Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070611_PC_agenda_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop Charlie Brewer Barry Brown, Chairperson Sandy Chandler Bill Garbett CITY ATTORNEY Susan Hill Edward M. Hughes John Major Chuck Powell, Vice Chairperson MINUTES Planning Commission Agenda Meeting June 11, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Barry Brown called the June 11, 2007 agenda meeting to order. Other Planning Commissioners present were Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Susan Hill, and John Major. Charlie Brewer and Chuck Powell were absent. Chair Barry Brown said that votes on the Minutes would be at the regular meeting on June 18, 2007. The first item was Special Review (Section 5-070) and Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for a Residential Bed and Breakfast [Section 3-060(A)] at 8 Moore Avenue, Zone R-1-B, PIN 4-0002-03-020. Representing the petitions was Paul Wolff. Chair Barry Brown asked about the number of bedrooms for guests. Wolff said there were two guest rooms and a double futon in the living room. Brown questioned if a living room was allowed as a guest room for a Bed and Breakfast. Wolff said the Code limits the number of occupants in a Bed and Breakfast to five guest rooms. He said he has never seen a B&B petition where the Planning Commission or Council has tried to specify how it was run. Brown asked if Wolff considered the great room a guest room. Wolff answered yes. He said he wanted to have a 6 person capacity whether or not that is considered a guest room. Brown told Wolff the Planning Commission would hear the petition on Monday, June 18. Kevin Carpenter represented a Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for 1605 Inlet Avenue, Zone C-1, PIN 4- 0008-17-001. The request was to add outdoor seating at a takeout restaurant. It was discussed that the location of the drainage retention area had changed. Bill Garbett requested that an explanation be given of why the drainage changed. He also said that an existing fence was not shown on the site plan. Chair Barry Brown verified with Carpenter that the front corner of the deck would be removed. Phil O’Dell, owner of the building, said the previous drainage plan reflected a concrete drive which was not included. He said the drainage was recalculated and moved to the side. O’Dell said the fenced area was so that Carpenter does not have people walking up from the street and using it. He said this could have been 9 condos. He said it is a very minimal restaurant in a park- like setting. The Planning Commission decided to put the item on the June 18 agenda. Brown asked Garbett if he was satisfied without putting the fence on the plan. Garbett said yes. He commented that when the original Site Plan was approved it specifically excluded tables. O’Dell said he did not remember the table issue. He said it specifically excluded a drive-thru. He talked about there being tables on the street on Sixteenth Street. Attorney Harold Yellin represented petitioner Samuel Meyer for a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from the Schedule of Development Regulations [Section 3-090(A)] for stairs in a front setback at 1811 Butler Avenue, Zone R-2, PIN 4-0009-08-004B. Chair Barry Brown said that the steps are partially in place. Chuck Bargeron said that was why a Stop Work Order was issued. Yellin said it would be easy to detach them prior to the Hearing. Bill Garbett asked if it was a condominium building. Yellin said it was town homes. He talked about a set of stairs that splits the property line. He said they want to separate the stairs. Garbett asked if the ownership was condominium. Yellin said it was similar; they each own their own unit and are entitled to common elements. He said now there is a common stairway. He explained that they would like to use the existing stairwell for access to one unit, and then have separate stairs for Meyer. The layout of the building was discussed. Demery Bishop asked if it was a solid building. Yellin said yes. Bishop asked if there were firewalls. Yellin did not know but said 2 he would find out. It was discussed whether the address was 1811 or 1813 Butler Avenue. Yellin said he would confirm the address that was given on the Variance application. He said he would communicate to Meyer that the stairs and posts need to be removed by Thursday, June 14. Libby Bacon asked when the structure was built. Yellin said he would find the original date of construction. Bacon asked if the existing stairs were original to the structure. Yellin said that was his understanding. He talked about it being originally built with common stairs and that each property owner would like to have their own set of stairs. Bacon asked if there was litigation. Yellin said no, it was mostly noise. Brown said it would be on the agenda on June 18 and the steps were to be removed by Thursday evening, June 14. Ralph Douglas Jones represented a Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for a commercial business at 1207 Highway 80, Zone C-2, PIN 4-0026-02-008. Bill Garbett said an accurate drawing was needed that showed the exact location of the building and the dimensions of the parking spaces and of the building. Chair Barry Brown discussed the parking plan which showed parking in Sundance Square and on Highway 80. Sandy Chandler asked about the location of the building. Brown talked about the location of the building on Lot 6. It was discussed that there was not an official survey of Lot 6. Bishop said that according to the Land Development Code they must require a complete proposed as-built. He said he was confused by the documents Jones had submitted. Susan Hill pointed out a discrepancy on the hand drawing. Garbett asked if there needed to be a drainage plan. Bishop read that a drainage plan was required by the ordinance. Brown named some previous Site Plan Approval requests that did not have drainage plans. The parking plan was discussed. Garbett said that if there was a current survey Jones could draw where the building would be located. Brown advised Jones to check with the owner of the property for a survey. Brown said the parking was pre-existing. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that the Code contemplates that the retail space be located in the structure and that was not what was intended here. He said that the retail space was going to be outside the structure and the shed was going to be used for storage. The parking plan was discussed. It was discussed that the building would be movable and would not have a slab. Hughes asked if it would be the only building on the lot. Jones said yes. Jones explained that the picture given in the packet was a generic drawing and the building would be 24 by 24 feet. Chandler asked if they needed a letter from the other businesses where the parking was located. Jones said he had a letter from the landlord. John Major asked if the petition was exempt from the Application Requirements for all Site Plans. Hughes said no. The requirements were discussed. Libby Bacon asked if Jones currently had tents. Jones said yes and that he would like to keep the tents. Hughes said that the parking spaces were common to all of the businesses. He said ideally the time to have addressed the requirements that Major mentioned would have been when the Site Plan for the whole site was developed. He said the lot was currently in use and parking has been on Highway 80 and in the strip mall. Hughes said he would like to know whether or not a Site Plan was approved on the strip mall and if it included Lot 6. He said that given the difference in magnitude of projects which require a Site Plan, it would not always make sense to require all of the things. Major read further from the ordinance. Brown asked about the retail parking requirement. Hughes said that it would be one parking space per 200 feet of retail space. He noted that the retail was to be outside of the building. Chandler commented that Jones was building a temporary storage structure, not retail space, so why would he have to have a drainage plan. Hughes said the building would be an accessory structure to the tents. City Manager Diane Schleicher talked about the history of the site. She said Jones has outgrown the use of the tents and that triggered the need for a Site Plan. Schleicher said that Jones is looking for a more permanent structure. She talked about the location of a fence that Jones wants and his need to secure the site at night. Major and Garbett asked about the requirements of the ordinance. Hughes suggested that the plan needed to show the exact location of the building, accurately and to scale, and any other items intended to be used on the property such as tents or fences. He said he did not think a drainage plan should be required for a structure of this size. He said the business has already been in operation and whatever the existing parking plan is should suffice, but if they want to require it they should ask Jones to show the existing parking plan. The Commissioners discussed Hughes’ recommendations. Brown summarized that a survey must be provided by Monday, June 18, that shows the building, the fence and whatever else Jones is going to put on the site for the Planning Commission to hear the item on that date. Michael Godbee represented a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from Section 5-010(K), Prohibit Placing Materials in the Marshlands, for Lot 121 Miller Avenue, Zone R-2, PIN 4-0005-16-007A. The request was to bridge a ditch in the unopened right-of-way of Miller Avenue to provide access to build a house on Lot 121. Godbee described the area and alternative proposals. Chair Barry Brown asked if the ditch was manmade. Godbee said that it was and that it was a mosquito ditch. Brown asked if tidal water came into it. Godbee said yes. Bill Garbett said that the paperwork said it was fresh water but it had about 2 feet of salt water in it about three hours ago. 3 Garbett asked about the elevations. He said the DNR marsh delineation line would be an elevation of about 6.2 feet so the marshland was much wider what was shown on the survey. Godbee said he owns Lot 122 and has no interest in doing anything with it. Garbett said there was a substantial about of either marsh or wetland on Lot 121. He requested a current DNR delineation on unopened Miller Avenue and Lot 121. Godbee referred the Commissioners to a DNR letter dated August 19, 2004, addressed to former City Manager Bob Thompson. Godbee talked about delineation methods. Garbett said that the DNR delineations are valid for a year and the one in the packet was 3 years old. Godbee said that the Corps [of Engineers] would do a nationwide permit for the lot and Thompson was comfortable with piping the ditch to get to the lot. Godbee listed people he has worked with on the project who have left their positions. He said that created the delay. He said he has had seven surveys. Godbee compared his situation to the crossing of a ditch by Bernie Goode. The drawings were discussed. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that Godbee was trying to see if he can reach Lot 121 to use the previously granted EPD permits to build as long as he used alternative construction techniques. He said Godbee was seeking permission to open a portion of the right-of-way to access Lot 121 and a Variance to fill or go over any wetlands in order to reach that lot. Hughes said the issue of what Godbee can build when he gets there will have to be determined by DNR. Hughes told Godbee that if there was any wetland on Lot 121 he may as well include that in this Variance request if he is going to need to fill it in order to build so he does not find himself getting to the lot and not being able to do anything with it. Brown asked about the 25-foot setback. Hughes said the given footprint was approved as long as certain construction techniques are used, and that predated Tybee’s entry into that area, and, as was the case with Bernie Goode, Tybee has to recognize that. Hughes said that Godbee needs a Variance for any wetlands he is going to alter on lot 121 and on the right-of-way. After further discussion, Brown asked what would be put on the road. Godbee said crush and run, or coral. Following discussion, Susan Hill asked if they would need information later about the wetlands on the lot in order for Godbee to get a permit to build the house. Hughes said that Godbee’s position is that he already has gotten that by the permissions granted before and that it is covered under the EPD approval that requires the preconstruction meeting. Hughes talked about two Tybee ordinance changes that impacted this: the prohibition against filling any marshland, and the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Hughes said he concluded that, as was the case with Goode, Tybee would have to acknowledge the approval with respect to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Hughes said that where that leaves Godbee with respect to filling any marshland on Lot 121 he was not sure and that was why he was suggesting that Godbee ask for that Variance. Brown asked Godbee if he would amend his application. Godbee agreed to do so. Major asked if there was an approval letter similar to the one that Bernie Goode received. Godbee referred Major to a letter dated August 19, 2003, from Bruce Foisy of the DNR. Major asked if Godbee provided Foisy with a site plan detailing the lot and the house features in relation to the buffer and the marsh. Godbee answered yes. Major asked if the DNR acknowledged that that completed the approval. Godbee said that was when it turned over to the City and crossing the ditch. Godbee said that the architectural renderings were not done because they were trying to get approval to access. He said that a variance was not needed to build. Hughes clarified that what Godbee said was in respect to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control. He said that both the Coastal Resources Division and the Environmental Protection Division apply to this property. Hughes said that if Godbee uses alternative building techniques he would not need a variance from the Director of the EPD with respect to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control provisions. He said the other letter from August of 2004 deals more with the Coastal Resources Division as to where the wetlands are and that was where things stopped. He suggested they find out whether or not both Divisions of the DNR would honor the earlier conclusions. Hughes asked Godbee if it was his understanding that the determinations were still being recognized. Godbee said that was his understanding. He gave a history of getting to this point. Hughes suggested Godbee amend the Variance application to address any wetlands on the lot that may have to be filled, and that he communicate with Jeannie Butler and Bruce Foisy to determine if they are still of the same mind that they were when they made the earlier determinations. He said that other than building code compliance and setbacks the City would not have any role after the issue of wetlands is addressed. Brown asked about building in the 25- foot buffer. Hughes said that was the determination that Foisy made. He said the other letter from Jeannie Butler dealt with the Coastal Marshland Protection Act. The discussion continued. Brown asked Garbett about the survey. Garbett said that if the EPD and the CRD accept the survey, the Planning Commission should. Hughes agreed. He asked Godbee if he had to show the CRD the proposed footprint of the house. Godbee said he did. Major asked for confirmation. After further discussion Godbee asked if he would need to address the fresh water spot with the Corps. Hughes said yes. Brown said the items would be needed by Thursday, June 14, or the petition would be put off until July. * * * * * 4 Attorney Harold Yellin represented petitioner Lou Kietzman for a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from Section 5- 010(J), Shore Protection with Variance Clause, for 21 Pulaski Street, Zone R-1, PIN 4-0001-02-016 and 4-0001- 02-017. The request was for two single-family residences. Yellin said that the only Variance being asked for at this time was from the Shore Protection Line. He commented that the DNR and Tybee line were the same. He said there were no trees to measure from so the DNR was going structure to structure. Yellin said that Kietzman met with Ann Thran [DNR] who has no objection to what Kietzman is proposing but that Tybee must approve its Variance before the DNR can approve theirs. John Major said the Code requires a hardship for a Variance but on the application the question of the hardship was answered “none.” Yellin talked about other Variance requests. He said a denial of this Variance would mean the property could not be used at all and it would be a complete taking of the property and would render it useless. The hardship definition and the application were discussed. Yellin said the application would be amended. Bill Garbett said that the Shore Protection Line goes from habitable dwelling to habitable dwelling. Major described the Pulaski Street area and the drawing of the Shore Protection Line. After further discussion, Sandy Chandler said they have voted within the past year that you can not build within the Shore Protection Line. He said they are not taking anything; it is a reading of the Code as it is written. Yellin said that the DNR has no issue. Chair Barry Brown asked questions about the drawings. He said that the entire piece of property is inside Tybee’s Shore Protection Line. Chandler referred to a letter from Cullen Chambers. Chandler said that Kietzman stated he did not intend to destroy the battery but the two gun positions that make the hunk of concrete a battery are scheduled for demolition. Yellin said that at the time Chambers wrote the letter there was going to be a demolition, and that plan changed. He said about 80% of the battery would remain and about 20% would be removed. Major said that if it was demolished the Shore Protection Line would still be there. Yellin agreed. The battery and the area were discussed. Major asked if Kietzman had anything in writing from the DNR. Kietzman said Thran can not issue a letter unless she gets Tybee’s. He said that when Thran gets Tybee’s letter she is prepared to rubber stamp it and say that it is okay. Garbett said that the DNR would still have to approve it. He asked if Kietzman would be willing to state that the Variance is contingent on preserving the battery. It was stated that the two lots go back to 1946. City Attorney Bubba Hughes referred the Commissioners to the rendering of the proposed structures in their packets. He said this would not be considered approval of those structures. He said the elevation could be an issue. Major asked where the 35 feet starts. Yellin said no matter what plan comes for building plan approval it has to be 35 feet. He said they are not asking for a Variance for height. Major asked if that was from Pulaski Street. Yellin said yes. Brown asked about parking. Yellin said there would be two spaces for each of the residences. Hardship was discussed again. Libby Bacon asked if there was a way to incorporate language into a Variance that the battery was not going to be demolished. Brown said that such a request could be put into a motion made at the next meeting. The item was placed on the agenda for June 18. Susan Hill announced that she had turned in her resignation from the Planning Commission due to a personal commitment that is going to require a good bit of time. She said she would stay on until Council fills the position. The meeting adjourned.