Loading...
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.