Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141021_PC_Minutes.pdf1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop, Vice Chair Diane Schleicher Ron Bossick Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Julie Livingston Dianne Otto, CFM John Major Tyler Marion, Chair CITY ATTORNEY David McNaughton Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Tyler Marion called the October 21, 2014, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. The other Commissioners present were: Demery Bishop, Ron Bossick, Marianne Bramble, John Major, and David McNaughton. Julie Livingston was absent. Chair Tyler Marion asked for consideration of the Minutes of the September 16, 2014, meeting. Demery Bishop motioned to approve. Marianne Bramble seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous, 5-0. Chair Tyler Marion asked if there were any disclosures or recusals. Marianne Bramble disclosed applicant Tony Petrea had worked at her house. John Major disclosed he had business relationships with Tony Petrea in the past. Lot Recombination – 21 Pulaski St. – Zone R-1 – PINs 4-0001-02-016 & 4-0001-02-017 Planning and Zoning Manager Dianne Otto explained the request for a lot recombination at 21 Pulaski Street, zone R-1. The petitioner was Tony Petrea. Lots 6 and 7 are currently two lots of record and the request is to combine those into one property. She further explained that located on the property is an historic battery. Chair Marion asked if the Tybee Island Historical Commission has been involved with this request. Ms. Otto responded they have not been notified by staff of this request. Mr. McNaughton asked Ms. Otto if there was any protection for the battery that will be considered in the future or is this private property and anything can happen to the property. Ms. Otto responded that the property is privately owned and anything could happen to it and it has also been available to purchase over a span of time. Mr. McNaughton then stated the current battery does not meet the setbacks. Ms. Otto concurred and stated the required setbacks in the R-1 zone are 20 feet front and back, and 10 feet on the sides. She explained that the current document before the Commission did not provide what the setbacks are but she assured the Commission it does not meet the setbacks. Mr. McNaughton stated that it is his recommendation the Commission should have something in front of them that indicates any specific problems that exist with the setbacks in order for them to make a decision. Ms. Otto responded that per the diagram the edge of concrete in the back area does not meet the 20 foot requirement. She stated that in order to save the petitioner expenses in having a plat prepared that may not be approved, staff allowed Mr. Petrea to proceed with this request with the simple property boundaries. The request is to remove the center property line to combine this into one parcel. Ms. Otto stated she is comfortable with the existing plat as it is two lots of record, both do not meet the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone, they do not meet the required setbacks, and the recombination does bring the lot size into conformance. Mr. Major asked Ms. Otto if these two lots were previously one lot as it is his understanding there was a structure on the property. He then questioned why the Commission would allow a lot of size that meets the requirements for R-1 to subdivide into two lots that do not meet the requirements for R-1 and when did that happen? Ms. Otto deferred to Mr. Petrea. She also expressed this is an improvement for the district as there is a potential for two single family homes to be built and the request is to combine and have only one lot of record. Mr. Major discussed the future setbacks if a single family home was built on the property. Ms. Otto confirmed that if a single family home was built and the structure would conform to the required setbacks it would not require the Commission or City Council to review. Mr. Bishop asked if there has been precedence regarding the other battery lots that have structures built on. Ms. Otto explained two other battery lots and their conformity to the setbacks. A discussion ensued regarding the calculations that were made to ensure this request meets the 12,000 square feet. Ms. Otto confirmed that it would. She had researched SAGIS and discussed with Mr. Bert Barrett Jr., as he is the surveyor of record for future development. Tony Petrea 2 approached the Commission to answer any questions or concerns. He gave a short history of the property and then explained there are two lots of record that could have two houses on them. Mr. Petrea presented a drawing of two structures that could be built on the properties if not re-combined. It is his preference only one structure be built and thus his request for a recombination. He further explained his future plans for a structure stating that it would be in the same footprint as a previous structure and no demolition to the battery would occur. Mr. Petrea asked the Commission to approve his request of recombining two lots of record. Chair Marion asked Mr. Petrea if he has been in contact with the Tybee Historical Commission. Mr. Petrea responded it is his intent to preserve what is left of the historical aspect of the property and he has not had the opportunity to bring anyone in to discuss the historical preservation as this is only the first step of his project. Chair Marion asked Mr. Petrea if the dunes are encroaching the original footprint and if so, would it cause a problem. Ms. Otto stated that in the future a new survey would be needed showing the toe of the dune and the Shore Protection Act Jurisdiction Line needs to be re-determined or re-verified. Mr. Petrea confirmed. He then explained that it is his intentions, with the State’s and City’s permission, to open the portion of Pulaski Street with an easement to grant beach access for people that live in the area. The Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Bramble stated that the re- combination of the lots had been before mayor and council previously and she is in favor of this item. Mr. Major moved to approve. Mr. Bossick seconded the motion. The vote to approve passed unanimously. Variance – Polk St. right-of -way & 318 Polk St. – Zones C-2 & E-C – PINs 4-0025-01-005Y & 4-0025-01-005Z Planning and Zoning Manager Dianne Otto explained this is a variance request and the petitioners are the City of Tybee Island and Michael and Karen Leonard. The area is the Polk Street right-of-way on the south-side of Highway 80 and 318 Polk Street which is the driveway to the Leonard’s home. This is the third time this variance request has been considered by the City and each had one year longevity. She explained this request is not different from when it had been before the Commission previously. Chair Marion confirmed this was basically a continuance of the same item. He then asked Ms. Otto to explain the delay by the City. Ms. Otto stated there are many entities involved with the variance such as the Corps and the Coastal Resources Division, DNR. She explained that the City has continued to endeavor improvement and maintenance to the current right-of-way and driveway to get it elevated to the point where it is usable except for the high- tide instances. Mr. Major thanked Ms. Otto for the previous minutes included in the packet before the Commission as they answered many questions. He then asked Ms. Otto if this is a City project or an owner project. Ms. Otto responded it is a combination with the City being responsible for the Polk Street right-of-way and the Leonard’s for the work on their property. Mr. McNaughton asked Ms. Otto in other instances such as this where the variance had expired and a new application had been filed, had fees been waived. Ms. Otto responded that she does not recall where the City has been in such an instance with repetitive renewals. The Leonard’s did pay the initial variance fee and as the City does not charge itself. There have been no additional fees collected. Mr. Major asked if the Commission could grant an additional variance to include the one year longevity and state the variance is in effect until such time as this project is either approved by the State or the City specifically withdraws the request. Ms. Otto stated that she would prefer the motion be stipulated that the variance is for the plan as currently proposed. Mr. Bossick asked Ms. Otto if there is a completion date for this project. Ms. Otto responded that the City has been encumbered by the State permitting process and there is no way to determine the length of time until completion. Mr. Leonard approached the Commission stating that his family lives at the end of 318 Polk Street. He explained that the City owns the driveway except for the last 40 yards as it is on his property. Leonard confirmed that it is not his intention to develop the land and he has signed a letter stating that if the road is improved they will not develop the property. Ms. Bramble asked Mr. Leonard if the City has filled the road. Mr. Leonard responded no as the City cannot until the State makes a decision. Ms. Otto stated that Mayor pro tem Doyle has been involved with updates and it is the intent of mayor and council to resolve this issue. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Bishop made a motion to approve the renewal of the Polk Street right-of-way and 318 Polk Street variance request as previously approved on two separate occasions and further stipulate that there should be an absolute sunset of 18 months after approval by Tybee Island City Council and without approval and action within that 18 months punitive damages be assessed against the parties responsible for the delinquency. Ms. Bramble seconded. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. Text Amendment – Section 5-090, Variances Planning and Zoning Manager Dianne Otto stated a red-line had been provide for this section that had been approved by a prior Planning Commission on December 18, 2012. It is now the intent to have the current Planning Commission review, submit suggestions/recommendations and allow it to proceed to City Council. Mr. Major said it has been almost that long ago that a resident of Tybee Island approached the Commission stating the ordinance is restrictive in that to be considered for a variance a property must have hardship against the property that involves physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding properties. He then discussed the process of granting a variance. Mr. Major further explained 3 that it is the intent to have language stating that if there are legitimate concerns to the property then it is eligible for a variance. The city attorney provided case law from other communities within the State that stated a sub-standard lot of record is eligible to be considered for a variance. This language was then included in the proposed ordinance for consideration. Mr. Major requested the minutes from December 2012 Planning Commission meeting be included as part of the packet to City Council for this item. On January 10, 2013, the item was before mayor and council and the action was to withdraw. He would recommend this go before mayor and council and ask the city attorney to explain what can or cannot be enacted. Mr. Major made reference to the language in green text on the second page. He said that it was not hammered out and that could slow the process down. He would like it submitted exactly as shown. Ms. Otto stated she is content with the vertical expansion sentence, in green, being struck as it is addressed in the non-conforming structure ordinance, Section 3-020. Ms. Bramble asked why it was withdrawn. Mr. Major stated that the minutes from the city council meeting stated “withdrawn.” There was clarification that the date of the Planning Commission meeting was December 18, 2012. Mr. Bishop commended Mr. Major on his presentation. He stated this has been discussed many times and Mr. Hughes, City Attorney, provided the Commission the decision of the Superior Court, Eastern Judicial Circuit on May 2003 involving the case of a sub-standard lot of record and it was found the variance granted was in favor of Council. He read from the red-line and recommended where the terms “circumstance, conditions or consideration” appear, it always be the same so if the ordinance is approved there would be continuity. Chair Marion asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to come forward. Being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Bishop made a motion to approve Section 5-090 as amended to include the terms “circumstance, condition or consideration” consistently throughout the ordinance. Mr. Major seconded for discussion. He asked Mr. Bishop to include in his motion to strike the second sentence in paragraph E.1(b). Mr. Bishop agreed. Mr. Major seconded. The vote was unanimous, 5-0. Adjournment Mr. Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Meeting ended at 8:04 p.m. Minutes prepared by Jan LeViner with minor edits by Dianne Otto