lighting standards. She explained that this is an ordinance that has been before the Commission previously on January 10, 2013. Mayor and council heard the proposed ordinance and it was determined that this would be continued for a future date. A discussion ensued as to the timetable and reasoning of it coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bramble stated that she has asked on several occasions for this to come back to the Planning Commission as there is not a lighting ordinance for the City. This would also outline the restrictions for commercial businesses. She would ask for clarification of the notes from mayor and council. Ms. Reich stated she was not familiar with the history of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Bramble then asked if this is redundant with the turtle nesting ordinance for lighting restrictions during turtle nesting season. Ms. Reich stated there are redundancies and if the ordinance is adopted at the same time repeal the turtle ordinance as it is redundant. Commissioner Bishop stated three years ago a sub-committee started working on this. A review of other municipalities ordinances were reviewed as well. When heard by that Planning Commission, there was a tie vote where Chair Parks voted in the affirmative. He then questioned the role of the Commission in regards to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Reich explained that the Commission could adopt as is, sending it forward to mayor and council for their consideration or opt to make a recommendation similar with the previous agenda item, asking for more specificity and perhaps go back to the subcommittee. Chair Marion stated that the Commission needs to truly understand the true directive of why the ordinance is before them. He asked why and who requested it be put on the agenda. Again, what is the true direction? Ms. Reich will research. Commissioner Bishop stated that the Commission did receive comments from Ms. Fox and Mr. Groover who at that time were council members and Mr. Garbett who continues to be a council member. At that time there was effort through reviewing the IDA and IES model lighting ordinance which is the Dark Sky Initiative and there recommendations made subsequent to the deliberations by that group and this council to be in contact with the Dark Sky Initiative in Georgia. Commissioner Bishop expressed his concerns regarding the comments and questions from mayor and council as there is no reference as to why these changes were requested. He once again asked why this ordinance is before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bishop stated that he liked the current ordinance as they worked very hard to craft a good ordinance. Commissioner Major echoed Commissioner Bishop’s concerns as mayor and council need to clarify if it is their desire for the Planning Commission to put more energy in crafting a new ordinance. Commissioner McNaughton stated that he objected to the ordinance when it was before the Planning Commission previously as he felt it was well intentioned but had some of the objectives that were voiced by mayor and council. The issues were the fines, replacement of bulbs and enforcement. Commissioner Major stated that he does not agree with Commissioner McNaughton regarding enforcement as standards need to be set high. The City needs to respond to complaints and enforcement of the ordinance. Commissioner Bossick stated that he would like the City to demonstrate the enforcement of current ordinances. Commissioner Livingston stated that she agrees with Commissioner Bossick as enforcement is complaint driven. She would like the City to have a more proactive enforcement with many of the Codes. Chair Marion polled the Commission as to how to move forward with this ordinance. Commissioner Major stated that two years ago it was sent to mayor and council for their approval and it is now back before the Commission. He would like a directive and what to do now, i.e., pursue crafting a new ordinance. Chair Marion would ask staff to look at ordinances and other items that are in limbo, not completed, so the Commission can move forward. There was a discussion on the direction of mayor and council for unfinished ordinances where there was no definitive action. Again, the Commission would like direction from mayor and council. Commissioner Bramble concurred. Being no public input, Chair Marion closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bramble made a motion that the Commission asks mayor and council to explain all comments and “x’s” on paragraphs to include direction from the City Attorney prior to the March 2015 meeting. Commissioner McNaughton seconded. Discussion: Commissioner Major stated that it is his understanding that the paragraphs that have been “x’d” out were deemed not relevant to the ordinance. Vote was unanimous. Chair Marion thanked the community for all their support and comments and reminded the residents that the Planning Commission is a body that makes recommendations. The Commission is here to support the community and citizens and make the best decisions they can make. He again thanked the community and citizens. Commissioner Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:10PM