Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100817_PC_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Marianne Bramble Randi Bryan PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER Jay Burke, Chair Jonathan H. Lynn Rob Callahan John Major, Vice Chair CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Vice Chair John Major called the August 17, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Planning Commission members present were Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, and Monty Parks. Absent were Demery Bishop, Randi Bryan, and Chair Jay Burke. Vice Chair John Major asked for a motion on the Minutes of the July 20, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Rob Callahan corrected “obliviously” to “obviously.” Monty Parks moved to approve the Minutes with correction. Callahan seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous. Vice Chair John Major asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 3 Thirteenth Lane, PIN 4-0007- 06-004A, Zone R-T. The petitioner and property owner was Kenneth Grainger. The request was to reduce the rear setback to 3-feet and the west side setback to 4-feet, 7.5-inches for construction of a set of stairs. The required setbacks were 20-feet in the rear and 10-feet on the side. Jonathan Lynn noted that a revised narrative and survey had been received since the Staff Report and Planning Commission packets were issued. He explained the request. Major asked if the deck was existing. Lynn said that the stairs would be part of the deck, and there would be some additional deck built to accommodate the landing for the stairs. Lynn noted that the existing 9.72-foot setback on the rear was less than the required 20-feet. Major asked if it was a substandard lot of record. Lynn said that in terms of setbacks, it was. Major and Lynn discussed. Grainger said that he was trying to get a staircase to come off the existing deck so he would have a fire escape in the back if needed. Major and Grainger discussed. Rob Callahan asked if the Fire Department had been consulted. Lynn said that for single-family residential units there was no requirement to have more than one means of egress from the structure. Major, Grainger, and Lynn discussed the proposed stair configuration. Callahan asked if construction had started. Grainger said yes. Major asked if he was asked to stop construction. Grainger said yes. It was discussed that Grainger purchased the property last year. Major asked when the lot was created. Grainger said he did not know but the house was built in the early 1980s. The lot was discussed. Marianne Bramble asked if Grainger lived there full-time. Grainger said that they live there in the summer. Callahan asked if there was a second- story staircase in the front. Grainger said yes. Major asked if safety was the primary motivation. Grainger said yes. Monty Parks asked if other methods of fire escape were explored. Grainger said they looked everywhere and could not come up with anything. He said that if the stairs did not come down in the backyard it would take up parking that they could not afford to lose. Parks asked if the stairs would be constructed of wood. Grainger said yes. Parks and Grainger discussed. Major called for public input. There was none. Major closed the Public Hearing. Bramble moved to approve. Major seconded. Voting in 2 favor were Bramble and Major. Callahan and Parks voted in opposition. There was a tie vote (2-2) on the motion to approve. The request would be heard by City Council on September 9. Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 515 and 517 Butler Avenue, PINs 4-0005-03-003 and 4-0005-03-004, Zone R-2. The petitioner and property owner was Pamela Gallup. The request was a variance from Section 3-050, Obstruction to Visions at Street Intersections, for a fence. Jonathan Lynn said that the owner obtained a permit for a fence, constructed it, and Staff determined the fence did not pose a vision hazard. He explained that the fence was less of a vision hazard than cars parked along Butler Avenue in front of the house, however, the ordinance was brought to Staff’s attention so Gallup was informed that she had a couple of options. Lynn said that she could either remove the fence from the vision triangle or apply for a variance. Major and Lynn discussed. Monty Parks asked if anything had been put in place to prevent this from happening again. Lynn explained that language and an illustration included in proposed revisions to Article 3 would clarify interpretation of the ordinance. He said that if the City enforced the letter of the ordinance throughout the island there would be no fences along Butler Avenue and some owners would have to ask for a variance for their houses or tear down part of them. Parks asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this would they be opening a floodgate of future requests for variances on obstructions. Lynn said that he did not believe so. Parks and Lynn discussed. Major said that Gallup’s application said it was an 8-foot privacy fence. Lynn said that 8- foot was the maximum height of a privacy fence. Major and Lynn discussed the 4-foot fence at Gallup’s property. Major asked, if the variance was denied, who would be responsible for the cost of bringing the fence into compliance. Lynn said that it would depend on the situation. Rob Callahan asked if the fence was too high or too close to the intersection. Lynn said both; it was within the 25-foot obstruction line and taller than 3-feet. Callahan said that on Sixth Street approaching Butler Avenue there were bushes that were at least as bad an obstruction, if not worse, than Gallup’s fence. Lynn said that was correct and there are some locations where there are actually homes. Gallup explained the planning she went through prior to permitting. She said that the reason she went with the 4-foot fence was because her dogs weigh 110- pounds. She said that she spent $13,000 for the fence. Gallup spoke about a letter she received from the City that said she had 10 days to remove the fence. She said that she was told that the City does not enforce this ordinance unless somebody complains. Gallup said that she understands the public safety issue but there are tons of people not in compliance. She explained that she spoke with Mr. Carter, who made the complaint that it was too high, and the issue is the corner of the fence, so she spoke with the man who put the fence up, and there is an option to make the corner two sections go down to 3-feet but it would require a good bit of labor. Gallup said she was willing to compromise. Lynn said that if that happened there would be no need for a variance. Major explained Gallup’s options. Andy Carter, 605 Lovell Avenue, said that he agreed with Gallup; she was trying to do the right thing. He said that he could not see around the corner, the rules said a 3-foot fence, it was not a 3-foot fence, and it was not legal. Interpretation of Section 3-050 was discussed by Carter, Callahan, Major, and Lynn. Rusty Fleetwood discussed that the ordinance required a lot of interpretation and changes to the wording would help. Major closed the Hearing. Parks moved to approve. Marianne Bramble seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. City Council would consider the item on September 9. Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code Article 3, General Provisions. Major offered options of either submitting Article 3 to City Council with the comments attached that came from members of the Planning Commission or the Commission could go through the comments and if anybody wished to vote up or down on each of the comments or get clarification or speak to them, they could. Jonathan Lynn said that when it does go to Council it was going to be from the Planning Commission as a whole so if it does include the comments it would be just a whole list, not person specific, of comments from the Planning Commission. Major, Lynn, Marianne Bramble, and Monty Parks discussed. Major recommended that when it went to Council that Lynn 3 prepare a clean copy and a copy with the changes. He said that there were two sets of comments to go over. Rob Callahan asked if that was all of the comments received. Lynn said he received comments from two Planning Commissioners. After discussion of how to proceed, Major suggested adding wording to allow compact cars only or handicapped parking only to the section about obstructions at intersections. Lynn commented that he did not know how that would be enforced and it would require a lot of signage. After Major and Lynn discussed, Bramble asked if was possible to paint the yellow lines further. Lynn said that it would cause the loss of parking spots and that would need to go to a different committee. Major suggested that the language for a detached accessory structure did not express the intent: it should not reduce the requirement for parking versus it should not reduce the amount of parking required. Lynn and Major and the others discussed. Major noted a “principal” versus “principle” revision. Lynn said that had been corrected in the latest version. Major suggested that Section 3-080(B)(5) regarding private docks include not allowing parking in the marsh or in the buffer between the street and the marsh. The topic was discussed. Lynn told Major that his next comment regarding adding “single-family” to 3-080(C) had been included. Major asked whether Section 3-080(D)(5)(b) should be changed from “crew” to “crew member.” Major suggested “with a permit” be removed from Section 3-100. He also spoke about the 10- foot setback requirement from the landward toe of the landward-most dune. Lynn said that the first permit in those areas was not a City permit; Staff would require a permit from DNR. The group discussed. Major next verified with Lynn the 65% of the setback being greenspace requirement in Section 3-165. From Section 3-130, Major asked how people with buildings of historic value would get exempted from building codes. Lynn explained the National Register of Historic Places requirement and the types of codes that may be exempted. Major spoke of Section 3-190 next. He said that engineered drainage plans seemed a little extreme for a hot tub on a deck. He asked Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, if he had ever seen a drainage plan for a hot tub. Davis read wording in that section, “…unless the City Staff determines that due to the size and method of construction it is not necessary.” Davis said that just that afternoon he was in the Community Development Department and reviewed a plan that was going to need a drainage plan. He and Major discussed further. Davis recommended the wording of the section remain. Major asked if Section 3-200 addressed placing a deck or patio within a marsh buffer. Lynn said that if Staff determined it was within a buffer it would be required to go through DNR to get permission. Major asked about “wetland protection district” in Section 3-240. Lynn explained that a definition for that would be added to Article 2 in the future. Major said that Rusty Fleetwood had forwarded to him some comments that had been earlier sent to Lynn and Council. Major commented that Lynn had said that the comments had been incorporated to the extent possible. Major and Lynn discussed. Callahan suggested that the sentence in Section 3-020 that began with “Any nonconforming structure which is damaged by fire, flood, …” be amended to where if it was destroyed more than 50% than it should not be allowed to be rebuilt in a nonconforming manner; it should have to be brought into compliance. Major said that a lot of people would view that as a public taking. After he discussed further, Bramble said that she was okay with Callahan’s suggestion. After further comments from her, Lynn said that if that language was added it would reduce the amount of property in a lot of cases. He spoke of substandard lots of record and other factors. Callahan commented on the “same nonconforming ground footprint” language of the last sentence of Section 3-020. He said that demolition should be a case where there should be a requirement to conform. Major said that, again, it would get into the public taking question. Callahan said that there are a lot of cases where setbacks are not maintained so if a house was demolished to build a nice, new house certainly the setbacks should be maintained. Major said that if he understood the City Attorney, a substandard lot of record is the definition of a hardship for requesting setback variances. Major and Lynn discussed and agreed that the definition of a hardship would be addressed during upcoming revisions to Article 5. It was agreed that all of the comments and the Minutes from this Public Hearing would be given to City Council. Callahan next asked for a definition of “substandard.” Lynn said that in Callahan’s comments he provided the definition: a single lot which is an area less than required by these regulations. He said that was on the list to include in Article 2. Major suggested that Section 3-040 be amended to 4 include consideration for variances where there are environmental, safety, or historical considerations. After Major discussed that further, Lynn suggested that would be in Article 5. Major and Lynn discussed. The section related to the next comment on Callahan’s list could not be located in the document. He suggested adding a subparagraph (8) to Section 3-070(B) stating, “No temporary detached structure would be allowed on a residential-use side of a commercial lot where commercial and residential uses are adjacent.” He said that would decrease the inherent conflicts between commercial and residential uses. The other Commissioners agreed. Callahan read the last sentence of Section 3-070(E) regarding kiosks. Major asked if they were saying it was okay to put a kiosk on a residential lot. Lynn said no, a kiosk could not go in a residential area. Major asked where you could put a kiosk. Lynn said in C-1 or C-2 area. Major said that it would not hurt to say that. The section was discussed. Callahan said that for Section 3- 080(C)(3), if the speed limit was above 30 mph they may want to restrict that. Lynn said that the only parts of the island where the speed limits were above 30 mph were Highway 80 and that comes under DOT regulation; the DOT regulates those driveway openings. Callahan agreed. He asked about the “driveway maintenance schedule” in Section 3-080(C)(5). Davis said that the City would be adopting over the next six months a coastal stormwater management manual with specifications specific to Tybee and in the basic manuals they have recommendations for maintenance of different pervious-type materials. Major asked if that document should be referenced. The issue was discussed. Callahan moved to Section 3-080(D)(4) regarding hotel rooms with kitchens. He suggested that parking be related to the number of people that could sleep in a place, not whether it had a kitchen or not. Lynn discussed it being common for municipalities to base parking requirements for hotel units on whether there are kitchens or not. Callahan skipped the next item on his list. He then asked why a sentence about handicapped parking had been deleted from Section 3-080(D)(5). Lynn referred him to Section 3-080(A) which covered such parking for all zoning districts. Davis said that cities do not have the authority to enforce the ADA. He recommended changing the wording to “Georgia State Accessibility Code.” That distinction was discussed. Callahan said that there was confusion with the asterisks of the table at Section 3-090(B). Callahan, Lynn, and Major discussed Section 3-090(C). Under Section 3-110, Callahan asked if manufactured homes were restricted to certain zones. Lynn replied no. Manufactured homes were discussed. Comment 17 on Callahan’s list was referenced and Lynn said that it needed to be added. Major said that comment 18 was done. For Section 3-150(A), Callahan asked what “open areas” were and where the 24-foot size came from. Lynn said that it came from the old ordinance. He said that he would interpret “open areas” to be vacant lots. After discussion Lynn suggested “open areas” be changed to “unimproved lots.” After discussion, a suggestion of “no vehicle greater than two axles” was rejected. No consensus was reached on wording for that section. Paragraph (B) of that section regarding trailers at construction sites was discussed. No changes were made. Callahan moved to Section 3-170(A)(6) and suggested “parking” be added to the list of offenses. Lynn clarified that no customers are allowed at home occupations. After discussion of that, setbacks for decks and patios in Section 3-200 were considered. Callahan said that his suggested rewording did not do what he intended. For Section 3-230(C)(1) Callahan suggested that they make it very clear that lights that are burning from inside a house as well as outside can cause problems. Major said that he liked that. The two of them discussed it. Callahan recommended deletion of “wherever possible” in Section 3-230(D)(1). Major asked for public input. For Section 3-050, Fleetwood recommended eliminating a definite height limit and instead saying that it shall not obstruct vision at the intersection. He said that the owner could choose to use wire. Regarding Section 3-160, Fleetwood said that since he wrote his comments on buffer requirements where a commercial use abuts a residential use in a commercial zone the ordinance had been reworded so that the required buffer was not less in width than the required setback for the property. He said that he had no problem with that width; he did have a problem with buffers not being site and use specific. He asked if a proposed commercial use next to a residential use required Site Plan review. Lynn said that in a commercial district it would require Site Plan. Potential Site Plan situations were discussed. Referring to Section 3-050, Andy Carter, 605 Lovell Avenue, said that if it was going to say from the centerline of the street, it almost negated the 5 ordinance. He explained his interpretation of the intent of the ordinance. Lynn said that for most of the island, 25-feet from the centerline would work; Butler Avenue was the only one where the centerline would not pass the parking lane. Carter said that it would be different in every circumstance. Discussion followed. Carter said that there is a house that advertises sleeping 23 people on the south end of the island and he did not see anywhere where Article 3 was addressing the parking for that. Major said that the City does not really have regulations that apply to rental properties other than what applies to traffic and nuisance and noise. For the section on manufactured housing on open lots, Carter said that if he put a 3- foot fence around it, it was not an open lot. Major said that it would be reworded to “unimproved.” Bramble spoke about boat trailers and boats not being included in Section 3-150. She asked if that was storage. Lynn said that it was. There was a discussion about the intent of the ordinance. Major closed the Hearing and requested a motion. Callahan moved to send the comments along with the revised ordinance to City Council. Bramble seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. The Text Amendment would be considered by City Council on September 9. Jonathan Lynn said that he would be emailing Article 5 to the Commissioners. It was decided that their comments should be submitted to Lynn by September 7. Rob Callahan moved to adjourn. Monty Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous and the meeting adjourned.