Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20060418_PCMinutes 1 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2006 – 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos called the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting to order. Other members present were: Barry Brown, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Susan Hill, Honor Hutton, Gene Kindrick, Rachel Perkins, and Chuck Powell. Building and Zoning staff present: Dee Anderson and Dianne Otto. A motion to approve the Minutes from the February 21, 2006 Meeting was made by Susan Hill. Gene Kindrick seconded. The vote was unanimous. A motion to approve the Minutes from the March 13, 2006 Agenda Meeting was made by Kindrick. Sandy Chandler seconded. The vote was unanimous. A motion to approve the Minutes from the March 21, 2006 Meeting was made by Kindrick. Hill seconded. The vote was unanimous. Gail Lamb presented a Zoning Variance petition for 9 Lovell Avenue, PIN 4-0003-17-005, Zone R-1-B. Lamb said she was in to salvaging old places and this time she was trying to put two together and make it work. She said she does not own 9 Lovell Avenue, she has a contract on it; Jane Coslick, the owner, has given Lamb permission to ask for the Variance. She said the cottage that sets there does not need a Variance to be raised up, and Coslick does not want to sell it to anybody that will not keep it, so the probability of it being raised was high. She said the house was only 18 feet wide and in the front it was only 9 feet where it juts out. She said she was asking to square off across the front. She said it was not an entry porch on the left; it would be a porch with a low railing so it would not really obstruct any more view than if it was raised in place. She said on the other side it would be squared off and moved over so the 25-foot wide portion sits in the middle of the setbacks. She said the other side would be a little wider so it would be wide enough to do a screened porch. She said the lot was 45-feet wide. Lamb said the hardship was that there was no way to double-park under that portion the way you have to support it; it needs to be 25-feet wide to be able to fit two parking places under it after it is raised up. She said that was the first part. She said this was a 100 year old cottage and she appreciated that Coslick has gone through as much as she has to be sure that it was saved. Lamb said the second part: the portion in the back where the drawing says 25 by 43 feet was what can be added on to that house and fit within the setbacks. She said the old hospital building from Fort Screven is 25-feet and 6-inches wide, so she moved a 43-foot portion of that building to her lot on Miller until she had time to get this Variance and everything worked out. She said she can use it another way if this does not work out; she is not going to leave it in the position where it is. Lamb said that it would require a 3-inch Variance on each side at the 9 Lovell Avenue site. She said when she came to the Agenda Meeting the Planning Commission asked for a side elevation. She said she talked with Braswell, the house mover, and if he is able to hook these two pieces together raise it up two floors the total height would be 32 feet and 6 inches. She said if that is not feasible then it will just be one floor tall above the parking and it would be 24 feet and 6 inches, so there was no way she would need any height Variance for this. Chairperson Tsoulos called for questions from the Planning Commission. Rachel Perkins asked about the potential of a second floor. Lamb said if the two can be hooked together and raised up there would be an 8-foot building space between the two. Garbett asked Lamb to explain that again. Lamb said when the addition is put behind and the front cottage is hooked on to it, if Braswell can connect them in a way that is stable, Braswell can raise them up in a way that a floor can be built above the parking and this will be the second floor. Garbett asked if this was totally new construction. Lamb said the only new construction would be between the parking level and the second floor. Chandler asked if Lamb had said she did not own the property. Lamb said Coslick gave permission to ask for the Variance and she has a contract on it. Chandler asked how she intended to get the building behind the little house. Lamb said Braswell will have to raise the house up and move it out, and then back the other one in – do it all in one day. Chandler said it was a very small area. Lamb said Braswell has looked at it and measured it. Barry Brown asked about the steps on the side of the house. Lamb said they are underneath the house, not on the side. Brown asked what part of this project was going to look like a cottage anymore. Lamb said she thought it would still look like a cottage because that is still going to be the front. She said what was going to be under it was probably a screened porch. Brown said his understanding of a cottage at the beach is normally something 3 or 4 feet off the ground, not 8 feet off the ground. Lamb said she agreed. Brown asked if it would be a one-story or a two-story add in the back. Lamb said it would be a two-story if it can be raised in one piece. She said she can leave the cottage on the first floor and build a second floor – all the options are still open 2 and that has been considered too. She said she was not starting construction until September because Coslick has asked for the summer without any construction going on so Lamb has time to make those decisions. Lamb said the important part is being able to square it off so it is 25 feet wide so she has the parking underneath. She said the rest she could work within the rules. She said she could leave the cottage on the first floor and build above it in the back. Brown said it was his understanding that once you elevate these buildings or go outside the existing footprint you lose all the grandfathering part of it, and she was going outside the original footprint by adding the decks on it. Lamb said that was why she had to ask for the Variance. She said it could be raised up right where it was without the Variance. Dee Anderson said that was correct. Chuck Powell said the problem he was having was this was the third plan they had seen in less than a month and even tonight he was really confused and if they approved, he did not know really what they were approving. He said he understood this was a creative process, and he was wondering if they could have a firm plan as to what they are being asked to approve. He said all of the drawings are just sketches, not firm plans. Lamb said the portion she needs the Variance for is the porches and shifting it. She said the back portion is 3-inches wider on each side so she needs a second Variance there. She said this has been quite a challenge and it has been a work in progress. She said actually she is really only asking for two Variances; everything else fits with what is allowable. Tsoulos asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition. Patricia Greenway of 11 Lovell Avenue said she was concerned about the porch coming all the way out to the front of the property. Tsoulos said Lamb will be squaring off the house. Lamb said all she was asking was to add the porches so the building would be 25 feet wide so two cars can park under it and it fits within the setbacks on the lot. Lamb said if it will help to bring better drawings she can come back again since Coslick has asked that construction be held off until September. Hill asked if site plans and drainage would be seen by the Planning Commission. Dee Anderson said no, it would be done at the staff level when she comes to get her permits. Garbett said he does not have a clear picture of what they are approving. Lamb said she would rather get him a clearer picture than have him turn it down. Tsoulos asked Anderson if they approve the Variance for the front and the 3-inches in the rear, and if she has to make changes during the process, as long as the Variance is not changing, would any changes be handled at the staff level. Anderson said as long as she does not vary from anything that was granted as far as setbacks go. Tsoulos asked if Lamb changed the design to make it work but not the Variance would it be okay. Anderson said it would be handled at staff level. Chandler said he had serious concerns about the engineering of this project. Chandler said it would be a real disaster for them to go ahead and approve this, and the neighbors may not be aware of the pandemonium that could result if it was not done right. He said they need more information about the engineering of this project: that it is feasible. He said the hospital building has to be 50 or 60 years old. He said there were a lot of “ifs” and it could adversely impact the neighbors in ways they do not even realize. He said he would like some better assurances about how this will be done and what the finished project was going to look like. Lamb said she will get more information from Braswell and have Mr. Millikan, the engineer, look at this. She said she is glad to table this and bring back more information so that all of them feel comfortable with it. Chandler said he would certainly feel more comfortable with that. Hill said since Lamb does have some time she would like to make a motion to table this, and she would like to see some engineering information. She said she thought Lamb needed to have clear concise requests for the Variances. Lamb said there are really only two Variance requests: one was to square off the front and shift it 3-1/2-feet, and the second was the 3-inches in the back. Hill said it was confusing for her. Tsoulos asked Hill to restate the motion. Hill motioned for additional information, including engineering provided by the mover, and clear and concise Variance requests. Chuck Powell seconded the motion. Powell told Lamb it would help them to see a plan for the entire project at one time; one plan to complete the whole project. Hill said she has seen Lamb’s work, and if this looks like them, it will be great. Perkins agreed with Hill but said she would not approve this project. She said this is a small lot and that is a massive structure. She read some Code of Ordinances. Perkins said Planning Commission turned down a new building for some setbacks for somebody that had a good reason too, and she would be inclined to not support the “Table” vote. Lamb said no Variance was required to just raise them up so there would be one massive piece on that lot. Perkins said she needs to review the Code more because to her moving the building changes things, and Lamb has to move the building out to get the other in. Brown said he might agree with Perkins, and this might fall under the 50% rule. He said adding that building on the back will not eliminate Lamb from having to meet the setbacks. Lamb asked Anderson. Anderson said when Lamb first started talking about this he did not realize Lamb was moving the building out to move the new one in. He said he thought Lamb could fit it in without moving it. He said you can lift an existing structure in the same setbacks. He 3 said she could lift it and do an addition on the back but if she moves it out of that footprint she would need a Variance to put it back. Anderson said Lamb is only a foot off the property line. Brown said Lamb would have to meet current setbacks. Lamb said the 50% rule does not apply because she is elevating it enough and not leaving it on the ground. Brown said Tybee has its own 50% rule. Anderson said there are two 50% rules: the FEMA 50% rule and the Building Code 50% rule which says if you do more than 50% of the value of the structure in improvements than the whole structure has to brought up to the current Code. He said he was not sure if this would apply or not. Lamb said she understood that. Tsoulos said the motion was to have Lamb come back with additional information, to include on the drawings all of the measurements in terms of the Variance, to provide engineering, and information from the mover. Brown asked if that meant professional drawings. Hill said no, it does not have to be professional drawings; we do not want to make it a hardship. Garbett said they should represent as-built or as- planned. Perkins said if it was possible to move a smaller section of the bigger building and allow for more of a setback that might be something to look at. Voting in favor of the motion to table: Chandler, Hill, Honor Hutton, Gene Kindrick, Garbett, and Powell. Voting in opposition to the motion to table were Brown and Perkins. Lisa Harper presented for Jimmy Harper a Zoning Variance petition for 1707 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0009- 02-003, Zone C-1. Harper gave photographs to the Planning Commissioners for them to pass around. She said from the center of the road to the front of the house was 70 feet and from the center of the road to the new proposed steps would be 57 feet. She said from the center of the road to the existing steps was 53 feet. She said the house to the left had been added on to by a previous owner. She said it was not very fun not having a porch. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos called for questions from the Planning Commission. Powell said he thought they had asked at the Agenda Meeting for the houses along the street. Harper said she did their block. Powell asked if her house was further back than all of the other houses. Harper said the Hunter House was probably the same as theirs. Garbett said there was one that was quite a bit closer and the houses across the street are within 5 feet of the property line also. Harper said they would still have a good bit of parking. Brown said the 200-foot rule does not apply in C-1. Anderson said that was correct. Brown said it might help to have a survey done right and left because the 200-foot rule could be used in C-1 for residential. He said he would be curious to know exactly how far the other houses do sit out. Harper said she had it measured, and indicated the photographs that were being passed. Brown said he had not seen them yet. Tsoulos asked if the 200-foot rule does not apply in C-1. Anderson said that was correct. Rachel Perkins said when she sited the house it seemed to be in line with the one on either side of it, and any extension beyond that would be beyond what is on either side, and the 200-foot rule would not apply because it would not help her case in this scenario. Brown said it was not going to stick out as far as the existing steps and he has seen Variances before on projects like this that do not exceed the setback or do not set out any further than what is existing. Brown said as far as the center of the road, he did know where Harper was going with that because you have got an 80-foot right-of-way. Harper said the gentleman that was in there told them to measure from the center of the road so that was what they did, and they just want a porch. She said it will make the whole house look better. She said the house is pretty ugly the way it is; they have not painted it or anything because they do not want to do anything until they see if they can get the porch on it. Harper said they are going to fix it up really nice because they are going to live there. She said they are moving down here once they get it all done. Tsoulos asked if anyone in the audience that would like to speak. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Brown motioned to approve. Gene Kindrick seconded. Perkins said a set of steps going down was a lot less than a railed deck or porch, and she did not have a problem with it coming out as far as the existing deck. Harper said they were going to do that but they had been told they did not need to come out that far and that was why they did the side steps. Harper said it would be a lot prettier to come out. Perkins said she would say to still use the side steps but do a narrower porch so you are not setting the precedent of each one trying to go out like this. Harper said the house to the left has a little fence right on the property line and the house on the right has an arbor that was way beyond. She said it was only 10-feet. She said they had the old porch there and they want to go back to that look. Perkins asked if they had thought about opening the front back up to be a porch. Harper said they could have but she has already redone the whole inside of the house. She said they do not have to go10-feet, but she did not think they could go any narrower and be able to enjoy it. She said they will do whatever; they want to make everybody happy, and they would like to make it look a whole lot better than it does. Chandler said the existing porch comes within 2 feet of where she intends to go with it. He asked if Harper would be willing to put the steps under the porch. 4 Harper said sure. She said she has a shower under there but she can do away with it. Tsoulos said they have a motion. Brown said he would amend his motion: motion to approve provided the steps go underneath the new porch. Kindrick seconded. Harper said the reason they did it this way was they want it to look like the original house did at one time. She said if they go underneath it will take away their storage. She said they have a storage building in the back that is temporary while they do this, and she would like to be able to use underneath for storage because there is not a lot of storage in the home. Tsoulos said there is a motion to approve provided the steps are moved to beneath the porch. Harper asked if she needed to have new plans. Anderson said he would suggest new drawings before she goes to City Council. The vote to approve was 7-1 with Perkins opposed. Tsoulos told Harper she would go before City Council May 11th. The next item on the Agenda was a Zoning Variance petition for 911 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0006-07-003, Zone R-2, for the Trustees for Trinity Methodist Church. John Mendrala of Cogdell and Mendrala Architects, PC, presented. He said at the Agenda Meeting they were requested to have a further explanation of the hardship involved. Mendrala distributed some handouts. He said essentially the hardship was they are trying to keep as much open greenspace while still accommodating the needs of the church. He said they are growing and have increased their membership from 60 to 130 in the last three years. He said they can add more services versus more space. He said where they are really short is the social hall space. Mendrala said they can do this project, accommodate their needs, without asking for a Variance, however, in the preliminary studies they can accommodate the expanded social hall and relocating some of the small community spaces. He said in order to do that within the setbacks they can wrap the entire existing social hall and classroom spaces, however they lose not only their rear yard but a good portion of the side yard and they come very close to eliminating a 32-inch oak tree, which is the area where the nursery school has outside play. He said the church has asked Cogdell and Mendrala to look at alternatives to that. He said with an encroachment they can accommodate all their functions and keep the Tenth Street corridor as open greenspace. He said as a planning guideline that seemed to make a whole lot of sense. He said the adjacent properties are all further out, closer to the street. He said he did not think it would impact the streetscape all that much. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos called for questions. Rachel Perkins said the way she saw the configuration it would be difficult to get the van in and out of there. She asked if the metal thing overhanging the public property would be removed. Mendrala said that had not been completely decided but it had been talked about. He said it was up to the Building Committee. He said there had been some discussion about an outside shower but they were not quite ready to give it up. Perkins asked if they were not quite ready to give up that part of the public section. Mendrala said they were just in the initial stages and they could not go further until they see how the City feels about this Variance. Sandy Chandler asked if that was their parking lot. Mendrala said it was a parking area but it was not real functional. Chandler asked if that was where the congregation parks. Mendrala said no, they generally park on the street on the Tenth Street side. He said there are other areas, and it was a bit narrow to put cars parking perpendicular to the street because the backup space is not really adequate. Barry Brown asked if it was possible to at the maximum come out about 4 or 4-½ feet to be in line with Bob Thompson’s house next door. Mendrala said it was possible; they do not have a survey of the adjacent properties so he does not know how far they are. Brown said if they come out 6 feet they will be out farther. Mendrala said what they need is enough space to get egress out of the social hall. He said they need a 3-foot door plus the brick to wrap the door frame. Brown asked if it was possible. Mendrala asked 4.4-feet. Brown asked if they could recess the social hall to accommodate it. Chuck Powell asked if it was possible that the egress out of the end with the stairs could face Lovell. Mendrala said they would lose 40 by 7 feet which is 250 square feet in a social hall that is cramped as it is. Garbett asked if it was possible to not request any Variances and keep the oak tree. Mendrala said they are looking down the road: does the church do a certain addition now and then have to come back and do an addition later. He said yes, they can do a smaller addition now. Mendrala said that by adding church services they can handle more people however, when all the members of the church meet they need a bigger space to sit at tables. He said if additional space was ever needed in the sanctuary, they could increase seating in the church without asking for another addition that is going to encroach into the greenspace. He said anything in the front is going to impact the tree roots. He said it takes 100 years to grow an oak tree and takes 60 years to kill it. He said that would not be the preference. He said their next step would be to tear down the church and do a new church which would fill that entire section. He said having the option of having incremental growth gives them more flexibility and that was the whole point. Honor Hutton asked why they could not keep the social hall in its existing position and move the 5 handicap ramp to the Tenth Street side. Mendrala looked at the plan with Hutton. Mendrala said the space was set by eight people sitting at round tables. Powell asked if they are being asked to believe that the people would cut down that tree. Mendrala said it would be a very difficult decision. Tsoulos asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition. Larry Nesbitt said he is a member of the church and the parking spaces lost at the rear would be a net of three spaces. He said part of what they are trying to do is not just for them but for the community. He said they host lunches, men’s prayer breakfast, and when they have some functions they fill up their current fellowship hall and people are sitting in classrooms and they can not all be together. He said they have Alcoholics Anonymous there and this would give them more anonymity coming in from a rear area. Nesbitt said they do not want to disturb the greenspace. He said they do not want the steps to go straight out. He said he did not know if 4 feet would be wide enough. Nesbitt said they want to make sure that the handicapped have plenty of room to get up the ramp and into the doors and if they move it back 4 feet he did not know if walkers and wheelchairs could get up the ramp to get into the fellowship hall. He said they have grown and been very successful. He said they did not want to disturb any of the greenspace, especially on Tenth Street. He said this is the proper way they can grow and it keeps them from having to use the space. He said they are going to start instituting two services. Hale Bishop, pastor of the Methodist church, said there are 150 other ways they can do it. He said they have looked at knocking out all the walls throughout the church. He said they looked at adding on a smaller section out to the end and moving all the classrooms back but then they can not move. He said some wanted to look at going all the way to the setbacks. He said there is a cross design in glass block. He said they are doing everything they can to work within the bounds. Bishop said they are handicap accessible but you have to go through the sanctuary. He said he would love to see it go all the way to the property line, but as they have drawn it they get as much square footage as they can and offer a beautiful building. Bishop said after this the building would be in four phases. He said about 15 years ago they added the other classrooms. He said as this comes about it looks like a structure that was designed and put on the land just like that. He said windows at the top provide natural lighting inside. He said they are doing everything they can to be environmentally friendly and an open place. He said the church is a community space. He said they are trying to stay within all the confines they can and all they are wanting is a little 8-feet by 40-feet, and they would appreciate the Planning Commission’s help getting that done. Leann Miller of 1502 Second Avenue said she is a member of the church and she thinks this is going to be a wonderful thing for the community and for the church because when they have Fifth Sunday they are just packed, and she thinks they need the footage. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing. Brown motioned for surveyor Bert Barrett to do more surveying north of the property and for this addition to go no further than the property north of this toward Lovell Avenue and that way it will be somewhat in line with everything north of it. Perkins seconded. Tsoulos said the motion was to survey and the building stick out no further than the average of the properties to the north. Perkins asked if Brown would amend the motion to include removal of the metal shed that encroaches on the public property. She said it is very intrusive. Anderson asked if they were tabling or sending it to Council with the conditions. Brown said to Council, and he would amend the motion. Tsoulos said we have a motion to survey the property to the north and have the building encroach no further than the average of the properties to the north, and move the metal carport off public property. Powell asked if his motion was to approve if everything else is done. Brown said yes. Hill said it is unfortunate that the metal shed does encroach on the property line. She said she did not want the average of the north properties to be a hardship. Brown said they will know that by the time they get to Council. Bill Garbett said he would prefer to see it tabled until they got that information. He said it is intruding into the setback: 4-feet off the property line. He said it is as attractive a wall as a wall can be, but it really intrudes on the street. Garbett said he would like to know what that line is of the adjacent properties. Brown said they can not go any further than what is next door. Nesbitt asked how many properties they wanted surveyed. Brown said the block north of the church which includes the hotel. Nesbitt said okay. Tsoulos said the survey will be of the block north of the church. Voting in favor of the motion to approve with conditions: Brown, Gene Kindrick, Perkins, and Powell. Voting in opposition to the motion to approve with conditions: Chandler, Garbett, Hill, and Hutton. Chairperson Tsoulos voted in opposition to the motion; the motion to approve with conditions failed. Chandler motioned to approve. Brown seconded. Perkins said she would only approve conditional that the metal shed comes off the public property. Chandler amended the motion with the condition that the metal shed is moved to the property line. Brown seconded the amended motion. Voting in favor of the motion to approve with condition: Brown, Chandler, Hill, Kindrick, Perkins, and Powell. Voting in opposition to the motion to approve with condition were Garbett and Hutton. Tsoulos told Mendrala he would appear before City Council on May the 11th. 6 Charles & Sandra Brewer presented a Zoning Variance petition for 156 South Campbell Street, PIN 4- 0016-02-018, Zone R-2. Charles Brewer apologized for not being at the Agenda Meeting due to a vacation. He explained a color-coded sketch. He said the red border was the existing concrete patio and they wanted to frame over that to expand a den and bedroom. He said that was the first of the requests. He said it sets about 2½- feet off the edge of the property. He said he believed the hardship was that when this property was subdivided some time back there was not allowance made to provide a 10-foot setback but they would like to expand their home over that existing concrete, and he hoped that would be grandfathered in. He said, secondly, they would like to add a deck onto the back that would abut against the expanded area shown in red. He said the green line was the DNR delineation line. A 25-foot setback from the green DNR line was shown in yellow. Charles Brewer said the deck he is proposing to build follows sort of the flow of the DNR area of delineation. He said at certain areas the blue deck line overhangs into the 25-foot area. He said there is a severe slope on the back of the property that drops down about 12 feet to a grass area. He said they are building the deck to stay within the confines of the slope. He said the deck would cantilever over that slope. Sandra Brewer said there would not be any footings within the 25-foot area. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos called for questions. Sandy Chandler asked how far at the farthest point would the deck extend over the 25-foot setback line. Charles Brewer said the drawing was scaled 1 inch to 20 feet, so the overhang was approximately ¼ of an inch so that was 5 to 6 feet. Chandler asked about the little dots along the yellow line. Charles Brewer said those were layout marks that he used. He said he planned to place the pilings one foot on the outside of the delineation line and they would be about 12 feet apart. Susan Hill asked for clarification on the outside of the delineation line. Charles Brewer said yes, not inside, outside, away from the marsh. Brown asked how this related to the bulkhead. Charles Brewer said the DNR delineation line was where the grass stops. Brown said there were crossties. Charles Brewer said that was a different place. He said that was at the very south end. He said there is an old planter that extends into the 25-foot delineation area and it is an existing structure. Sandra Brewer said they are going to straighten it out and remove it. Brown asked if this would stick out as far out as Cam Jackson’s. Charles Brewer said it would be about equal as far as relevancy to the marsh. Chuck Powell asked if there was marsh up to the yellow line. Charles Brewer said no, the marsh stops at the DNR green line. Brown asked if they mowed that. Charles Brewer said yes. Gene Kindrick asked if they were getting as far back as the oak trees. Charles Brewer said he would be on the back side of the oak tree, away from the marsh. He said there are a couple of small palm trees he planned to dig up and move around to the front of the property. Rachel Perkins asked if this was their home. The Brewers replied yes. Perkins said there was a “for sale” and a rental sign. Charles Brewer said “Sandy’s by the Shore” is their company and they have a lot of folks that will come to Tybee to come check in and they come to their home so they put the sign up to let them know that is the right place. Charles Brewer said he has considered selling the property but right now he thinks he wants to go ahead and stay there. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to this. Charles Brewer said they did deliver a letter from their neighbor, Cam Jackson, in favor of what they are doing. Perkins said the letter was confusing because it did not describe what they were doing. Sandra Brewer said they did it at the eleventh hour. Tsoulos closed the Public Hearing. Kindrick motioned to approve. Garbett seconded. Powell asked if they would be willing to have this approved and not build beyond the yellow line that encroaches into the 25-foot DNR line next to the marsh. Sandra Brewer asked Powell if he meant do not cantilever over it. Powell said no; do not build into that area at all. Charles Brewer said he would prefer to have it approved as shown with a slight cantilever, mainly because it is being cantilevered over a very severe slope that is unmowable and it is a bug infestation area and he would like to just go right over it. He said his original request would be as shown. Susan Hill said unfortunately people continue to want to encroach in the 25-foot marsh line and they have sort of set a precedent to try to keep people out of that and actually have turned folks down in the last 3 or 4 meetings that wanted to do exactly what the Brewers want to do. She said she wished they would consider not crossing over the 25-foot line. Voting in favor of the motion to approve: Brown, Garbett, and Kindrick. Voting in opposition to the motion to approve: Chandler, Hill, Hutton, Perkins, and Powell. Tsoulos told the Brewers their petition had been denied by the Planning Commission but they had the right to continue on to City Council on May the 11th. The final agenda item was Site Plan Approval for a proposed maintenance shop at 1 Fifteenth Street, Tybrisa Beach Resort, PIN 4-0008-03-001G, Zone C-1. Tom Olson, architect with Kern-Coleman and Company, presented the petition. He said they completed the site engineering for a storage building to 7 be located on adjacent property. Susan Hill said at the Agenda Meeting they had asked for some additional information and they had just gotten a new plat. She asked Olson to go over the difference between the original design and the new one. Olson said he could not. He said he was not at the Agenda Meeting, and the man that was at the Agenda Meeting was out of town. He said he was told that the things they were to address were the parking layout and some of the landscape areas. Dee Anderson said the recommendations came from the City engineer to have the parking more defined and clarity on the height of the ramp. Sandy Chandler asked the height of the ramp at the top and how far above street level it was. Olson said the finished floor of the building was 14.05 and the top of the pavement at the bottom of the ramp being 12.25. He said in that distance it was not a steep ramp and it would keep drainage away from the building. Barry Brown said that was his concern: the height of the ramp where it crosses the property line and goes onto the right-of-way. Olson said about 2/3 of the ramp would be beyond the property line and 1/3 that within the property, and it was basically rising less than 2 feet: 16 inches roughly, from the road to the property line. Brown said he did not think the ramp should be any higher than the existing pavement beyond the property line. Rachel Perkins asked about symbols on the drawing. Olson said he believed that was a landscaped area, maybe a mulched area. Susan Hill asked if the elevation was 14 feet. She said she thought the building was on the ground. Brown said it would be about 2 feet above adjacent grades. Olson said it would be about a foot and a half above adjacent grades. Chuck Powell asked which side of the building was metal. Olson said the metal side was going to be the one towards the lane. Powell asked if it was possible to make it a textured side also. He said that side had the most exposure to the public. He said the side facing the condos was nice and pretty, and the one facing the alley was metal and ugly. Olson said he suspected the owner would finish it the way the Planning Commission would prefer. Powell said they have all been trying to look at C-1, especially around Tybrisa, City Council too, and trying to make the buildings that go in there more attractive then what has been going in there prior to this. Olson said the owner needs the building enough that he would probably work with the Planning Commission on what they desire. A PowerPoint presentation showed a number of photos from grade. Powell said it would be nice if it could be the same texture as the rest of the building and not just have one metal side. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos asked if anyone was there to speak in favor of or in opposition to this. She closed the Public Hearing. Powell motioned to approve on the condition that the metal side have the same texture as the other three sides. Perkins seconded. Tsoulos said Powell motioned to approve conditional that all four sides of the building have the same texture. Perkins said she appreciated the landscaping; it was a positive improvement to the area. Hill said they need Brown’s question answered of where the ramp meets the street. Brown said he would like that clarified. Brown asked if it was not stretching the limit of being an architectural review by making them put some kind of extra design in the building. Powell said he asked at the Agenda Meeting if they had the right to ask about the architectural look and the design, and they were told they could, and that was the only reason he added that. Powell said he was not trying to add expense to the project but he thinks they were all in agreement that they are trying to improve that area around Tybrisa Street visually. He said it seems the way they laid it out the people that own condos in Tybrisa will have a nice view of the building; the people that do not will have an ugly metal wall to look at. Brown said it could be interpreted of getting into architectural review. Olson said he could ask their civil engineers to look at the ramp and maybe not have as much slope until it gets through the gate. Brown said he would like the ramp, when it crosses the property line, to be at 12.25 or 12.00 so it is sitting on street level and not raised up for someone to trip over or run into. Tsoulos said we have a motion to approve conditional on non-metal siding on all four sides. Brown asked if Powell would amend his motion to address the ramp. Powell said that was fine. Hill said Council should have that information. Tsoulos said there is a request to amend the motion so that the elevation of the ramp is included so that City Council has that information before them. Brown said the ramp where it crosses the property line should be the same elevation as the finished grade. Gene Kindrick asked if the street was Atlantic. Brown said Atlantic Avenue. Powell said he did not have a problem with that. Tsoulos said the motion was to approve with the siding the same on all four sides and the petitioner would present City Council with elevation of the ramp, and Planning Commission requests that the ramp have the same elevation as the street. Brown said at the property line. Tsoulos said to the same elevation at the property line as the street. Perkins said she understood the goal but couldn’t it also be reached with a grassy berm. Brown said that would mean doing a berm and grassy ramp on City property. Perkins said she sees driveways all over City property; she never heard that to be a problem. Brown said he did not want to see the ramp sitting above the street. He said that is something City Council can address. The vote to approve with conditions was unanimous. Tsoulos told Olson he will go to City Council on May the 11th. 8 Gene Kindrick motioned for adjournment. Barry Brown seconded. The vote was unanimous.