Loading...
20080310_PC_agenda_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop James P. Boyle PLANNING, ZONING & ECONOMIC Sandy Chandler DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR John Major Brannyn G. Allen Anne Miller David Postle Chuck Powell CITY ATTORNEY Whitley Reynolds Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Agenda Meeting March 10, 2008 – 7:00 p.m. Chuck Powell called the March 10, 2008, Planning Commission agenda meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were: Libby Bacon, James Boyle, Sandy Chandler, John Major, Anne Miller, David Postle, and Whitley Reynolds. Demery Bishop was absent. Chuck Powell said that the election of the Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, as well as the Minutes of the February 11, 2008, Planning Commission agenda meeting and the February 19, 2008, regular meeting, would be acted upon at the March 18 meeting. William Gustin represented a Zoning Variance petition (Land Development Code Section 5-090) from Section 3-090, Schedule of Development Regulations, for 2001 Highway 80, PIN 4-0024-02-002, Zone R-2. The applicant was requesting a zero setback rather than the required 10-foot side setback and a 10- foot setback rather than the required 20-foot front setback. Gustin said that the property was in the name of his wife, Barbara Gustin, and he was her agent. Gustin said that there was a very limited amount of square footage that could be used for building purposes. Libby Bacon asked for the dimensions of the footprint of the proposed house. Gustin said that the maximum with the variances would be 20 feet by 40 feet. The item was placed on the March 18 agenda. Erin Sheldon represented a Map Amendment [Land Development Code Section 5-020(D)] for 13 Fourteenth Street, PIN 4-0007-06-001, Zone R-T. The request was to rezone property from R-T to C- 1. Sheldon said that she was one of six property owners. Whitley Reynolds confirmed with Sheldon that a drawing that was submitted was partly his work. John Major asked if all of the property owners that would be affected were represented. Sheldon said that she was representing all of the 13 Fourteenth Street owners. Chuck Powell verified with Sheldon that they were asking for their property to be zoned into the commercial district, not the entire block. Sandy Chandler asked for clarity on the drawing. Sheldon said that it included both their property and the neighboring property, The Georgianne Inn. Brannyn Allen said that the only parcel in question was lot 84. The item was placed on the March 18 agenda. Gary Sanders represented Paul Scarborough for a Site Plan Approval petition (Land Development Code Section 5-080) 406 First Street, PIN 4-0003-13-020, Zone C-2. The Site Plan was for a new retail/commercial building. Sanders said that he was the architect. Libby Bacon said that she had listed a home that Sanders’ was a partner in. This was a disclosure, not a recusal. Sandy Chandler asked if the property had been before the Planning Commission in the past. Sanders said that it had been before the 2 Commission for conceptual review. Whitley Reynolds asked about black lines on the topographic survey. Sanders said he would check into the marks. John Major asked if the Site Plan was essentially the same as the conceptual. Sanders said there were some minor site modifications, mostly with parking, but the concept was basically the same. The item was placed on the March 18 agenda. Bonnie Gaster represented Randolph Bishop for a Zoning Variance petition (Land Development Code Section 5-090) from Section 5-010(J), Shore Protection with Variance Clause, for 8 Palmwood Court, PIN 4-0002-24-005, Zone PUD. The applicant was requesting a shore protection line variance for a new single-family dwelling proposed to be built 10 feet landward of the toe of the dune. The difference between that line and Tybee’s line was approximately 15 feet at the widest point and 3-1/2 feet at the narrowest. Gaster said that she was representing the buyer with the permission of the seller. She said the buyer’s concern was that he does not have enough room with the footprint using the Tybee line. Gaster said that Randolph would only have 47-1/2 feet on the north side of the lot and he was impacted by the 20 foot setback on the cul-de-sac as well as the requirements of the covenants that a property must be 30 feet from the side to give a view corridor for the remaining homes. She said that Randolph was hoping to have a decent size house for a beachfront location. Gaster said that Seaside Colony was developed as a PUD and there was an approved footprint at that time by DNR for each house. She said that there were originally 73 or 75 feet. She said that for it to be reduced to 47 feet was pretty much a hardship. Gaster said they would like a variance and that they were willing to go along with what the Department of Natural Resources had designated. She explained that Ann Thran of the DNR was in the process of updating the DNR jurisdiction line letter. John Major asked if the Tybee line was based on dwelling to dwelling. Gaster responded yes. Major asked about the status of the recommendation to City Council by the Planning Commission regarding Tybee’s Shore Protection ordinance. Allen said that the City was continuing to work on a draft of a new ordinance. Whitley Reynolds said that he had prepared the drawing. David Postle asked about figures contained in the Staff Report for the petition. Chuck Powell explained that the figures were the distances between the Tybee line and the DNR line. The petition was placed on the March 18 agenda. No one was present to represent Bobby Chu’s Zoning Variance petition (Land Development Code Section 5-090) from Section 3-080, Off-street Parking Requirements for 5 Palmwood Court, PIN 4- 0002-24-003, Zone PUD. The request was for two driveway openings closer than 50 feet from one another on one lot. Brannyn Allen explained the request. A driveway variance from the prior month’s Planning Commission meeting was discussed. David Postle asked if the cul-de-sac was a public street. He said that the ordinance referred to two driveways accessing a public street. Allen said that the community was not gated. John Major asked about the driveway amendment adopted by City Council January 12, 2006. Allen said that further in that section it talked about the openings be closer than 50 feet apart and that was why Chu needed a variance. Chuck Powell confirmed with Allen that it applied to residential zoning as well as commercial. The item was placed on the March 18 agenda. Jim Stone represented Titan Advertising Group for a conceptual site plan for 1112, 1116 and 1120 Highway 80, PINs 4-0026-11-010, -011 & 012A, Zone C-2. This would not be a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission’s meeting on March 18. The concept was five mixed use structures on five lots. Stone said that he was representing Elk Property Development and that they got approval to build townhomes on the lots. He said that what they are looking at doing now was smaller residences on the top floor only and creating live/work spaces since it was on the commercial corridor. He described a building as having top floor residences of 850 to 1,000 square feet with rooftop decks with two to four commercial spaces that could be used for artists’ lofts, real estate offices or that type of thing. He said that they do not necessarily see them as retail spaces. Stone said that the proposed footprints were within the footprints of the approved townhomes. He referred to the renderings being from architectural 3 drawings. Stone described solar power on the roofs, the buildings being LEED certified, incorporating rain catchment, and maintaining as many trees as possible. He said that they were looking at some unique ways to accomplish the parking and he did not know yet if they would need a variance. Whitley Reynolds asked about the residential versus commercial layouts of the buildings. Stone said that the top floor would be two residential units. David Postle asked if parking was under the building, then two floors of anticipated commercial, then a third floor of residential, and then a rooftop deck. Stone described the deck as being stepped into the roof and the rest of the roof being flat. He said that the height would not exceed 35 feet and he further described the buildings. John Major asked what Stone was looking for from the Planning Commission. Stone said he was looking to amend the approved townhomes and do mixed use. He described the space further and said that they would like to offer affordable residences for less than $400,000. Libby Bacon asked about green rectangles on the plan. Stone said that it was a tree protection area. Sandy Chandler asked if all the buildings would have the same floor plan. Stone said that was to make it like a community. He said that they would probably change the colors of the buildings and the finish treatments, keeping a unified theme. He said that since they are LEED, to offset the cost they need to have a uniform design to hit their price point. Chandler said it would be a dreadful occurrence for all of them to end up as residential units. Chandler and Stone discussed that. Stone said that they are not trying to make an apartment complex and he said that this was going to be very, very high end with Brazilian hardwoods, LEED technology, solar power, and that type of thing. Powell reminded the Commissioners to keep in mind that it was a concept so it was therefore fluid. The item was placed on the March 18 agenda. Chuck Powell requested that a brief report from Brannyn Allen on the outcome of the proposals that went from the Planning Commission to City Council be added to the agenda for March 18. A Carl Vinson Institute of Government training for Planning Commissioners scheduled for March 25 at the City of Garden City was discussed. Whitley Reynolds asked if they could not eliminate agenda meetings. Chuck Powell said discussions had been held regarding that. He said that if they eliminate agenda meetings, it had been proposed having two Planning Commission meetings per month. Brannyn Allen said that she had spoken with the City Attorney, several members of City Council and the City Manager and received general support for it. She said it would be more fair to the petitioners. She said that City Council hears Public Hearings at the first meeting of the month so a system for getting in sync with their meetings would need to be developed. Libby Bacon asked if there was not an agenda meeting could the Commissioners’ questions be answered in advance of the meeting. Allen said that whether the agenda meetings were done away with or not, they should feel free to contact her with any questions or information requests. She said that would give Staff time to do research and homework. Powell said that not only would it be more fair to the petitioners and give them more time, but since the public does not comment at the agenda meetings, it would not take away from the public’s right or ability to see petitions and comment on them at the regular meetings. Anne Miller asked if problems would come up at the next meeting. Allen said that it would, and that they would always have the option of continuing a petition for two weeks if they went to the proposed system. She said that Bacon was talking about fundamental questions: information requests, data. Allen said that those are things that Staff can collect, if they know in advance, to save the petitioner from having to wait another two weeks or a month. Miller asked if the ordinance would have to be changed. Allen said that the bylaws would have to be changed. The meeting adjourned.