HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110517_PC_mtg_min.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Henry Levy Ethan Imhoff
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the May 17, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, and John
Major. Absent was Tyler Marion.
Dianne Otto introduced the newly hired Planning and Zoning Manager, Ethan Imhoff. He expressed that
he was looking forward to working with the Commission.
Chair Monty Parks asked for discussion on the Minutes of the April 19, 2011, meeting. John Major
moved to approve. Parks distributed a handout and said there were several instances during the April
meeting where there was a request for point of order. Parks said he was not a parliamentarian; he was
however a respecter of the rules they try to conduct meetings by. He said what he handed out was the
basic guidelines that were given to every member as they joined the Commission and on the back of it
were his notes that he uses to get himself through the meeting. Parks noted that everybody on this
Commission does this voluntarily because they take this seriously. He said that everybody that appears
before them puts a lot of time into their preparation. He said the Commission owes them the sincerity of
their efforts. He said the handout was their order of the day. Using the gavel, Parks said that a comment or
motion made out of order would be noted by a light rap and a note that the comment or motion was out of
order. He said the comment or motion that was noted would not be reflected in the Minutes, however, the
out of order notice would be. He said they would continue to adhere to being recognized by the Chair
during discussions. Henry Levy asked the difference between the front and the back of the handout. Parks
explained the difference. Referring to a parliamentary law book, Parks said if he needed to reference it he
would be glad to although he would probably not do it at the meeting because they do need to move
expeditiously. Demery Bishop seconded the motion to approve the Minutes. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Marianne Bramble disclosed that she
would recuse for the 211 Butler Avenue variance request because she lives directly behind the property.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 211 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-
08-004, Zone C-1. The petitioner was 211 Butler Ave., LLC. The request was an after-the-fact setback
encroachment for a new commercial building. Marianne Bramble recused. Dianne Otto said the
encroachment was on the southeast corner of the property. She said the survey showed a 9.6-foot setback
from the corner of the structure to the property line and a column forward of that in the sidewalk area
holding up the roof overhang at a 9.8-foot setback. Otto noted the southwest setback was 10.3-feet. She
said the building was skewed when it was originally laid out. Otto also noted that the original contractor
was no longer with the project; it was being finished by a contractor who had no responsibility for this nor
2
did the owner. John Major asked if the owner changed since the beginning of the project. Otto said no.
Demery Bishop asked how the encroachment could be remedied. Otto said it would take substantial
investment by the owner and the contractor to take the corner of the structure back to where it needed to
be. Bishop asked if that had been pursued with regards to cost. Otto said not by Staff. Henry Levy said
that the overhang on the Butler Avenue side exceeded that by probably 2-feet. Otto discussed the zero
setback on the front of the building. Major said that nine months ago, before they changed the ordinance,
this would not even have been permitted to be brought before the Commission. Otto agreed. Major
discussed the background of the ordinance change and read a portion of the revised ordinance. He said it
seemed like during the construction somebody could have gone out with a tape measure and measured 10-
feet on the setback. He said that as they consider this they do have the ability to recommend, not jus t
approval or denial, but approval with some type of penalty as provided in the ordinance. Otto concurred.
Parks asked if at some point during the construction process we missed a step. Otto asked if he was
referring to Staff. Parks said anybody other than the owner. Otto said no; Staff does not have the
instruments required to do survey work. She said Staff could go there with a tape measure, pull a string
from one property corner to the next, and attempt to measure from the structure to that string; that would
be as advanced as Staff could go. After Otto explained further why setback encroachments occur, Parks
asked who realized the encroachment. Otto said the surveyor preparing the as-built survey would have
been the first to realize the encroachment. She said it was then brought to the attention of Staff. Harold
Yellin, representative of the owner, said the petition was for a variance of slightly under 5 -inches.
Summarized, Yellin’s three comments were: the 5-inch encroachment was not intentional, in a number of
municipalities this would be handled administratively, and this was a side yard divided by Third Street on
the south from the side of the neighboring house. He concluded his remarks by offering to plant additional
vegetation. Rob Callahan asked how to know if the surveyor was correct. Yellin said he called the
surveyor who told him he was comfortable he was correct within 0.01-inch. The Chair asked for public
input. There was none. Parks closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy said at some point
they are going to have to say move it to enforce the ordinance but this was not the place. He moved the
variance be granted. Major seconded the motion for discussion. Major repeated that nine months ago this
could not have even been brought before the Council or Commission. He said Yellin had mentioned some
possible givebacks in terms of more greenspace, planting trees, doing something. He said our ordinance
provides for some type of financial penalty for an after-the-fact variance. He spoke about past setback
encroachments. He recommended Council consider some kind of a giveback by the petitioner , whether it
be something like Yellin suggested or some type of financial penalty provided for in our ordinance, so
that people realize that when they encroach into the setback, for whatever reason, it is not going to be just
that they should not have done that and moving on. Levy said in affect they buy their variance by paying a
penalty. Levy commented that the trees at the site looked like they were dead. Major said his comment
stands. Voting in favor of the motion to approve were Bishop, Callahan, Levy, and Major. Bramble had
recused. The motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. The request would be considered by City
Council on June 9.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Minor Subdivision at 4 Alger Avenue, PINs 4-0020-
04-005, -006, and -007. The property was in an R-1 zone. The petitioner was Tybee Pigeon Club, LLC.
The request was a recombination of three lots and then a subdivision of the property into two lots. Dianne
Otto said Staff finds this improves a situation although it does not meet Code. She said what would result
after a recombination of the three lots would be two lots, each of which would consist of 9,618 square
feet. Otto said the minimum lot size requirement in an R-1 district is 12,000 square feet, however, many
lots in this particular residential neighborhood are small. She said the request would improve the potential
of the current Lots 6 and 7 being built. John Major asked what was the Tybee Pigeon Club. Otto said she
would leave that question for the applicant. Rob Callahan asked Otto how she could recommend approval
when it did not meet the minimum lot requirement. Referring to the existing Lots 6 and 7, Otto said that
3
currently the owners do not have lots that are marketable. She listed the dimensions of the lots. Callahan
asked why the better idea would not be to combine into just one. Otto said the owners have three lots of
record; rather than coming to ask for setback variances to try to squeeze something on the lots, they are
compromising by shaving off the larger lot and creating two lots of equal size. After lot sizes in the area
were discussed by Otto, Major asked if these were substandard lots of record. Otto said yes. The locations
and conditions of the existing structures were discussed. Otto said the smallest structure would be
required to be removed since the new lot line, if approved, went through it. Major asked if these lots were
served by water and sewer. Otto said they would be required to be when developed. Major asked if all
setbacks would be met on the resulting house. Otto said she had not received an application for
construction but they would be required to meet setbacks or seek a variance. Demery Bishop questioned if
the existing concrete building on Lot 8 was inhabitable. Otto said it was not inhabitable. Bishop asked if
the recombination was allowed would a second appearance be required for a variance because of the lot
size. Otto said no, if approved this recombination would be a variance to the minimum lot size
requirement in R-1. Documents related to the request were reviewed. Major said if it was a variance
request there would have to be a stated hardship to the property. He asked if there was no hardship
statement required when a variance was assumed from a recombination. Otto said there was no
requirement for a recombination to state a hardship. Major asked if there was an ordinance that deals with
recombinations. Otto said it falls under a minor subdivision. Major asked Otto if this was one lot of
18,360 square feet and they wanted to subdivide it into two lots to build two homes, would she be
recommending it. Otto said no. She said she was viewing it as an improvement to the current situation.
Major asked if of the three lots was one unbuildable. Otto said without a very heavy variance, it was
unbuildable. After discussion, Otto said the house furthest to the north was inhabited. The uninhabitable
structure was considered further. She said there could not be a second primary structure on the lot if the
recombination was approved. Dottie Courington, manager of Tybee Pigeon Club, said the name comes
from a childhood club that played at the north beach. She said the current Lot 6 was 2,484 square feet, Lot
7 was 4,527 square feet, and Lot 8 was 12,226 square feet. She said this was an effort to make use of Lots
6 and 7. She said if they cannot get it recombined to make the lots bigger they will have to try for
variances. Courington said her understanding of lots of record was that they are buildable but you have to
abide by the setback lines. She said the two lots were awfully small. Bishop asked if she currently had
plans to destroy the existing concrete buildings. Courington said it could be that they have to tear down
the buildings to make them marketable but they would probably start by not tearing them down and
hoping somebody else would want to tear them down. Callahan asked if she considered recombining into
one lot. Courington said no. Referring to another lot across Rifle Avenue that Tybee Pigeon Club owns,
Courington said she did try to buy unopened Rifle Avenue. She explained that if she does develop the
current Lot 7 she would have to get the City to open Rifle Avenue. Major asked if Cit y water and sewer
were available on Alger Avenue or on Solomon Avenue. Courington said it was on Alger Avenue. Major
read from the substandard lot of record ordinance. After a brief discussion, Parks asked for public input.
There was none. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy moved that the request be
approved provided they move the existing building that they say they are going to move in 90 days. There
was not a second to the motion. Bishop motioned to approve as requested. Major seconded the motion.
Voting in favor of the motion to approve were Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Levy, and Major. Callahan
voted against the motion. The motion to approve passed with a 4-1 vote. City Council would hear the
request on June 9.
The next item was a Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for Administration and Enforcement,
other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-010, 5-030, 5-050, and 5-070 which were
previously approved. Regarding Section 5-020, Dianne Otto explained that it was requested at the March
meeting that Staff provide an addition to Section 5-020(H)(2). She said the amendment prohibits
recreational vehicles used for dwelling purposes on commercial property. John Major moved to approve.
4
Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The motion to approve Section 5-020, Permits or Actions
Required by this Land Development Code, passed with a 5-0 vote. Moving to Section 5-040, Otto
explained that the recommendations from Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, were added to
Section 5-040(C)(11), (G)(2)(a)(5), and (G)(2)(b)(5). At Major’s suggestion and after discussion, it was
agreed to strike the word “significant” from Section 5-040(C)(1). Callahan moved to approve Section 5-
040 with the removal of the word “significant.” Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-040, Application for Permits or Actions Under this
Land Development Code, with the striking of “significant” from (C)(1) passed with a 5-0 vote. Otto
read Section 5-041, Lot Recombination: “Recombination of lots in their entirety may be approved by
Staff so long as there is no creation of a nonconforming lot or structure.” She said they had at two
previous Planning Commission meetings discussed this suggestion from the City Attorney that this newly
created section be added to Article 5. Major asked why they would want to do this. Otto said that last
week Staff did a recombination. She said the situation that required it was the 211 Butler Avenue site. She
explained that the development took place on six lots of record; there was a structure straddling two lots
and a parking lot on three or four other lots serving that structure. Otto said that Staff requires that there
be a recombination before the structure can have a Certificate of Occupancy. Referring to Section 5-041,
she said without this addition and because of other changes in the code that have recently been made, the
applicant would have had to come before the Planning Commission and City Council, which wou ld have
been at a minimum a six-week process to facilitate the lot recombination that was accomplished in 24-
hours. Parks said this was suggested by former Planning and Zoning Manager Jonathan Lynn. Otto said
Lynn presented it; it was suggested by the City Attorney; he wrote the sentence and numbered the section
that it has gone to. Parks asked if the Tybee Pigeon Club item would have still come before the Planning
Commission. Otto said that it would because it would have created nonconforming lots. Marianne
Bramble said that Otto used the reference that last week Staff did 211 Butler Avenue which was just
before them for an after-the-fact variance. She said everything should come before the Council and the
Planning Commission. Otto said that at this point Staff has represented this section to the best of its
ability. She added that if it was Planning Commission’s desire to strike the sentence it would remain in
the text that goes to City Council when Article 5 goes forward. She said they do not have the benefit of
the City Attorney to speak to this. Bishop asked Major to elaborate on his concerns. Major said he has
visions of the economy turning around and lots being put together and mcmansions being built where
there are no variances and no creation of a nonconforming lot but suddenly they have something there that
may be inconsistent when the Master Plan calls for single-family and low-density residential housing. He
said they ought to at least be able to consider before those kinds of things happen. Major asked why do we
need this if Staff is already doing them. Otto said that given the change to subdivisions not being done
administratively other than duplexes, the City Attorney felt that this sentence needed to be added. Major
asked if without this sentence Staff was able to do what it did at 211 Butler Avenue. Otto said she
consulted with the City Attorney and he advised her to proceed. She said that in a situation such as that, a
structure straddling a property line, Staff cannot C.O. in that state. Major asked if it should have been
dealt with earlier in the process. Otto said perhaps, it was typically something that Staff reviews near
completion. Otto, Major, Parks, and Bishop discussed the topic further. Bishop said he would like to
know the reasoning behind why we want to do this since it can currently be done; what caused the City
Attorney to put this in writing. Otto said it was her understanding that when the revision was made to
subdivisions not being done at the Staff level that prompted the City Attorney to want to document that
Staff could do recombinations, and there was no change to Staff doing subdivisions of duplexes. Bishop
said there were a lot of valid questions asked tonight by this Commission on the Pigeon Club
recombination. Otto agreed and said the questions were related to it not meeting the minimum lot sizes.
She said that was not what this proposed ordinance would address. She said this addresses recombinations
of lots that do not create nonconforming lots. Otto said that in a conversation she had with City Attorney
Hughes he felt Planning Commission and City Council would be hard pressed to deny a property owner’s
5
request to recombine their property. She said that at the point the Planning Commission would see a
recombination the applicant may not have any plans, but the Planning Commission will certainly not
know what the plans were for the use of that property, nor were they entitled to know such. Otto said that
frequently recombinations were done for tax purposes alone; rather than being taxed on individual parcels
it was in their interest to combine them and be taxed on a single property. She said that the need to know
that these are occurring versus the right of the City to deny a property owner’s desire to recombine
property he owns seems to be where they were getting stuck. Parks said that one of his major concerns
was that if he bought six beachfront properties and the current Tybee height [limit] was 35-feet unless he
allowed 2-feet on each side for every 1-foot up; he could legally go higher if he allowed more setback on
each side. He said he could legally go over the 35-feet without it coming to anybody’s attention under a
lot recombination. Otto read from Section 3-090: “If a variance is granted by the Mayor and Council for a
building with a height in excess of 35-feet in no event shall a building permit be granted without the
following restrictions….” She said nothing was to be built above 35-feet without a variance. Major said 5-
090 also deals with height variances. After discussion, Parks asked for a motion. Bramble motioned to
strike Section 5-041. Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to strike Section
5-041, Lot Recombination, passed with a 5-0 vote.
The final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee. Chair Monty
Parks said they took a tour of several beachfront properties to get an idea of what was involved with the
setbacks and with dunes and establishing what is a dune and what is a seawall . He said every step of this
was a little more enlightening and a little more confusing. He said he thinks they are moving toward a
very concise ordinance. Parks said that going into the last two meetings he feels they are going to craft
something very presentable for Council. The next meeting of the Committee will be June 7.
Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn and Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous
and the meeting was adjourned.