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.