Loading...
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.