Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110118_PC_mtg_min.pdf 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 January 18, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Jay Burke called the January 18, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Rob Callahan, John Major, and Monty Parks. Absent were Marianne Bramble and Randi Bryan. Chair Jay Burke asked for a motion on the November 15, 2010, Minutes. Rob Callahan moved to approve. Monty Parks seconded the motion. The vote in favor of the motion to approve was unanimous. Chair Jay Burke asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. Jonathan Lynn provided information to Demery Bishop when he asked about two Zoning Variances listed on the Vote Report that had been provided to the Commissioners. Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 1114 Highway 80, PIN 4-0026-11-010, Zone C- 2. The petitioner was Stacye Jarrell. The request was for a parking plan change from a previously approved Site Plan for a special events facility approved by City Council in January of 2010 . Jonathan Lynn said that the Character Area was the Arts, Eats, Eco-Business Corridor. He explained that City Council had requested that a parking plan be worked out with Staff in order to save a 30-inch pine tree. Lynn spoke of a storage shed that was to be removed but the applicant now wished to keep to store items that would be used in the operation of the facility. Lynn said keeping the shed would cause the loss of a couple of the parking spaces that were required. He said that the applicant now had an agreement with the property owner of the lot to the west and they would access the lot through the lot that had already been approved. Lynn said they would lose two spaces on their lot and have a net gain of thirteen spaces with the additional lot in order to save the storage building. He said that this request did not conflict with the original Site Plan approval other than losing two parking spaces. John Major said that there were quite a few substantial pine trees. Mark Boswell, the applicant’s engineer, pointed out the only large pine tree. Major asked if the other trees were insignificant. Boswell said they have saved all the oak trees they could. Major said he was asking about the lot that the proposed parking would be on. Boswell said they were not taking any trees down on the adjacent lot. Major and Boswell discussed. Rob Callahan asked the parking requirement for the project. Lynn said it was originally supposed to be 33 spots, and they were well over the required number. Callahan said that there were 37 listed in the City Council Minutes. Lynn and Callahan discussed during which Lynn said the proposal would make 50 parking spots total. Demery Bishop confirmed with Jarrell that there was a lease agreement with the owner of the adjacent lot. Jarrell presented the request to keep the storage building. Callahan commented that he could not count the correct number of parking spaces from the drawings. He said he thought they were trying to meet the requirement in the additional area and he wondered if Jarrell did not have enough parking on her site, 2 what would happen when the lease ran out. Callahan said that was not a concern if she had enough parking on the site. Lynn said that she did. He suggested the lease agreement be required for the annual renewal of the business license. He said that if it was not able to become part of that application the applicant would have the choice to either remove the storage building and go back to the original Site Plan or come up with another plan that would have to be brought back before Planning Commission and Council. Jarrell agreed. Burke asked for public input. There was none. He closed the Public Hearing. Major moved to approve. Monty Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. The request would be heard by City Council on February 10. Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 211 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-08-004, Zone C-1. The petitioner was 211 Butler, LLC. The request was for occupancy on a deck. Jonathan Lynn said the exact request was before the Commission in September and October of 2010. He said it was sent to City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation due to a few absences and a couple of recusals at the same time so there were not enough Commissioners to vote on it. Lynn said that Council heard this request in November and voted to send it back to Planning Commission in order to get a firm recommendation. He noted the Community Character Area to be Arts, Eats, Eco-Business Corridor. He said the applicant was requesting site plan approval for occupancy on a second-floor deck. He gave the history of the request. Lynn said that the deck’s only access would be through the northern residential duplex unit and no additional parking would be required. He said that the original applicant was Paul Theron but the new applicant was 211 Butler, LLC. Monty Parks asked the setback requirements. Lynn said the residential setbacks were met with the units facing Lovell Avenue. He said with the commercial there was leniency with the setbacks due to C-1 not having any setbacks specific to commercial units. Lynn and Parks discussed. Rob Callahan asked the use of the building. Mark Boswell, engineer for the project, said the owner has stated that the use on the top will be residential and the bottom will be a retail unit where he intends to have trinkets, tee-shirts, surfboards, rental of boats, fishing licenses, bait, and anything water-related. John Major asked the setbacks as they exist. Lynn said in front of the building the setback was zero, on the southern side it was the same, and on the northern side it was 40- to 45-feet. Major and Lynn discussed. Demery Bishop reiterated that the downstairs was strictly commercial and the upstairs strictly residential. Boswell agreed. Bishop confirmed with Boswell that the northern deck would be strictly for the use of the northern unit. Boswell said that the only access was through the unit. Bishop and Boswell agreed that a window of that unit would be changed to a door. Bishop asked about the pitch and if it would create any issues for occupancy. Lynn said the pitch of the roof would not affect the occupancy. Boswell said that a structural engineer designed it for 100-pounds per square foot. Bishop and Boswell discussed the deck railing. Major asked if the entire lot was C-1. Lynn said that was correct. Burke called for public input. Harold Yellin, representing 211 Butler, LLC, spoke of an old cottage being placed atop new construction, and because of the combination of old and new some problems were encountered. He said that the petitioner did change his mind. Yellin said that under the ordinance a petitioner has the right to make changes to the Site Plan. He said that one of the comments from the City Council meeting was if the plan meets the code than this was not a variance. Yellin said he agreed. He said a second comment was that the only question was does this Site Plan comply with the City’s ordinance. He said it does. Yellin concluded his remarks. Richard Barrow, corner of Third Street and Butler Avenue, said that he has been here a number of times opposing what was proposed to go there. He said he saw the plans for this building and had no problems. He spoke about the cottage setting there for a long time and trash blowing into his yard. He spoke of having been opposed to the exit onto Third Street and the Fire Department wanting it so he dropped it. Barrow said that they keep coming back for variances and it looks to him like they are building a building with an end result in mind t hat does not go along with the plans. He said that his problem was not the north deck; the south deck was his problem. He said that he understood it was being built for cosmetic-looks only, not for use. He said that it has two doors and was probably an 8-foot deck. He said it was right across the street from his house; if they 3 wanted that it should have been on the plans to start with instead of coming back later. He said he was told that deck was going to be for cosmetics only; it would not be a deck that would be used. He asked the Commissioners to continue to look at the plans and if it was being built with an end use in mind that does not go with the plans he wished they would look at that. Valeria Rome, 301 Lovell Avenue, on the corner of Third Street and Lovell, said she understood the owner has a right to come before the Planning Commission with changes to his Site Plan but residents have a right to come before the Commission out of concern for the value of their property. She said the City’s website states that zoning and land use planning exist to protect the health, the safety and welfare of the community and to help to preserve property values. Rome said her property value was going to go down as soon as that gift shop was put in. She said it was not their fault; it happened years ago: that used to be residential and then it was turned into commercial. Addressing the Commissioners, Rome said we pay our taxes and they work for us, they do not work for them, and they were here to protect both parties. She said she was a construction engineer with the Corps of Engineers; she was a project manager. Referring to Boswell, she said when he cannot answer questions at a meeting that he knew was a month away that was poor project management. Rome spoke of her work with the Corps of Engineers. She said if she had somebody come to her with this many variances on a government project she would look at that contractor and go what have you got up your sleeve; you are not going to pull this over on the government. To the Commissioners, Rome said she understood the owner can change his mind but that does not mean that they have to say okay. She said it was their job to evaluate what this was going to do to the community. She said that all of them knew as well as she does, if it is zoned commercial, within a year somebody could come in and put a bar there. She said that concerns her as a resident. Rome said this was three doors down from City Hall. After further comments Rome asked who does inspections. Lynn and Rome discussed the Chatham County building inspector that works for Tybee. Rome said we were here last month about them not taking care of their trash. Lynn said it was reported to the City Marshal. Rome said it needed to be reported again. After she concluded her remarks Boswell clarified that he was not the structural engineer; he was a civil engineer. He said that the owner has the right to change his mind. Major commented that he has not seen any variances requested. He said what was before the Commission was the north deck. Boswell said the original plan did have the south deck with the entrances on it but the north deck was not submitted that way. He said they have never asked for a variance. Yellin said the petition has been varied from its original submittal but there have been no variances. Bishop said that the original plan was no deck on the north end, the second Site Plan was ornamental only, and the third was occupancy. He asked if Site Plan modifications and amendments were prohibited by a petitioner at any time. Lynn said no. Burke closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Parks moved to approve. Major seconded. Bishop, Major and Parks voted in favor. Callahan voted in opposition. The motion to approve passed with a 3-1 vote. City Council would consider the item on February 10. Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for Administration and Enforcement, other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-020, 5- 030, 5-040, and 5-050, which were previously approved. The petitioner was the City of Tybee Island. Jonathan Lynn said a couple of sections were brought up by City Council at the meeting on January 13. He suggested beginning by addressing those. He said the first would be Section 5-010, specifically where it referred to relocation permits. Lynn said Council requested that we require any structure moving anywhere on the island, from off the island or on the island, be required to have a relocation permit. John Major asked if the Commisssioners had not discussed that when they went through it. Lynn said they might have at a workshop. Monty Parks, Major, Lynn, and Rob Callahan discussed. Lynn suggested Section 5-010(B), Relocation Permit, read, “A relocation permit is required any time a manufactured home, trailer, out building, house, structure, or component is moved to or from any lot or parcel within the City limits.” Audience member Freda Rutherford said she was informed this afternoon by Councilperson Doyle that these items would not be on the agenda because they had not been properly advertised. She 4 said there were other people that planned to be here and she informed them that they need not attend since they were going to bring these up at their February meeting. After discussion, Parks motioned to reopen Sections 5-020 and 5-040 for discussion in February and to continue discussing other sections of Article 5 tonight. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to reopen Sections 5-020 and 5-040 for discussion in February and to continue discussing other sections of Article 5 tonight passed with a 4-0 vote. It was agreed to spend 30 minutes discussing Article 5. Lynn reread the proposed wording for Section 5-010(B) and the group discussed. They considered and reworded the last sentence of paragraph 4 in Section 5-010(L), Construction of Docks, Walkways, Etc., to “… the environment or coastal marshlands, the responsible party shall immediately report such event, casualty or occurrence.” Callahan moved to approve as annotated. Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-010 with the first sentence of (B) changed to “A relocation permit is required any time a manufactured home, trailer, out building, house, structure, or component is moved to or from any lot or parcel within the City Limits” and the last sentence of paragraph 4 under (L) changed to “… the environment or coastal marshlands, the responsible party shall immediately report such event, casualty or occurrence” passed with a 4-0 vote. Section 5-060, Public Hearing Requirements, was discussed and Freda Rutherford provided comments. Lynn suggested coming back to it in February. After consideration of Section 5-070, Standards for Special Review, Major motioned to approve Section 5-070 as presented but with the third sentence of (D) changed to “Any deviation from the information submitted will require separate approval by Planning Commission and Mayor and Council” and in (A)(4) the word “acquainted” changed to “associated.” Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-070 as presented but with the third sentence of (D) changed to “Any deviation from the information submitted will require separate approval by Planning Commission and Mayor and Council” and in (A)(4) the word “acquainted” changed to “associated” passed with a 4-0 vote. Jonathan Lynn discussed the scheduling of a first meeting for the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee. John Major said he thought what was proposed was that Council would appoint a committee consisting of Council and Planning Commission and other interested citizens and the person at the DNR who helps cities write ordinances. Lynn said he did not understand it that way but he could certainly put it on the Council agenda. Demery Bishop confirmed that it was to be a joint committee. Major discussed and Rob Callahan read the motion from the November 15, 2010, meeting when the Commissioners approved creation of a committee. The discussion concluded. Jonathan Lynn encouraged the Commissioners to attend the Community Planning Institute to be held in Savannah on February 15 and 16. Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and Monty Parks seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned.