Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout050_011_20130509CityCouncilMinutes City Council Minutes 20130509 Consideration of Items for Consent Agenda Mayor Buelterman called the consent agenda to order at 6:30PM on May 9, 2013. Those present were Mayor pro tern Wanda Doyle, Paul Wolff, Torn Groover, Jan Fox, Barry Brown and Bill Garbett. Also attending were Diane Schleicher, City Manager; Tommy Branch, Callaway, Braun, Riddle and Hughes, PC; Dianne Otto, Manager, Planning and Zoning Department; and Janet LeViner, Clerk of Council. Mayor Buelterman listed the following items on the consent agenda: • City Council Minutes, April 25, 2013 • Acceptance of the loan from GEFA for $660,000 to $850,000 for automated reading system meters and expend $8,500 for closing fees. Discussion. Mr. Wolff clarified this item as Mr. Reese would like to purchase the system that mayor and council wanted to transition to at a later date. This system could cost up to an additional $100,000. He further explained that the City would not borrow the additional monies unless needed. • Reject Ante litem, 18th Place, Tracy Young owner Mayor Buelterman called the regular meeting to order at 7:05PM. All those present for the consent agenda were present. Opening Ceremonies • Call to Order • Invocation: Rev. Hank Perry • Pledge of Allegiance Recognitions and Proclamations Mayor Buelterman asked Joey Burel, Carolyn Smith and Roxy Hogan to come forward. He presented them with a Certificate of Appreciation as they were recognized by the Coastal Georgia YMCA as the Volunteers of the Year for their work with the Rising TYde Food Pantry. Report of Staff, Boards, Standing Committees and/or Invited Guests Jim Kluttz, Friends of Tybee Theater, deferred to future meeting Jonathan Lynn, WFN Consulting, Solar Division, approached mayor and council to do a presentation regarding solar power. He also spoke on the advantages of putting solar panels on city buildings. Mayor and council agreed to have an assessment done to show the possible cost savings for the City. Paul Wolff made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Tom Groover seconded. Vote was unanimous. Public Hearings Special Review — Residential bed and breakfast — 21 Officers Row; PIN 4- 0002-20-014; Zone R-1; Sherry Stipp & Asynthia Sukal, petitioner. Wanda Doyle recused herself. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council explaining this is a special review for a bed and breakfast, heard by the Planning Commission on April 16th The vote was 4-0 to approve. The proposal is for five rental units, one unit to be owner occupied and eight parking spaces. There is an existing buffer on the property which extends the full length of the home but does not extend the full length of the front yard. Mr. Wolff asked Ms. Otto if the owners are doing away with the parking at the top of the property and re-landscaping. Ms. Otto confirmed. Cliff Bentsen and Annice Estes, 117 Cedarwood, approached mayor and council to speak in favor of this request. Mr. Garbett asked Ms. Otto if this would be owner occupied. Ms. Otto stated that the owner will not be living on the property but the petitioner's sister will. Mr. Branch stated that after review the Code, it is his interpretation that the owner shall reside on the property. He further explained that the owner of the property is different from the owner of the business and the owner of the business will be residing on the property. Paul Wolff made a motion to approve. Tom Groover seconded. Vote was unanimous, 5-0. Variance — front setback for construction of a single-family dwelling — Lot A, S. Campbell Ave; PIN 4-0019-02-007A; Zone R-2; Jason Craft and Mary Pulk, petitioners. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council to explain this variance request. Zoning for this property is R-2 and the proposal is for an 8' front setback rather than the required 20' front as shown on the survey. She explained the City rights of way are rather expansive in that area varying from 30' to 35' from the edge of the pavement to the property line. The home would be 8' from that line if approved. Ms. Otto then explained the setbacks of the property and the footprint of the home and without the requested variance the lot would be long and skinny. A State Marsh Buffer Encroachment Variance would be needed if the owner were to place the home further to the rear of the property. It is also the intent of the owner not to remove any trees unless necessary. The Planning Commission heard this request and the vote was unanimous to approve. Barry Brown made a motion to approve. Wanda Doyle seconded. Vote was unanimous. Variance — Remove walls, paving, steps/build walls — 2 Eighteenth Place; PIN 4-0009-06-038; Zone R-2; Wistar Lewis, petitioner. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council explaining that Mr. Lewis has been before mayor and council previously for this location. In order to meet the Department of Natural Resources requirements, a permit requires there are additional concrete areas that would need to be removed and returned to a natural vegetative state. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this request. Mr. Wolff asked if after the demolition, the only walls that will be rebuilt are concurrent with existing. Further, the petitioner is not adding walls just putting back in the previous location. Ms. Otto stated no, as the petitioner will be adding walls due to the openings as shown on the drawing in their packets. She further explained that this work is within the City of Tybee's 10' off the toe of the dune as the property line is the seawall where as many other ocean front lots own a portion of the dune field. Wanda Doyle made a motion to approve. Barry Brown seconded. Vote was unanimous. Site Plan Approval — new construction at existing special events facility — 1114 Hwy 80; PIN 4-0026-11-012A, -011, -010; Zone C-2; Stacye Jarrell, petitioner. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating this request is in the C-2 zone and it is to add an add-on to the existing structure. There is a vacant lot that is at the end of the driveway which is the proposed location for the add-on. The petitioner will also be using the steeple from the chapel and due to the installation will not require a height variance. The property owner is in the process of purchasing the third lot as shown on the drawing in their packet. The parking plan is large and challenging to understand as all parking is proposed to be valet. Ms. Otto continued to explain that parking in the buffer has been approved by the state and those would be spaces of last resort. She stated that as proposed, the parking plan does meet the number of spaces required based on the proposed use. Mr. Wolff asked Ms. Otto if the petitioner has the required parking spaces on the plan. Ms. Otto replied they have 100 parking spaces, 96 regular, 4 handicaps and the required number of spaces is 97. Mayor Buelterman asked Ms. Otto why the add-on was not raised as the chapel was. Ms. Otto also explained the original building did not have to be raised but it was the desire of the petitioner to have it raised. Bill Garbett made a motion to approve. Wanda Doyle seconded. Vote was unanimous. Site Plan Approval — storage containers at existing commercial business — 211 Butler Ave.; PIN 4-0004-08-004; Zone C-1; William Navon, petitioner. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating the request is for two (2) side by side storage containers at the existing commercial business as depicted on the diagram in their packet. The petitioner has included a privacy fence around these containers and the parking spaces affected by these containers will not alter the parking spaces required. She stated the Planning Commission denied this request. Ms. Doyle asked Ms. Otto to explain the Planning Commission reasoning to deny this request. Ms. Otto stated that as proposed there is no additional buffering being offered in this request. What is currently on the property is buffering that was installed when the commercial business was built. She explained the current buffering, as depicted with the photographs in their packets, meets the City's requirements. Ms. Otto stated that at the Planning Commission meeting an adjacent property owner on Lovell Avenue was present and suggested the containers be relocated to another section of the Greenspace. In this way she would not be able to see them. Ms. Otto also received an email in opposition of this request. Ms. Doyle asked for clarification as to the relocation of the containers to another property. Ms. Otto responded that with the previous approval, it was stipulated that the petitioner could only have two (2) containers on the property behind the warehouse on McKenzie Street. This property is not owned by the petitioner and the property owner would have to approve the additional storage units on that property. Mayor Buelterman asked if a public hearing would be required to put the additional storage units at McKenzie. Ms. Otto confirmed. Mr. Navon approached mayor and council stating that he is willing to install an 8' privacy fence much like the ones on his other properties. Ms. Doyle read from the Staff Report that is included in the packet regarding Section 4-050(E), Land Development Code: "the purpose and intent of commercial districts is to provide central locations for city businesses and services to meet the market needs of Tybee Island residents and visitors". She further stated that the purpose of having storage is to meet the needs of the residents and visitors. Mr. Garbett stated he has a problem with considering a cargo box as an assessor structure even through his request was previously approved by mayor and council. Ms. Otto replied that these storage containers will be anchored and meet drainage requirements. Ms. Fox asked Mr. Navon if he has considered replacing the grasses with trees. Mr. Navon stated there are young live oaks on the property which will aid with the buffer. He is also in agreement to plant one or two live oaks in the grassy area. Mr. Groover asked Ms. Otto how big a structure has to be before it is considered a building. Ms. Otto responded these containers are considered an accessory use to the primary structure but could be considered storage buildings. After a short discussion regarding the storage units, Mr. Navon stated he is within his limitations of what he is requesting. Mr. Groover still has concerns regarding the number of containers on the Island as well as the number in the future. Mr. Garbett asked Mr. Navon if he has considered building something other than the containers. Mr. Navon replied that with a fence around these units you will not be able to see the containers. Mr. Garbett does not agree. Mr. Navon continued by stating that with the fence and the proposed live oaks the containers will not be visible. Mr. Brown is not in agreement with the placement of the containers as he has received several telephone calls in opposition. His preference would be for Mr. Navon to build some sort of structure which would be used as a warehouse. Tom Groover made a motion to deny. Paul Wolff seconded. Discussion: Ms. Doyle asked Mr. Groover why his motion is to deny as the petitioner has a piece of commercial property that they are paying taxes on and they should be allowed to have these containers. She further asked if this was personal or are mayor and council looking at the guidelines and rules. Mr. Groover called for a vote. Voting in favor were Paul Wolff, Tom Groover, Jan Fox, Barry Brown and Bill Garbett. Voting against was Wanda Doyle. Motion to deny passed 5-1. Variance — accessory structure at existing single-family residence — 61 Solomon Ave.; PIN 4-0020-04-003; Zone R-1; Michael Lucas, petitioner. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating that this request was before them previously and the vote was to continue until measurements could be provided. Mayor Buelterman asked Ms. Otto the determination of the Planning Commission. Ms. Otto stated the vote was unanimous to deny. She further explained that Mr. Lucas came to the office to clarify the measurements of the proposed accessory structure. He indicated it would be 5' from the rear property line to the post that will hold the roof and 3' from the side fence that will hold up the roof as well. Mr. Garbett clarified that nothing has changed from the previous application as the petitioner has not met the setback requirements. Ms. Otto confirmed and clarified if this was an at-grade deck patio there is no setback requirements but once a roof is built, it is considered an accessory structure. Mr. Groover asked what the setback is for the roof off the property line. Ms. Otto stated that off the side property line according to the drawing provided by Mr. Lucas, it is 3' from the post to the fence. She further explained that Mr. Lucas could have up to a 2' roof overhang that is allowed. Mr. Groover then asked Ms. Otto: according to the ordinance, what would the distant be of the roof from the adjacent property. Ms. Otto stated the roof will need to be 5' from either property line. Mr. Wolff asked Ms. Otto if this deck was put into a different category in terms of footing due to the addition of a roof. Ms. Otto stated that staff has not done an inspection as a permit has not been issued due to the requirement of a variance. Mr. Wolff asked if this request were to be approved, would the petitioner need to set the posts in footings and strap them according to Code. Ms. Otto confirmed. Mr. Lucas approached mayor and council and stated that he is not asking for anything more than the adjacent property owner has done as he has a roof two (2) feet off the property line. Mr. Garbett asked Mr. Lucas if there is a hardship involved that would prohibit him from building this according to the Code. Mr. Lucas stated the hardship would be the money he has already invested in the materials. A discussion was held regarding the setback requirements and the potential roof overhand. Mayor Buelterman asked Ms. Otto if there were a limit as to the length of the overhang. Ms. Otto stated no. Mr. Barry offered solutions to the questions as hand. He suggested that Mr. Lucas leave the vertical posts as shown on the drawing and the roof set in 5' and there would be a 2' overhang and the posts could be used for lattice. Ms. Otto responded that if mayor and council approve the variance, it might be difficult, if in the future, if Mr. Lucas erected a wall between the posts as it would be a violation of the Code. Mayor Buelterman stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Lucas is getting a 2' variance on one side, if approved by mayor and council. Ms. Otto confirmed. Mr. Wolff asked Ms. Otto if staff has confirmed the measurements as shown on the drawing. Ms. Otto stated no. Bill Garbett made a motion to deny. Paul Wolff seconded. Voting in favor were Paul Wolff, Jan Fox, Wanda Doyle and Bill Garbett. Voting against were Tom Groover and Barry Brown. Motion to deny passed 4-2. Text Amendments • Article 9, Section 9-050, Technical Codes Adopted. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating the policy of the City has been a requirement for footings that are 36"x36"x36" with 20" of concrete to include reinforcing steel. The source of the standard was developed from a memorandum from Chatham County in 2007. Staff is requesting this be put in ordinance form rather than policy. Staff has been working with the Department of Community Affairs to communicate to them any variations from the International Codes such as Tybee Island's requirement for only copper wiring and single family homes to have two mean of egresses. What is before mayor and council is an ordinance that would require more substantial footing than required by the Code. The Standards that are used are an adaptation from the SST99 which is specific to hurricane construction. She further explained that the tables only include 90, 100 and 110 mph wind zones but does not include 130 mph wind zone that Tybee Island is nor does it include the 120 mph wind zone that the balance of Chatham County is considered. By adopting this ordinance it formalizes what staff has been doing. Ms. Otto stated that Tybee Island's soil is sandy and loose and difficult without going deeper to get compacted soil that is needed for a footing. She explained that Chatham County is using a 24"x24"x24" in their 120 mph wind zone with 24" of concrete. Mr. Wolff is supportive of this ordinance and stated that in Buford County their Code states the footings are 4'x4'x1' deep with solid reinforced concrete but they are required to have 1' square concrete beams reinforced connecting those footings. In this way the footings do not collapse only move a bit with surges. Mayor Buelterman asked Mr. Brown his interpretation regarding the proposed ordinance. He concurred and indicated that South Carolina's rules on FEMA are more restrictive than Georgia. Paul Wolff made a motion to approve. Tom Groover seconded. Vote was unanimous. • Article 3, Section 3-080, Off-street Parking Requirements. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating the Planning Commission approved the proposed ordinance unanimously. She further explained that the table as shown in the proposed ordinance which describes the various angles for parking spaces would be added to Section 3-080(E). The intent of this ordinance is make people aware, when drawing parking plans, a angled parking space requires a wider curb than 9' as the 9' is measured at the angle but when you go to the curb it is measured on the straight line. Ms. Otto thanked Mr. Garbett for bringing the diagram to the Planning Commission as it will be a helpful tool in the ordinance to guide those that are designing parking lots. Paul Wolff made a motion to approve. Tom Groover seconded. Vote was unanimous. • Article 2, Definitions. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating staff is struggling with the definition of a kitchen primarily related to the water/sewer schedule. She further explained that there are different rates for those who have kitchens and those who do not. Planning Commission considered this at their April meeting and voted 4-0 for a blend of the three options that are in the packet. Ms. Otto then explained the three options. Option one and two were taken from the Planner's Dictionary which is published by the American Planning Association. Option three came from the Savannah/Chatham Unified Code which has not been adopted. It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to blend option three with language that was taken from option one. Mayor Buelterman asked Ms. Otto if there is a microwave, it is considered a kitchen. Ms. Otto confirmed. Mr. Wolff would recommend the wording of the Planning Commission by striking the word microwave as range top and/or oven would constitute a kitchen. Mr. Groover then asked if the area is lacking the utility connection suitable for servicing a range or oven does that constitute a kitchen. Ms. Otto replied if there is a microwave, sink, and refrigerator, yes. Mayor Buelterman recommended the word microwave be taken out and change the last sentence to state "if any of the above are present, this area shall be considered a kitchen". Mr. Branch stated that his interruption of the proposed ordinance is the last "or utility connections" modifies everything to where it means a kitchen means any area used for preparation of food which contains (1) sink; (2) refrigerator; (3) stove or range top; and (4) oven or microwave or utility connection. He further recommended the last "or" in the sentence needs to be an "and". Mr. Wolff recommended the language should read: "Kitchen means an area used for preparation of food, which contains a sink, refrigerator, stove or range top, oven, or utility connections suitable for servicing a range or oven and if all the above components are present, the area shall be considered a kitchen". Tom Reichfort approached mayor and council and suggested the requirement should be numbered in that way it would be clearer. Mr. Branch agreed. He further recommended mayor and council not amend the Code to add "kitchen". He clarified that "kitchen" is in the Code but not as a definition. Mayor Buelterman asked staff to review Mr. Branch's assertion and bring back to mayor and council as a future council meeting. Paul Wolff made a motion to continue until the city council meeting on May 23, 2013. Bill Garbett seconded. Vote was unanimous. Short Term Work Program. Ms. Otto approached mayor and council stating this is a Resolution that will need to be adopted to show changes in the Short Term Work Program. Those changes which have been incorporated are the addition of the construction of the Public Safety Building and funding shift regarding SPLOST monies. Paul Wolff made a motion to approve. Jan Fox seconded. Vote was unanimous. Council, Officials and City Attorney Considerations and Comments WastePro. Mr. Brown would like the residents to be reminded that there are no additional charges for the extra pickup day. Mayor Buelterman asked Ms. Schleicher to explain the cost of living increase. Ms. Schleicher responded it would start immediately and is part of the contract. The increase will reflect on the upcoming bill to the City and she will bring recommendations from staff at the May 23, 2013 city council meeting on how to bill the residents. She further explained that mayor and council will need to determine the services that WastePro will provide to the City, i.e., one a week pickup, twice a week pickup and side door pickup. Mayor Buelterman confirmed the City will be billed per the contract 1.7% and determine how to pass along to the consumer. Ms. Schleicher stated that it is actually 1.6% and before the monthly charge for garbage collection was $12.03 and it has increased to $12.22. The recycling has increased from $3.02 to $3.07. She would recommend making all changes to the contract at one time. Ms. Schleicher will bring a chart to mayor and council with all available options. Mr. Brown asked Ms. Schleicher if side door pickup was rejected by the residents with the recent survey. Ms. Schleicher confirmed and explained that the survey is available online as well as hard copy for those who do not have computer access. Mr. Brown stated for those who would like side door pickup, they can contact WastePro directly and set this up. Ms. Schleicher agreed and explained side door pick up is $15.00 monthly for both garbage and recycling. Public Safety Building. Ms. Doyle explained that there are a few items that need to be addressed prior to moving forward with the design phase. The sally port was an addendum item and after discussion with the Public Safety Committee it is their recommendation it should be part of the first phase due to the design. It will not be enclosed but rather fenced in with a gate. Mr. Poticny, Greenline Architecture, approached mayor and council to address any questions they might have. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Poticny if the sally port would be a breezeway with a gate around it. He confirmed as it is basically an enclosed carport. Ms. Doyle stated the next item was the fire bay as this is also an addendum item. She explained that if the use would be just for a fire truck and recommends it not be an addendum item. Mr. Poticny explained that he spoke to Chief Sasser and he recommended the area not be used as a fire bay. Mayor Buelterman stated it was his understanding that the fire bay not be included in the plan. Ms. Doyle explained that the fire bay was included in the RFP as an addendum and there are questions if it needs to be included in the design. A discussion ensued regarding the costs of the fire bay which would include water, sewer, heating and air conditioning, sleeping quarters and office space. Mayor Buelterman stated that the current location of the fire station is convenient and centralized and does not feel having the fire bay included at the new public safety would be money well spent. Mr. Brown expressed his concerns as to future use of the fire bay if the current fire station were destroyed. Mr. Poticny explained that the best thing for the building is to have a free standing garage which would make ingress and egress for vehicles easier and if mayor and council would like to have this area as an add alternate item, it makes it a clean cut as opposed to building it as part of the main building. He would further recommend the space be used for a truck bay or for storage. Ms. Doyle explained that this is an addendum item as part of the design, even if it were built the way it was originally designed, it is either built or may be added to the design at a later date. Ms. Fox stated it would be her preference to put the money allocated for the fire bay into the current fire station. Mayor Buelterman concurred. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Poticny if the fire bay was included in the original scope of work. He confirmed. Mr. Brown then asked if the fire bay was not done, how that would reflect in the cost per square foot of the building. Mr. Poticny stated that he would use that effort in some other part of the building such as the court room. Mr. Groover asked if the footprint of the fire bay could remain on the original design so in the future other council members would know what was supposed to be in that space. Mr. Poticny stated yes and it is their desire to leave this evening with a clear cut understanding of what mayor and council would like so they begin the design phase. Mr. Branch recommended that mayor and council take a vote to give the architect direction on the written program i.e., which components to the building there will be, administrative, court house, etc. Mayor Buelterman agreed. Ms. Doyle stated there is another item that she would like clarification on and that would be having one floor as opposed to two. She further stated that Chief Bryson feels the one floor is sufficient and there could be expansion in the attic area if needed. Mayor Buelterman agrees and feels the costs should be kept down. Mr. Poticny explained that space can be captured within the attic space. Mr. Brown would like the subflooring installed in the attic area and the design could include louvered shutters which would cover the rough opening for windows. Ms. Doyle agrees with Mr. Brown and would like to move forward with that suggestion. She then moved on to address the shooting aisle. Mr. Roberts approached mayor and council stating that he had a discussion with Chief Bryson to his needs regarding a shooting aisle. This would increase the cost of the building as well even though it is a small square foot area. Mr. Groover asked if office space could be included for TEMA and administrative offices for the fire department. He discussed how the current facilities are not cost effective for heating and cooling and he feels they would be better served if their offices were moved to the new facility. Mr. Roberts stated they are working on positions that currently exist and additional space is in the design for additional personnel but have not left offices to be used for miscellaneous functions. If this was added, it would create additional square footage. Ms. Doyle feels this could be done at a later time. Mayor Buelterman stated that there are four issues at hand: (1) sally port; (2) fire bay; (3) one floor as opposed to two floors and (4) shooting aisle. Wanda Doyle made a motion to approve the programming submittal from Greenline to include the sally port not as an addendum (not as a bid alternate); to include a footprint for the fire bay; second floor/attic for expansion and growth; and shooting aisle to delay until further information is received. Barry Brown seconded. Vote was unanimous. Tommy Branch stated he wanted to point out for the record this evening that Billy Navon's site plan was denied because the property abutted residential and the site plan did not meet the basic requirements of 3-160(C)(1), so that the City's action was taken under special review on recommendation of the planning commission. Paul Wolff made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss litigation and personnel. Tom Groover seconded. Vote was unanimous Paul Wolff made a motion to return to regular session. Wanda Doyle seconded. Vote was unanimous. Tom Groover made a motion to adjourn. Bill Garbett seconded. Vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:05PM.