Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130219_PC_Minutes.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Monty Parks, Chair Diane Schleicher Tyler Marion, Vice Chair Demery Bishop PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Marianne Bramble Dianne Otto, CFM Rob Callahan David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Mayor Jason Buelterman called the February 19, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, and Monty Parks. Mayor Buelterman announced an opening on the Planning Commission and the process for applying for that position. Mayor Buelterman swore in Marianne Bramble, Tyler Marion, and David McNaughton for 2-year terms ending on January 31, 2015. Demery Bishop nominated Monty Parks to serve as Chair; David McNaughton seconded; vote was unanimous. Mr. Parks – Our first order of business is to elect a Vice Chair. Marianne Bramble nominated Tyler Marion; Demery Bishop seconded; vote was unanimous. Mr. Parks - The next order of business is the Minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting. Do I have any discussion? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? Mr. McNaughton made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Callahan seconded. [Vote was unanimous.] Are there any Disclosures or Recusals at this time? [There were none.] Variance – Reshma Shah Johnson - Front Setback for 5 Tenth Place Ms. Otto – This request at 5 Tenth Place is to build a single-family home. On the rear of the property is a drainage easement that has taken a portion of the property that normally would have been building footprint. The request is to encroach into the front setback, which is required to be twenty feet, with a three foot area which would only be in the center portion of the proposed structure. In your packets are diagrams of each floor level and a rendering of what the home would look like. On the ground level there would not be a three foot extension into the front setback but on the second and third levels there would be. Highlighted in yellow is the three foot area protruding into the front setback (referring to PowerPoint). Here is the rendering that shows if you are looking straight at the home and what it would look like. If you are looking west, on the left side, you see the protrusion of the second and third floors beyond the footprint of the ground floor. Here is a photograph of the lot and that drainage area in the rear of the property as well as a couple of shots looking east and west along Tenth Place. Tenth Place is a private road and all the homes own to the middle of the lane; the required twenty foot setback is measured from the center of the road. Mr. Callahan – Since we are measuring from the middle of the road, that makes it narrower than we would normally be dealing with because we’re usually measuring from the edge of the pavement, correct? 2 Ms. Otto – We’re usually measuring from the property line that has a city right-of-way in front of it but this does not. The house across the street, they share a common front property line which is the middle of the street. Mr. Callahan – The concern is the width that will be remaining with the three-foot overhang on the second and third floors. Is it going to impede emergency vehicles or large moving vans or anything of that nature? Ms. Otto – I have not experienced what large vehicles are doing on that lane so I don’t have an answer for that. Mr. Callahan – Such as a fire truck. Ms. Otto – Fire trucks do not place themselves in harm’s way so they would not go in there and not be able to turn around and come back out. They are going to use their equipment from Butler Avenue to access any structure in there; they don’t take equipment or fire truck s into a place where they can’t turn around and get back out. They would be too close to the source of the fire and that would endanger the fire trucks. Based on prior questions I have asked about dead ends like this, they don’t put their equipment in that situation. Mr. Smith is here this evening and he could probably answer that question better than I could. Mr. Callahan – I think you have addressed it adequately if they don’t even venture down the road. Other large vehicles, especially taller ones like moving vans, would the width of the road be so narrow between the edge of the house across the street and what will be the front overhang of the new house that it may become a problem? Is there any way to know that? Ms. Otto – I don’t know of a way to know that. Mr. Callahan – Do you know what the setback is to this home? Ms. Otto – In your packet is the drainage as-built from the other projects and it does show that the home that is closest to the ocean has a fifteen foot setback [referring to PowerPoint]. The next one looks to be twenty though it is not called out. The one shown here, at the far end nearest the beach, is at fifteen feet, this one is at twenty, and they are proposing seventeen but only on the second and third floors. Mr. Callahan – I was thinking that the new house was to the left of this one [referring to PowerPoint]. Is the house on the right in that photo, is it set back far enough to allow passage of the larger vehicles? Ms. Otto – Looking at the photograph, I would say yes but I don’t have a measurement of what their front setback is. Mr. Callahan – The house on the right was probably constructed many years ago or before we had setbacks. Ms. Otto – I believe because it probably has a Strand address, and the front is probably considered to be the ocean, that the fifteen is actually a side setback. It’s a duplex that faces the ocean so what you see there is a side of one of the units, so that is a side yard setback. Mr. Callahan – I understand that. I was referring to the other photo that was up. I’m just trying to establish what the setback is for that one. Ms. Otto – I do not know. I’ve seen Waste Pro garbage trucks back into these types of lanes because there is nowhere to turn around. I would suspect that may be the situation unless they are currently using this lot to turn around on. Mr. Bishop – When I was looking at the lot and the proposed floor plan, the house has one dimension according to the Shah Architectural drawing, is 32 feet and the extension is three so we have a total of 35 feet total. Is that correct? 3 Ms. Otto – The total depth of the home, yes. Mr. Bishop – In the measurements taken from the drainage ditch, approximately, going forward to that 35 feet, it appears that the duplex that is located to the east on the beach side, that appears to be where their side is approximately the same distance into the lane that this house would be in general measurements. With that, as far as a public safety or an issue, I guess that would be considered a precedent – which it is already out into the lane at approximately the same amount of distance. Ms. Otto – I would agree with that statement. Mr. Bishop – Looking at code section 5-090, that we could grant a variance from the strict application of the Land Development Code if there are unique physical circumstances inclusive of exceptional topographical or other physical conditions. Topography being basically graphic representation of a surface feature of a place or region on a map or survey. W ouldn’t the detention pond fall squarely within the definition of exceptional topographical since it is in fact a surface feature that is reflected on a map as well as a survey? That could potentially place it into a category of may grant a variance based on a unique physical circumstance based on exceptional topographical or other physical conditions. Ms. Otto – In my opinion, this detention/retention area is a man-made topographic feature that did not originate to that lot. It was created as a drainage area to serve multiple lots in that vicinity. In my opinion, when the code references the topographic, it is referring to something that naturally existed not to something that was man-made and placed there within recent years. Mr. Bishop – If it was man-made, could it be filled in since it’s not naturally made, to accommodate the current design of the home? If there was a drainage plan that would allow the filled in area to act as the appropriate drainage for that lot and the adjoining lots there too? Ms. Otto – It is currently a platted drainage easement. If the owner proposed an alternative drainage system that served the same purpose, that would be considered by the city and then the lot would have the normal footprint that a building is allowed in this zone. It would be an expensive venture because of the number of lots that are using that detention area for their drainage. Mr. Bishop – As it is currently, on the surveys and maps, the fact that it is a detention area without that filling, the city would not consider that exceptional topographical finding thereby inhibiting the ability to build from a reasonable position on the lot forward with a variance because actually that existing topographical item is a uniqueness to that lot and prohibits the owner from building without coming forward because we can’t build over the detention pond, so that is a uniqueness to that lot. Ms. Otto – It could be interpreted in that way. In my opinion, I find it to be a man-made item that was placed on that lot for a different purpose and it was known at that time that the footprint would be reduced because of it. It is certainly buildable without the three foot requested in the front; they could still build a suitable home. I believe the petitioner is going to share the design aesthetic as a more pleasing appearance with the bump-out on the front, but it certainly could be developed as a box home without needing a variance. Mr. Parks – This detention pond, when was this done? W hat is the history of this pond? Ms. Otto – I have the permit that was issued in 2005 for the drainage for the minor subdivision that occurred in this area. That retention area serves the two lots that are shown in this photograph [referring to PowerPoint] down the street and also serves a drainage outlet that goes over to the street to the south. It is a comprehensive area for drainage that solved the building of these other lots in 2005. Mr. Parks – There have been many houses built without ponds; was there a specific reason for one there? 4 Ms. Otto – It needed to be sizeable. Recently we worked with Neptune Lane and it has two on that subdivision. W hen you have development on a large overall tract and you’re going to build major impacts, there needs to be a way to address that. This being a private lane, there is no city storm sewer for the runoff. Subsurface detention is used other places, that is an option, but for this particular situation their engineer designed a detention area instead. Mr. Parks – I assume that pond was there when they negotiated the sale of the property; this was a known characteristic. Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Parks – They can’t fill it in? Ms. Otto – They cannot fill it in. They could hire an engineer to design and there are many different ways to design drainage. Another engineer may come up with a design that serves the same purpose but doesn’t take up as much of this particular lot. It would be an expensive thing to engineer but if you went with some type of subsurface detention area, it is doable. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Do we have somebody for the petitioner that would like to address this? Reshma Shah Johnson came forward and introduced herself. I am the architect for this proposed design. We feel that the retention/detention pond was a topographic anomaly to the site and that was our reasoning to get a variance to extend the center section. The buildable lot is 40 feet by 32 feet and we have tried to put as much house as we can into that modest footprint. The owners want something understated and low scale and we feel like it would be a good design choice to let the center bay come out also enabling them to get a better view, albeit small, of the ocean proper. Mr. McNaughton – Are the support posts for that front bump-out in the setback area? Mr. Johnson – No, they are not. It’s a cantilever. Mr. McNaughton – That small space from the column out is the overhang. Ms. Johnson – Yes, from that red dot to the edge [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Marion – Your clients have also explored options. Talking about a box style home, would they consider something like that to mitigate any additional costs such as exploring the whole idea of the retention pond? Ms. Johnson – Yes, if the only options were to look at the retention pond or forego the bump-out, they’re going to forego the bump-out. This is a very cost limiting project and for the owners it is a numbers game as to what you can put on this lot that will work. He doesn’t want to touch the retention/detention pond whatsoever because you don’t know what you’re going to get into once you get into it. Mr. Bishop – The three feet that would put you into the setback, in essence, that would allow the prospective homeowner to have an east ocean view? Ms. Johnson – Correct. Mr. Bishop – Without the bump-out, would they have a view? Ms. Johnson – If you stood in the corner of the most east porch. Mr. Bishop – Aesthetically they would still have an ocean view without the bump-out but just not as grand? 5 Ms. Johnson – Correct. Mr. Bishop – Without the variance that is. Ms. Johnson – Without the variance, correct. Ms. Bramble – Is the hardship for the owner the ocean view? Ms. Johnson – No, the hardship is the additional setback requirement brought on by the retention / detention pond that exists on the property; that changes the allowable footprint that can go there. Mr. Bishop – Dianne, the detention pond, in your opinion, is not a hardship? Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Bishop – The detention pond requiring them to come to us tonight does not constitute an exceptional topographical item under the intent of the LDC because it was man-made? Ms. Otto – That is my opinion. The value and marketability of this property were based on the existence of that retention area which was installed in 2005. If it was a Corps of Engineers recognized marsh land or fresh water spring or something similar would fall into the category of what, to me, is a topographical feature. For a detention area to be in that same category, that was its function based on development not on natural features of that land, it does not qualify in my opinion. Mr. Bishop – The LDC does not define topographic as having to be natural. Ms. Otto – It does not. Mr. Bishop – That detention pond is a physical condition that is particularly unique to that property. Ms. Otto – It is. Mr. Bishop – In line with the wording of the LDC. Ms. Otto – It could be interpreted that way, yes. Mr. Parks – We have established that a very reasonable house could be developed there within the LDC requirements if it is considered a topographical, right? Ms. Otto – I agree with that statement. The square footage of a home based on this little bit of variance that is requested is not substantial; it is not habitable area except on the third floor. Ms. Johnson – It would be on the third floor. Ms. Otto – It’s not that big of a protrusion that if it were not granted that they couldn’t build a home that is livable based on the available square footage given the footprint that is allowed by the setbacks and that retention area. Ms. Johnson – From a Shah Architecture standpoint, it is a design aesthetic that helps the overall massing of the design project. 6 Mr. Bishop – It is noted that the LDC does not define unique physical circumstances or exceptional topography anywhere; it’s just used in that particular portion. This lot was bought subject to the existence of the drainage pond by the current owners in 2011, correct? Ms. Otto – I’m unsure of the date they purchased the property. I had many inquiries about the possible development of the lot when it was on the market and all potential buyers understood that the detention area was in a platted easement which needed to remain and the setbacks for the zone were identified and the footprint could be determined by that means. Mr. Bishop – So the purchasers would have known that setback and that detention pond would directly affect the footprint of any residence being built at any future date? Ms. Otto – Any potential buyer that chose to do due diligence on the property, yes. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak? [There were none.] At this time I would like to close this hearing. Do I have a motion for discussion? Mr. McNaughton – I make a motion to approve. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of a motion to approve, please signify. McNaughton and Bishop voted to approve. Bramble, Callahan, and Marion voted to deny. Do I have another motion? Mr. Marion – I make a motion to deny. There are options on the table. As the representative for the applicant said, this is design aesthetics; there is no hardship where the applicant is going to suffer. Ms. Bramble – Second. Mr. Parks – All those in favor of denial of the variance request as presented, please signify. Bramble, Callahan, and Marion voted in favor to deny. McNaughton and Bishop voted against the motion. Ms. Otto – This will be considered at the March 14th Council meeting. Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Callahan – Motion to adjourn. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – Meeting is adjourned. Meeting ended at 19:32 Minutes by Jerris Bryant