HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100921_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
September 21, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Vice Chair John Major called the September 21, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Planning Commission members present were: Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Randi Bryan, and
Rob Callahan. Absent were: Chair Jay Burke and Monty Parks.
Vice Chair John Major asked for a motion on the Minutes of the August 17, 2010, Planning Commission
meeting. Rob Callahan moved to approve. Marianne Bramble seconded the motion. Major commented
that in the Minutes it was recommended that when Article 3 went to City Council that Jonathan Lynn
prepare both a clean copy and a copy with the changes. Major said that having seen the Council meeting it
seemed like they did not have that. He asked if there was a breakdown somewhere. Lynn said that Council
directed on what they needed and they will have that at the first meeting in October. The vote in favor of
the motion to approve the Minutes was unanimous.
Vice Chair John Major asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Commissioner Marianne
Bramble said that she would recuse for 211 Butler Avenue because she lives directly behind it.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 411-B Butler Avenue, PIN 4-
0004-21-001C, Zone R-2. The petitioner and property owner was Colin Stewart. The request was a
variance for addition of a deck. Jonathan Lynn said that the request was to reduce the side setback to 1.7-
feet to install a 10- by 23-foot deck on the south side. He said that the deck would also provide an
alternate exit for an emergency. Stewart said that it was a narrow and irregularly-sized lot. He commented
on increasing the points of egress and enhancing curb appeal. Major asked if Stewart was changing the
statement of hardship from what was in his application. Stewart said it might be a slight modification.
Major asked Lynn if he had that. Lynn read from the narrative. Major asked the requirement of a duplex
in R-2. Jonathan said that it would still fall under the 4,500 square feet because they are on separate lots of
record. Major asked the square footage of the lot. Lynn responded 1,860 square feet. Marianne Bramble
asked if part of the property was at one time egressing into the park. Lynn said that he did not know about
Stewart’s property but the unit behind him at one point was and there was an easement recorded so it had
technically been granted access so they are actually not driving through the park. Rob Callahan confirmed
with Lynn that Fifth Street was an 80-foot right-of-way. Callahan asked if that was common to all side
streets. Lynn said absolutely not; Fifth Street was an exception. He said that normally it is a 40- to 60-foot
right-of-way on side streets. Callahan asked if there was a possibility of widening Fifth Street. Lynn said
no. Callahan, Lynn, and Stewart discussed. Referring to the deck, Demery Bishop asked if there had been
consideration of less than 10-feet in width. Stewart said that 10-feet would fit best with the existing
house; to answer the question, no. Bishop read from the narrative that the requested variance would not
interfere with any adjacent property owners and fall within the required setbacks. Commenting on the
second part, Bishop said that it would not, without approval. Stewart agreed. Stewart said they would not
2
require an additional set of stairs; they would come off the landing by the front door. Bishop asked if it
would encroach into the right-of-way. Lynn said it would not; there would be 1.76-feet between the deck
and the property line. Bishop asked if this had been an issue in other areas. Lynn said that he had not seen
that. Major said that if the hardship was that the City’s zoning interferes with the deck plans that in no
way meets the requirements for a variance. He said that if the variance was being requested because of an
irregular or shallow lot, it fit exactly under 5-090. He asked Lynn if this qualified under 5-090 for a
hardship. Lynn said it would allow Stewart the ability to apply for the variance because of the physical
characteristics of the lot. Major asked if it met the definition of a hardship. Lynn said yes. Bishop asked in
what way: irregularity, narrowness or shallowness. Lynn said shallowness; you will not find many 30-foot
wide lots. Major asked if it was a substandard lot of record which, according to the City Attorney, that
defines a hardship. Lynn said that would be correct. Major asked when the lot was created. Neither Lynn
nor Stewart knew. Bramble asked if there would be a second exit and another door. Stewart said that it
would be the same door but the deck would go past the window. Bramble and Stewart discussed. Major
asked for public input. There was none. Major closed the Hearing and asked for a motion. Randi Bryan
motioned to approve. Rob Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed
with a 5-0 vote. The item would be heard by City Council on October 14.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 211 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-08-004,
Zone C-1. The petitioner was Paul Theron for property owner Ronnie Navon. The request was occupancy
of a rooftop deck. Marianne Bramble recused. Jonathan Lynn said that it was mixed use. He said that the
applicant was seeking additional approval of a Site Plan, and initially the Site Plan approval was in
February of 2009 and had undergone some tweaks since then, the last time being in May of 2010 when
they got approval for some aesthetic changes. Lynn said that at that time they were not intending to
request occupancy on the second-floor deck, however, now they would like to have that ability. He said
that Staff was not comfortable granting this occupancy for a couple of reasons: there is a commercial use
associated with it so it does alter the Site Plan slightly. Major interrupted to ask about occupancy and if
somebody was going to live there. Lynn said that if it was at a restaurant the Fire Marshal would say how
many people they could have on the deck at any given time to make it safe. He said that was what they
were seeking: to have that number in mind. Lynn said that currently the only access to the deck would be
through the residential units on top, and there were no guidelines for giving occupancy for residential
units. Major read from the Minutes of the May 18, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. He asked if there
was a new parking plan. Lynn said no. He said that there are no guidelines for determining occupancy of a
residential area. After reading the Minutes further, Major asked what changed. Lynn said that Theron was
here and he would like to pass it to him. Theron said that the deck originally was not designed for
anything. He said that Michael Sikes redesigned the roof structure to be able to carry another building on
top of it in the future. Theron said that the first unit has a small deck area and the other unit does not so
Navon wants to open up a door so people living there can have access. He said that Navon does not want
to build anything or have a lot of people up there; it would be just for the people in that unit. Theron said
that Navon would like to have a door so they can exit onto the roof and sit there if they want to. Major
asked if the door was part of this request. Lynn said that he did not believe so. Theron said that there was
no door at this point. Major asked if they were going to need a new parking plan. Lynn said that if it was
residential, they would not; if commercial, they would. Lynn recommended that Theron amend his
request to say whether it was residential or commercial so when it comes time, if it is approved, we know
how to calculate the occupancy. Major said that it was Site Plan, not Special Review, and under our
ordinance a Site Plan meets all of the requirements of all the ordinances and codes of the City. He asked
Lynn if that was right. Lynn said in theory, yes. Major and Lynn discussed. Lynn said that according to
Theron, this was just adding a luxury to the residence. Major asked Theron if they would be coming back
later to ask for a stairwell to get people up from the restaurant to the deck. Theron said that as he
understood it, it was just for the one residential unit. He explained the proposed configuration of access to
3
the deck. Major asked if the neighbors were notified of this Hearing. Lynn said that the property was
posted; they would get notices before Council. Demery Bishop asked about occupancy on the deck. Lynn
said that now there could not be anybody out there. Bishop asked if they considered occupancy of the
second floor unit when they approved the railing. Lynn said that it was just the railing. He recounted his
memory of that meeting. Bishop said that we are still not sure where doors would be, ingress/egress onto
the deck, the dimensions, or the actual construction. He said that we do not have all of the requirements
for Site Plan. Theron said that he spoke to the architect who said that first they need to find out if they can
get onto the deck before they start with doors and things like that. Bishop and Theron discussed. Major
asked for public input. There was none. He closed the Hearing. Randi Bryan moved to continue until they
had all of the information. Bishop seconded the motion. Major asked that they be specific about what they
needed. Bryan said that they need to know where the doors were going, if there was an intention to put
more stairs anywhere, and the occupancy for residential from the Fire Marshal. Bishop seconded the
amended motion. Major asked if it would go to City Council regardless. Lynn said it would come back to
the Planning Commission at the October 19 meeting. Voting in favor were Bishop, Bryan, and Major.
Rob Callahan voted in opposition. Bramble had recused. The motion to continue passed with a 3-1 vote.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code
Article 9, Building Regulations. Jonathan Lynn said that it was a Staff request and he commented on
some of the proposed revisions. Randi Bryan commented on Section 9-030(B) regarding a permit for
removal of a living, dead, or damaged tree. Lynn said that Joe Wilson, Public Works Directors, signs off
on dead trees. Bryan asked about the permit fee. Lynn said that it was $15 if the tree is dead. Major asked
if they approved this were they de facto approving the new fee schedule. Lynn and Major discussed.
Referring to Section 9-030(A), Major asked about the word “all” as used in the sentence, “…all interior
and exterior property alterations and all interior and exterior property repairs.” He and Lynn discussed.
Rob Callahan suggested that a definition of “alteration” consist of reconfigurations or additions. He said
that “repair” would be defined as replacement of a failed or failing system. He said that there was also the
category of “maintenance” which was not spelled out in Section 9-030(A). Callahan, Major, and Lynn
discussed. Demery Bishop asked how the City defined “alterations.” Lynn’s reply suggested that if it was
not in the definitions (Article 2) it would need to be added. Bishop recommended that “repair” also be
added. Lynn, Bishop, Callahan, and Major discussed. Callahan said that parking was a problem. He
suggested adding to Section 9-030(C), “Owners of property while under construction shall ensure there is
sufficient space on their property for all construction vehicles, materials, or other related items so as not to
unduly interfere with adjacent property owners access or parking on their property.” After discussion,
Major recommended that Lynn make Callahan’s comment available to Council. Callahan’s suggestion
was discussed. Marianne Bramble asked where removal of debris was addressed. Lynn and Bramble
discussed. Major asked if there were any other comments. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
motion. Callahan asked if it should go forward as other sections have gone forward to City Council with
comments attached. Major asked if there was an emergency. Lynn said there was a little bit of an
emergency. After discussion, Callahan moved to send Article 9 forward to City Council as marked up and
with comments attached. Bramble seconded that they send a clean copy and all of the other marked up
copies. Callahan concurred with the amendment. The vote in favor was unanimous. The motion to
approve passed with a 5-0 vote. The Text Amendment would be heard by City Council on October 14.
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code
Article 5, Procedures for Administration and Enforcement. After discussion, a Planning Commission
workshop to discuss Article 5 was tentatively set for 6:30 pm on Thursday, October 7.
Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and Rob Callahan seconded that motion. The vote was unanimous
and the meeting adjourned.