MINUTES ISLANDS PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2006-6:00 P.M. Fire Station #2 Demere Road, St. Simons Island MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Robert Ussery, Chairman Millard Allen, Vice Chairman William Lawrence Paul Sanders Joan Wilson Mike Aspinwall Preston Kirkendall John Peterson, Director York Phillips, Planning Manager Iris Scheff, Planner III Janet Loving, Admin/Recording Secretary Chairman Robert Ussery called the meeting to order and the invocation was given, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. He then gave a brief recap of the rules, voting procedure and audience participation in discussing agenda items. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon a motion made by Mr. Millard Allen and seconded by Mr. Paul Sanders, the Agenda for the May 16 th Islands Planning Commission meeting was approved and unanimously adopted. VP-2006-004 1
Application by L. B. Pickren, agent and owner, for approval to replace a cinder block duplex apartment building in order to construct two common-wall condominiums, one of which will be the owner s residence, on property located at 411-415 Magnolia Avenue on its east side, situated generally west of Mallory Street. Mr. & Mrs. Pickren were present for discussion. The following report from staff was included in the packages for the Planning Commission s review and was presented by Ms. Iris Scheff. A small layout plan for the site depicts where the structure(s) is (are) to be located, and the proper setbacks for General Residential. The proposed materials are brown coquina tabby for the ground level (garage) floor, with beige smooth stucco for the remaining two upper levels. A top floor surrounded by stone columns with rails surrounding an observation roof. The front elevation depicts windows with multiple panes bordered by smooth stucco molded trim Under Section 709.5 (Village Preservation), new and added construction must remain within certain size limitations based on the size of structures on the property and neighboring structures as they existed at the time of the adoption of the Village Preservation provisions. 709.5 General Provisions In all zoning districts except General Commercial Core Districts, no new construction or alteration to existing construction of a principal building or accessory building or structure will be allowed which will result in lot coverage of greater than fifty percent (50%). Furthermore, no building footprint may be increased more than the average of the building footprint of the building and structures located on the adjacent side lots existing at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance. In all zoning districts, no new construction or alteration to existing construction of a principal building or accessory building or structure will be allowed which will increase the height more than ten (10) feet from the building or structure originally located on the property at the time of adoption of this Ordinance or from the average height of the principle structures located on the adjacent side lots at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. For vacant lots which have been vacant for a period of one (1) year or longer, the footprint of new buildings or structures on the lot shall be no greater than the average footprint of the buildings or structures located on the adjacent side lots of the new construction. The height shall be no more than ten (10) feet greater than the average height of the principle structures located on the adjacent side lots at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. 2
When no building or structure is located on adjacent lots, the nearest building or structure will be considered to determine allowable scale of new construction. The proposed lot coverage is 44.43%, based on a lot square footage of 6,000+sf and a proposed building footprint of 2,666 sf. It therefore does not exceed the 50% maximum lot coverage threshold. The footprints of the adjacent side lots structures are 1,337 square feet (409 Magnolia), and 8,387 square feet (425 A-J Magnolia). The average of the adjacent structures (1,337 sf + 8,387sf = 9,724 sf / 2 = 4,862 sf) is 4,862 square feet average. The proposed 2,666 square foot building footprint does not exceed the average of the adjacent lots structures footprints; therefore, the proposed size of building meets the building square footage requirement. The proposed height of the structure is to be 35, based on the elevation dimensions depicted on the plans, and therefore does not exceed the 35 foot maximum height allowed in the GR zoning district. However, the proposed 35 does exceed the Village Preservation rule that allows no more than a 10 increase in building height when compared to the 31.5 foot average height of the buildings on adjacent side lots (214 + 304 = 518 / 259 / 12 = 21.58 feet average height, plus 10 feet = 31.5 feet height). In addition, Section 709.8 provides that the Planning Commission will review the plans according to the following criteria: A) Conformity of the plans submitted to the purpose and provision of this Ordinance. B) Conformity and harmony of external material and design with existing and neighboring structures. C) The effect of the improvements on neighboring structures or sites. D) The consistence and compatibility with existing architectural design building exterior finishes used on neighboring properties or in the overlay zone. E) Exterior materials, exterior doors and windows, color schemes and other building elements which are considered compatible with neighboring structures in the overlay zone and appropriate for the area. F) The use of landscaping to cause the improvement to conform to the character of the area or to buffer the improvement from the neighboring sites. Based on the dimensions proposed and the measurements of building footprints and heights of the existing building, the proposed structure meets all the requirements outlined in the Village Preservation District ordinance, with the exception of the height rule using the average of building heights of adjacent structures. 3
The description of matching materials, colors, and type of building(s) submitted appears to demonstrate that the proposed project would be in-keeping with and conform and harmonize in external material and design with existing and neighboring structures. There was no information regarding landscaping in the proposal. Staff s recommendation is for approval subject to reduction of the height to 31.5 ft. Mr. Pickren presented a revised copy of the elevation plans for review and stated that he would abide by staff s recommendation. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Millard Allen to approve this request subject to the staff s recommendation of the height reduction to 31.5 ft. The motion was seconded by Mr. William Lawrence and unanimously adopted. PP-2006-011 (I) St. Clair Estates Lots 11 & 12 Block F Application for approval of a preliminary plat for property located on St. Clair Drive just south of and opposite its intersection with Hampton Avenue, generally west of Frederica Road. The proposed project consists of three 20,000+ square foot lots on 1.822 acres. The property is zoned R-20 Single-Family Residential. Mr. Ernie Johns was present for discussion. According to the staff s report, all comments from staff have either been addressed or must be addressed with a revised preliminary plat proposal prior to final plat processing and approval. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to verification that all requirements have been met and submittal of a corrected preliminary plat. Three (3) signed, revised copies must be submitted for the Planning Commission Chairman s signature before processing of the final plat. Chairman Ussery wanted to know how this particular property is being viewed; as a subdivision or re-subdivision, and/or if everyone is on board with allowing a subdivision with a flag lot. Mr. Phillips stated that during staff s review, it was not exactly clear as to whether this submittal is considered to be a subdivision or not, because under other circumstances this would have been submitted and processed as a resubdivision. If a re-subdivision is treated in the same manner as a minor plat, which historically has been the case, then the 50% rule applies. If this were being looked at under the proposed rules, it would then be 10% but all of the lots in the subdivision 4
would be counted for a correct calculation. Mr. Phillips stated however that the submittal does in fact meet the 1-acre rule, which is the main concern of the area. Mr. Millard Allen asked if this is basically one parcel that is being made into three lots. Mr. Phillips replied that it is actually two lots being made into three lots. He pointed out the current dividing line between lots 11 and 12. Mr. Paul Sanders asked if all of the lots consist of 20,000 sq. ft. or more. Mr. Phillips replied yes. Ms. Ann McCann, president of the St. Claire Homeowners Association was present to express concerns about the drainage easement along side Lot 12, which is part of the flag lot. She stated that the residents of St. Claire experienced a very serious flooding problem with the last heavy rainfall. The county is in the process of finding a way to alleviate this problem by piping or digging a ditch either toward the lake or to the marsh. If the county decides to go toward the marsh, this would be right along side the drainage easement, which is platted in the original county subdivision plat. She stated that they are all concerned about how this is going to be handled. Perhaps the applicant has arranged to pipe the area, but it is a platted easement. Ms. McCann pointed out that none of the homeowners want to see this approved but if everything is done legally they know that that they cannot prevent it from going through. However, she stressed that their primary concern is the flooding and the drainage easement. Mr. Ernie Johns explained that staff has pointed out the issue with the drainage easement, which is one of the revisions that they intend to make. He stated that Mr. Curry plans to pipe the ditch and put in a pervious type driveway so that maintenance can be accomplished. Chairman Ussery wanted to know the size of the drainage easement. Mr. Johns stated that the drainage easement shown on the subdivision plat is not adequate for the area. The county requires a drainage easement that is equivalent to the width of the ditch plus 15 ft. on one side for maintenance. What is currently there now is a 20 ft. drainage easement and the only way that it would work is if they were to pipe it. Mr. Johns stated that there is enough room for the drainage easement and the driveway. He reiterated that Mr. Curry is willing to work with the county to put in the pipe. Mr. Allen stated that his concern is with density. Logically, this would make two nice lots. Three lots would be doable according to the regulations but three is too much in his opinion. Mr. Sanders commented that the net lot sizes all exceed 20,000. The actual lots are somewhat larger and include the lowland areas. At this time, Chairman Ussery passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Allen and proceeded to make a motion to accept this subdivision with the contingency that the applicant is to install the pipe in the drainage easement as necessary for the subdivision and St. Claire Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paul Sanders. Voting Aye: 5
Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Paul Sanders, Mr. Robert Ussery and Ms. Joan Wilson. Voting Nay: Mr. Millard Allen. SPX-2006-002 (I) AKA 2004-0723-0900 Veranda Breeze Villas v.4b Application from Kay P. Curry for extension of an expired (March 6, 2006) extension of a site plan approval dated September 7, 2004 for a 19-unit multi-family project on property located on the north side of Olive Way and east of Beach Drive (an unopened street) and consisting of 1.5974 acres. The project is called Veranda Breeze Villas, and the property is zoned Resort Residential. Mr. Ernie Curry was present for discussion. The following report from staff was included in the packages for the Planning Commission s review and was presented by Mr. York Phillips: This is a request for site plan approval for a 19-unit multi-family project. This site is currently undeveloped. To the west, north, and southwest are existing residential developments. A section of Beach Drive within the Coast Cottages development was abandoned several years ago. Another section, adjoining this site immediately to the west is proposed to be improved with public beach parking and as access to this site. This is the fourth submittal of a site plan, each one having approached the project in a different manner. Following staff comments, this submittal was made and appears to address the comments. The number of units has been reduced from 26 to 19 to reflect the use of the development area definition for determining the lot size, although the number of parking spaces has not been reduced accordingly. Any further technical changes can be handled in conjunction with the building plans. Other approvals may be required to address improvement of the parking and access in the existing right-of-way of Beach Drive and Olive Way, and DNR approval may be required for modifications to the existing beach access. Staff s recommendation is for approval subject to meeting all requirements. During a brief presentation, Mr. Ernie Curry explained that when he requested the previous extension, he asked for one year. However, during the course of the discussion at that time, Mr. Mike Aspinwall asked if he could live with six months (instead of one year), to which he replied yes. Mr. Curry stated that he did not expect unforeseen circumstances. He stated that there is another developer who has been trying to purchase the property and has offered several contracts on it. Mr. Perry, who is the builder, was in charge of picking up the land disturbance permits and the building permits. He received the land disturbance 6
permit. He made several trips to the Planning Office; however, there were several things going on in the Planning Department that was delaying the final approval of the plans. His competitor sued him when he would not sell. This was at about the time that the six month extension expired. Needless to say, his attention was diverted to the lawsuit because he had to act very fast. In fact, his focus changed from the building of the property to protecting what he had invested. The title company had insured this property over any and all claims so he therefore felt that the lawsuit did not have merit. Mr. Curry stated that he is ready to move ahead, and he is ready to buy the permit. Therefore, he does not need a year because everything is approved and his attention is back on the property and getting it built. He would like a year just to wait out the lawsuit before he purchases the permit, but either way he is prepared to get the permit now, or if the extension is granted, he would wait until the lawsuit is settled and then buy the permit. Chairman Ussery stated that the height issue has been very contentious on St. Simons and most recently the number of floors. There was a small window open for a while where people were coming in and getting five-story structures through. There were about three five-story structures done during that time. However, that door was closed. Chairman Ussery stated that the rules exist for renewing site plans for that very reason. Ordinances change and you re given time to go through the process, but if you don t act on it and the ordinance changes, you therefore come under the new ordinance. He stated that we now have a new ordinance. Chairman Ussery stated that at the time that this went through, we all thought in the back of our minds that you were trying to slip through the window and therefore Mr. Aspinwall stated that he would give you time. Now you re here much after the renewal time asking for more time. Mr. Curry stressed that he was not trying to slip through. He bought the property before the four-story deal came into play. He stated that he takes responsibility for not being there on the day that he was suppose to buy the permit; however, there was a lot of other stuff that went on at Planning & Zoning during the permitting process. He stated that his builder is familiar with all that went on and can talk to the Planning Commission about it. In other words, he stated that he was not the only one delaying the process but he does not want to blame anybody else. Mr. Curry stated that there are realtors that have sold the property, there are engineers that have legally designed the property and have been paid, he has invested 9.4 million dollars, and he has five bonafide contracts with 20% down on the front units. He stated that it would be a hardship for everybody in this particular situation if he does not get this extension. It would be a legal hardship for him. Again, he reiterated that there has been a lot going on because of other people meddling in his business and he is asking for the Planning Commission s understanding because he is human and he makes mistakes. He was just very consumed with the lawsuit and was trying to protect his wife. He stated that they acted in good faith all along and they are still acting in good faith, but they should not have to scrap all of their money at this time. Other people will be 7
affected by his mistake and he does not want to hurt them with this situation if it could be avoided. Chairman Ussery asked if the plans are currently at the Building Inspector s office waiting for approval. Mr. Curry stated that the plans were approved at the end of January. The plans were fine and did not pose a problem, but the competitor s name kept coming up about the easement situation. Chairman Ussery asked Mr. Curry if he were in a position now to pull the building permit. Mr. Curry replied yes. Chairman Ussery asked if the plans were in prior to the six month deadline. Mr. Curry replied yes. Mr. Paul Sanders stated that the record would show that a motion was made to extend this project for nine or ten months and Mr. Aspinwall objected and wanted to cut the extension back to six months. Chairman Ussery stated that the plans being in front of the Building Inspector within the six months certainly counts for something. Obviously there is a lot of work that goes into a full set of plans for a building such as this and there was a lot of advertising done during that time. Mr. Sanders wanted to know if it is true that if they were to grant the extension, it is backed up for a couple of months. Chairman Ussery stated that his notion is to grant a bear minimum extension with the understanding that this would be the last extension. He emphasized that this has come to this body numerous times. Mr. Curry stated that his wife was new at this process but they would like to move forward with the project. He stated that he and his wife would appreciate any time that the Planning Commission could give them. Mr. Millard Allen asked if the applicant is asking for another extension. Mr. Curry replied yes. Chairman Ussery explained that the applicant filed for a building permit within the time limit and through certain circumstances outlined by Mr. Curry, they have not been able to pull the building permit. Chairman Ussery stated that I think the trigger, Mr. Phillips, if I understand it, is the building permit; correct? They have to have a building permit to avoid the extension prior to the. Mr. Phillips stated yes sir, according to the ordinance they need a permit and be under construction within the period. Chairman Ussery stated that the plans were in front of the Building Inspector certainly in time but because of other circumstances they weren t able to pull the building permit. That s where we are. Ms. Joan Wilson stated that if approved, this building would be five-stories. Chairman Ussery replied yes. The floors are smaller to get in the fifth story but the height is not taller. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Paul Sanders to grant a 9-month extension. The motion was seconded by Mr. William Lawrence. Discussion continued. Chairman Ussery stated that 9 months is too long. The plans are in front of the Building Inspector and a minimal amount of time in order to pull the building permit is all that is required. He does not want to see any type of scenario where there is a hold on the building permit until a buyer is found. If plans are in front of the Building Inspector, a 8
minimal amount of time in order to finish the process and pull the permit is all that is required. He stated that he would be more inclined to a 90-day extension from March 6 th. Mr. Allen stated that if the extension is voted on for whatever length a time decided upon, does this building revert back to four-stories. Chairman Ussery replied no. They would be voting to extend it the way that it was initially approved before the new ordinance went into affect. At the end of discussion, Mr. Paul Sanders amended his motion to a 90-day extension instead of 9-months. The amendment was accepted and the motion was unanimously adopted. MINUTES April 18, 2006 Regular Meeting A motion was made by Mr. Millard Allen to approve the Minutes of the April 18 th Islands Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Joan Wilson. Voting Aye: Mr. Millard Allen, Mr. Paul Sanders, Mr. Robert Ussery and Ms. Joan Wilson. Mr. William Lawrence did not attend the April 18 th meeting and therefore abstained from voting. Staff Items Clarification of Fish Fever Lane At the last meeting under Village Preservation requests, questions were raised about access to Fish Fever Lane, which was originally intended to be an access for two houses. The language of the former Glynn County Planning Commission in approving the road in 2000 included a phrase that staff cannot interpret. Mr. Phillips distributed a copy of the minutes recorded at the former Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2000 in which one of the conditions of approval reads as follows: Any development on the adjacent lots will be allowed to use the driveway for access to their property. Mr. Phillips asked for an interpretation of this phrase. Following review, it was the consensus of the Islands Planning Commission that the intent was just as the former Planning Commission stated in their approval that any development would be allowed to use the driveway For the record, Chairman Ussery stated that no further action is required by this body on this subject. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 9