Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151019_PC MINUTES.pdf PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Ron Bossick Marianne BrambleCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Julie Livingston George Shaw John Major Charles Matlock CITY ATTORNEY David McNaughton Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting October19, 2015–7:00 p.m. Chair Major called the October 19, 2015 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Charles Matlock, Julie Livingston, Demery Bishop and Ron Bossick. Minutes: Chair Major asked for considerationof the September 14, 2015meeting minutes. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Bramble and seconded by Commissioner Bossick;the vote to approve was unanimous. Disclosures / Recusal: Chair Major asked if there were any disclosures or recusals,there were none. Old Business: Variance-consideration of front, side and rear yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a single family residence. Property Address: Rifle Ave (Lot 5 of Subdivision of Block 16 Bay Ward), Schedule of Development Regulations : Mr. Shaw approached the commission stating that the lot on Rifle Avenueisin the R-1 district and is 3,661 square feet the minimum lot size in R-1 district is12,000 square feet. Mr. Shaw went on to show a power point slide of the property and explained that the applicant is requesting a frontsetback of 10-feet and back of 5-feet with also a 5-footside on the southern side of property, the5-foot side variancewill be for the stairsonlyandthe property alsohas an unopened R/W. The applicant feels that the variances are needed to build a decent size home. Mr. Shaw states staffhas no problem with the variances because he feels the lot is a substandard lot of record.Commissioner Bramble asked are the stairs on the unopened street side. Mr. Shaw answeredno the unopened streetis on the left. Commissioner McNaughton asked if there were any water and sewer lines closeto property. Mr. Shawanswered that the applicant will have to set that up with the city for the parcel, hewould have to bring it up to city standards with an 18-foot wide road. Commissioner Bossick stated that under Section 5-090(1)where it discusses variance under item one in the packet its underlined shallownessof a lot shape,the comment I’m concerned about is (there are unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding properties)there are three other properties aroundthere that are built with our existing R-1 setbacks, so why is this one property unique?Mr. Shaw stated that this lot is considerably small but can still be built with the original setbacksand if this variance is granted there is no reason to believe that the other lot owners wouldask for the same. Commissioner Bossick stated the Section 3-165 on 65% greenspace willthey have enoughwith the smaller setbacks?Mr. Shaw agreed that ordinance specifically states not to reduce the green space requirements fora variance. Mr. Herringa representative for the applicant approached the Commission and stated that the greenspace was calculated and we will be at 78.3%of green spaceusing the back on the side with the stairs.Commissioner McNaughton asked if this is a single story home and have you considered a two story and not using the variancesin building this house. Mr. Herring stated they did consider it but the client would prefer a single story homesoit would fit in with the surrounding homes.Chair Major asked what is the square footage of the planned house. Mr. Herring stated the footprint of the house is 1,782 square foot. Commissioner Bramble asked where the driveway will be. Mr. Herring answered I believe the driveway will be on the North Westcorner of Rifle avenue under the deck. Commissioner Livingston askedwhat is the reason they didn’t want to go higher than one story and could it be built within the confinesof the code. Mr. Herring stated that there were some budget issues because it does cost more to go up, but he’s not positive and yes it could be built with the R-1 codes. Commissioner Bossick asked if there isan easementin place already and that lot had a lot of standing water on it will that be addressed. Mr. Shawanswered yesthat will be addressed. There is an easement on the opposite street and they will have to submit a drainage plan before the building plans. Chair Major asked if this property ever submitted for a variance before. Mr. Herring stated not to his knowledge. Commissioner Livingston stated if this lot gets a variance the surrounding lots will probably ask also and that would makethe houses 10-feet apart, and it canbe developed with existing setbacks,the code states only if it can’t be. The characteristics are not beyond that of surrounding properties and I really don’t think it falls within the requirements for a variance. CommissionerLivingston made a motion to deny and to recommend that Council do the same based on not being in conformance with the LDC inclusive of the variance and the green space. Commissioner McNaughton seconded and the vote was unanimous. Text Amendment –consideration of new ordinance pertaining to Tree Ordinance Ordinance 52-2014, Land Development Code Article 7, Tree Ordinance \[the proposed Article 7 would delete the current Article 7, Tree Removal Ordinance\]: Chair Major stated that we need to go through this ordinance one sentence at a time. Mr. Shaw approached the Commission stating the goal is to save as much tree canopyas possible not just save trees.One of the current ordinanceflaws is you could replace an oak tree with a palm tree and you still havethe same amount of trees but significantly different canopy and a Tree Board will also have to be created.This will require an expert and we may not have one. Mr. Garbett stated that he would be glad to answer questions if needed. Commissioner Bramble asked if there is a certified arborist on the board. Mr. Shaw stated yes we have one on the board now. Mr. Garbett also stated that we do have a few certified people on theboardnow, Michael Pavlis is acting chair of the Tree Board who is a certified Arborist and I myself am an ex Arborist. He also stated that this ordinance is so lengthy because of the definitions that are needed to understand everything that the old ordinance does not have. The following is a summary of comments made: Capitalize Tree Board and change to 40% minimum tree canopy throughout ordinance. Section 7-010.(A) Remove the sentence . . Section 7-020. First paragraph take out the word (F) Change the word to siting. Section 7-030. Redline area the is missing from be. A comma behind Tree Board or the word means. The word replaced with approved. Chair Major asked if you have to pay a fine to the palms up fund for removing a tree do you still have to mitigate. Mr. Garbett statednoyou do not have to then mitigate thepalms up fund goes toward planting a comparable tree in another location like one of the parks. Chair Major on the palms up fund does that mean you don’t have to mitigate ifyou pay the fine.Mr. Shaw stated the City would plant a tree somewhere else. The paragraph on means -Take out Section 7-040. Number (5) needsto be defined. Section 7-060. (B)Remove. Implies you don’t need a permit. Section 7-070. Commissioner Bossickasked how is this going to accommodate the different size properties on this Island as far as driveways, sewer lines and foundations.Chair Major asked if the Planning Commission gets all site plan reviews. Mr. Shaw stated no any new residential site plans come through staff’s officeand they have to have a site plan and a drainage plan. Section 7-080. Commissioner Bossick statedthe way this ordinance reads it willforce trees to be in setbacks and against buildings, was this considered. Chair Major agreed that it is unreasonable. Commissioner Bishop asked what does the sentence mean. Mr. Shaw explained the intent should refer to trees and we will have to have that clarified. should not be there. Chair Major asked about sentence (B) how do you get Second paragraph the words the Section 7-090. (A) The second sentence. . This needs to be changed. Commissioner Bossick asked if a treeis not on the list will they have to get it approved to count. Mr. Shaw stated yes. trees. (E) (1) this sentence needs to be explained. (F) Should say No Section 7-100. to Staff member.(3) the words should be replaced by . Change Commissioner Bramble stated with such an extensive ordinance we should have a staff member become certified. Section 7-110. (B) Thiswhole statement should be taken out. Section 7-120. out. (4) Needs to be explained more. Table 1 –Should have more explanation for the homeowner. (B) Take the word (C) If there is no department to enforce this paragraph then it needs to be taken out. Section 7-130. should not be thereOR is it a fee in lieuof. (B) Does not match up with referenced Section. Also the word (D) 1 the word implantable, what does it mean. Section 7-140. Marianne –C. does it mean we can’t prune city trees.It is not sure Chair Major asked staff should we send our comments back to the Tree Board. Mr. Shaw stated that your options are send it back to the Tree Board or send it on to Council with comments.Commissioner Bishop stated that ifwe send it to Council without any clarification they will send it back for us to answer questions and if it is to come back to us we should have a certified arborist come to the meeting and answer questions. Commissioner Bishop made a motion that our questions be submitted to the Tree Board for determination and a decision made as to how it comes back to us for further discussion with an arborist present prior to going to Council. Commissioner Bramble st seconded and stated that we should have it back at the December 21Planning Commission meeting. The vote to approve was unanimous. New Business Special Review–consideration to add an additional pavilion to Memorial Park. Appendix A –Land Development Code, Section 4-050 District Use Regulations, (I) PC public parks-conservation district: Mr. Shaw approached the Commission and stated that the city has a slab in the park that used to be a skate park and they want to use it to build a pavilion that would be areservation typerental,andit might be screened that is still being decided.The slab is on the Jones Street side of memorial park.Mr. Shaw also showed a power pointwith drawings of the pavilion. Commissioner Bossick asked if the structure will have lighting and what will the capacity be. Mr. Shaw stated yes there will be lighting, water and plugs, and he is not sure yet how many people it will hold, I would assume forty to sixty maybe. Commissioner Bossick also asked will there be sufficientparking. Mr. Shaw stated that he is not familiar with any parking plan. Commissioner Livingston stated if the pool referendum passeswillthat take this away. Mr. Shaw stated that he has not heard about anything else going on that slab. Commissioner McNaughton asked ifthat slab is built to hold this size pavilion. Mr. Shaw stated he is surethey will reinforce it if needed. Chair Major is there a drainage planthat will be required.Mr. Shaw no not at this part of its construction but it will be addressed. Commissioner Brambleasked what will be the capacity and how many people at a time can be inthe whole park and parkingwould all be an issue. Mr. Shaw stated he will look into it. Commissioner Livingston statedwe would normallyrequire a parking plan for any other project why do we not have one for this one? Commissioner Bossickasked how long at night can itbe rented, and will there be some kind of buffer. Mr. Shaw stated that he recommended a low shrub as a buffer. Chair Major stated the buffer should be a requirement. Commissioner Bramble made amotion to approve with staff including information on the capacity, parking, buffering and noise beforeit goes to Council. Commissioner Bishop Seconded and the vote to approve was unanimous. Adjournment Commissioner Bossick made a motion to adjournand CommissionerLivingston seconded and the vote to adjournwas unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:42.