Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout270_PC_mtg_min_04-19-11 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Marianne Bramble Rob Callahan Henry Levy John Major, Vice Chair Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the April 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler Marion. Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the March 15, 2011, meeting. Rob Callahan moved to approve. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Demery Bishop disclosed that his residence adjoins the property at 1230 A & B Solomon Avenue. After discussion it was determined that this was a disclosure and not a recusal. Parks asked if the Planning Commissioner that submitted some of the Text Amendments would recuse during the discussions. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, replied no. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 502 First Street, PINs 4-0003-12-014, -015 and -016, Zone C-2. The petitioner was Tybee Village, LLC. The request was an amendment to a previously approved Site Plan to allow the addition of a shark statue. Dianne Otto said the request was heard by the Commission last month and the motion that was approved was to deny with stipulations that the questions asked by the City be answered and the City research whether this was a sign. She said the information for both of those was in the packets. Demery Bishop asked if all the questions were answered. Otto replied yes. Bishop said we have the opinion of it not being a sign from the City Attorney. Otto agreed. Marianne Bramble asked if it was considered a logo. Otto said no, it was considered a structure. Referring to the Staff Report, Rob Callahan asked why strategy 10, to establish noise and sight buffers, was answered no. Otto said that at the last meeting the shark had been interpreted to be 17-feet tall and it had now been clarified that it was 12-feet tall. She said the proposal was an 8-foot fence and the folks in residences behind it were up on second-and third-floors. Otto said the fence would not block their vision of the area. Walt Rocker said he was a representative of Tybee Village, LLC. Parks asked if the mouth of the shark would be open or painted on. Rocker said it would be open and you would be able to stand inside to have your picture taken. Parks said it would be a 5-foot drop if somebody fell out and if they were climbing it was a 12-foot drop. Rocker described that people would stand at concrete level when looking out of the mouth. Callahan asked if there was a back door. Rocker said it would have an opening in the back where you duck down to step inside the shark. Parks asked if the teeth were going to be painted or jagged edges of rusty metal. Rocker said he would think they would be painted and it was a fiberglass structure. Rocker said he could assure that the sure sure the owners were not going to do anything that would increase their liabilities. Parks called for public input. There was none. Bramble asked how they intended to illuminate this; would more floodlights be put up. After Rocker and Bramble discussed, Rocker said to his knowledge there was not a plan to add additional lighting for the shark. Henry Levy 2 said it was going to be a nice addition to Tybee. John Major and Rocker discussed the location of the shark and the fence. Rocker said the owners expressed an interest in planting more vegetation around the shark to help conceal the view from the rear. Parks asked if that was a commitment. Rocker said yes, we can make a commitment to do that. He said there already was a tree almost directly beside it and another one or two not on the site plan. He said it would only take a couple of two-to two-and-a-half-inch caliper live oaks to conceal it in the back. Parks closed the Hearing. Bishop motioned to approve. Levy seconded. Voting in favor were Bishop, Callahan, Levy, and Tyler Marion. Voting against the motion were Bramble and Major. The motion to approve passed 4-2. The request would be heard by City Council on May 12. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Minor Subdivision at 1230 A & B Solomon Avenue, PIN 4-0026-02-032, Zone C-2. The petitioner was KE Family Enterprises, LLC. The request was subdivision of a duplex which was under construction. Dianne Otto said a permit was issued in 2009 for construction of a duplex. She said the applicant was requesting that the City subdivide the property to allow the sale of one unit in the duplex. Otto said the Land Development Code does not allow subdivision of a duplex until it has been completed. Henry asked if it was allowed or not. Otto said it was not allowed by Staff; it required approval which would be contrary to the ordinance. John Major said he reviewed the uses permitted by right for C-2 and he did not see duplexes. He asked if a variance was given. Otto said that in the C-2 zone you go to TBR which is the same uses as R-2. Major asked if that made 4,500 square feet the minimum lot size. Otto stated the requirement for an R-2 duplex lot was 6,750 square feet. Major asked the sizes of these lots. Keith Gay, a managing member of KE Family Enterprises, said there was only one lot involved and that was lot 4. Major and Gay discussed. Gay said they instituted this project quite some time ago and the only purpose for coming forth was that in these economic-challenging times the bank of record, which has since failed, closed all contracting funds for building at about one-third through the project. He said they have been unsuccessful in getting any financial ventures of any kind to provide funds to finish so decided that the best option was to sell with the hopes that someone would buy and finish it. Gay said they have people interested in owning one-half and finishing it, and it does step outside of the standard, but they thought it was worthwhile given that their goal was and always has been to see the project completed. Parks asked about the lot size. Otto said the lot is 8,207 square feet. Parks confirmed that was lot 4. Gay explained that when the project was launched the intention was to have two cottages on lot 4 facing Solomon Avenue, and one cottage each on lots 3 and 5 that would face Solomon also, with a road down the middle. He said there were supposed to be in four, one-bedroom cottages, low-density, with the intention being honeymoon suites. Gay said the only thing that got completed were the two on the duplex lot. Parks and Otto discussed the request. Otto emphasized that the initial lot size met the duplex lot requirement. Major clarified that a person buying one-half of the duplex would have their own lot. Gay agreed. He and Major discussed the firewall separation of the units. Rob Callahan asked if there was a requirement for a minimum lot size, post-subdivided. Otto said no. Henry Levy moved to approve. Parks told him we were not done. Demery Bishop asked if it was correct that there was no way to move forward without the subdivision as far as the sale of the individual properties. Otto said he was correct. Bishop asked if the fire inspection was the only one required prior to a minor subdivision of a duplex. Otto said no, it was all inspections. She said this duplex has passed through fire inspection but it has not had any final inspections. She said it has not reached the point where Staff would allow a subdivision because it was not complete. Gay said they cannot get those inspections because you have to complete the interior. He discussed the HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and insulation. Bishop asked Gay why those inspections would not be completed prior to asking for the subdivision. Gay said they cannot get the money to do it. He said in some respects this fell into the variance category. He said his goal was to make the property productive. Gay said it was currently sitting and has been sitting for months without any activity. He said they have tried everything they know how; the economy and the banking industry will not provide spec production money so the only option was to sell it to someone who would buy it and finish it. He said, optimum, he would rather sell to one individual and have them buy the whole thing and 3 finish it, but he was dealing with the FDIC and they do not have much of a sense of humor, and if he can subdivide it he has a contract for one-half which means that one-half will move forward. Gay concluded his remarks. Major asked if there should be a variance request. Otto said she was comfortable with just the minor subdivision; if it was granted it was in effect granting a variance against the ordinance cited in the Staff Report that does not allow subdivision until the units are completed. Major asked if we were okay to grant in effect variances. Otto said, in her opinion, yes. She said the subdivision was what Gay was seeking; the net effect, if approved, would be a variance from the subdivision regulation. Gay said whoever buys it and completes it is going to have to follow the same guidelines as KE Family would in order to pass all the final inspections so there was no change in the dynamic; the only change would be the difference in interior finish. Bishop asked if they approved the minor subdivision would everything still have to be approved. Otto said any action by Planning Commission and Council would not be a Certificate of Occupancy; it was strictly subdivision of the land. After comments from Gay, Parks asked if Gay would have to come back when he found a buyer for the other side. Otto said no, this action would subdivide the property. Parks asked if it allowed Gay to package as something that has a minor subdivision and sell it. Otto said yes. Parks asked for public input. There was none. Parks closed the Hearing. Levy moved to approve. Major seconded the motion. The vote in favor of approval was unanimous. The motion to approve passed 6-0. This would be heard by City Council on May 12. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 1211 Sixth Avenue, PIN 4-0011-01-008, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Mr. and Mrs. Kirk Kubista. The request was a setback variance for addition of a porch. Dianne Otto said the variance was needed because the structure was nonconforming and current ordinance at the time of the application did not allow further encroachment into setbacks. She said the proposal would not go any further than the existing encroachment of 5-feet but it would be in a different area of the property. Jane Coslick, representative of the applicants, said she was their designer and a preservationist. She said the back corner of the property was in the variance [i.e. setback] by 5-feet. She said the Kubistas want to add a screened porch on the shady side which would sort of be in line with the back of the house. She described that there would not be steps. She said it would never be anything but a screened porch. Coslick said it would not take away from the cottage itself. Marianne Bramble asked if they were planning to put a door there. Coslick said no, they would enter from inside the house; there would be not steps outside. Parks clarified Coslick’s description and he discussed the location of the porch on the property with her. Coslick said she thought it would be nice and and she did not think the neighbors would mind. John Major said the current ordinance about expansion for nonconforming areas says when neither of the following circumstances exists: either it will not result in an expansion of the existing footprint, or no additional encroachment into any setback will be created by the proposed improvement. He said this additional encroachment would not go any further than the current encroachment but there was additional encroachment. Coslick said that was why they were here, to ask for that. She said all the houses on either side have screened porches; it was just kind of a porch neighborhood. Otto said that at the Council meeting last Thursday Section 3-020, Continuance of Nonconforming Structures, was adopted on Second Reading with a new paragraph and despite the change in the ordinance this would still require a variance. She said the new standard allows a nonconforming residentially used structure which is only nonconforming as a result of a setback encroachment on some portion of the property to be expanded and enlarged beyond its ground footprint without a variance as long as no further encroachments into any setbacks are to be created. Otto said she consulted with Coslick and proposed that the addition be in an area that did not further encroach into a setback but their preferred position was where it was depicted on the plan. Major asked which ordinance they were being held to. Otto said Coslick submitted prior to the adoption but the new amendment does not change that she would require a variance because she was further encroaching into a setback. She described that if the addition was instead in the area on the drawing where the word “lot” was then it would not require a variance under the current ordinance. Major said under the ordinance they were reviewing it says they cannot 4 review and approve administratively. He asked if that was when Staff could do it. Otto said that was correct. She said under this change Staff can now approve an addition to a nonconforming that does not impact any setback. Major asked why Staff thought this action would not preserve the scenic value of the area as it relates to historic structures and greenspace. Otto said the porch was not original to the structure, it does not preserve its original character; it is an addition. Referring to the proposal that Staff made with regards to moving the porch to the other side, Demery Bishop asked Coslick what was the determent to doing that and, therefore, not having an issue with the setback. Coslick referred to another cottage that was so close and that the Kubistas wanted to be on the shady side to enjoy the porch because a sunny porch at Tybee Island you really cannot enjoy. She said she tried to talk them into it but that side was shady. She said it would be attractive and would not be intrusive. Coslick Coslick described that there would be a car parked in front of it and it would look like it belonged to the house. Henry Levy said the purpose of a side setback was so that if there was a fire you could get a fire truck in and fight the fire. He said this was not a hardship case. Coslick said they would like a variance and she described the proposal further. Levy asked at what point we start enforcing the ordinance. Levy and Coslick discussed. Levy moved it be rejected. Parks said he would finish public comment first. Parks asked for public comment. There was none. He closed the Hearing. He repeated Levy’s motion to deny. Major seconded. Voting in favor of the motion to deny were Bishop, Bramble, Levy, Major, and Tyler Marion. Rob Callahan voted against the motion. The motion to deny passed with a 5-1 vote. City Council would hear the request on May 12. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 1409 Second Avenue, PIN 4-0007-19-011, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Eric Puljung. The request was a variance from the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for a mechanical unit. Dianne Otto said the proposal was for a variance so that a mechanical unit would not be required to be elevated as required for change-outs. Otto said the applicant cited reasons for the variance request including aesthetics, cost, and space. She said Puljung was distributing to the Commissioners an additional handout that she had just received. Otto said the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance has its own variance standards. John Major asked if we were empowered to grant variances for FEMA regulations. Otto said the variance procedures are included in our ordinance and we are subject to audit from FEMA and would be required to produce, should they request, any approved variances. Parks read a portion of the variance procedures. Demery Bishop asked Otto if she had seen the item that was just given to them. Otto said no. Bishop asked whether this would qualify for compliance with Section 8-180 since it indicates it was a raised platform. Otto said perhaps the applicant could explain what he was showing; she did not know if he was proposing now to elevate. Puljung identified himself as the owner and said the document he passed out was the shop drawing that represents what a raised platform would look like with the required ductwork out of the side of the package unit. He said it was an effort to show this was going to take 103-inches of the side yard to accommodate the ductwork and the new unit which ties back into his variance request for keeping it at the ground to allow easy passage to the backyard. Henry Levy said it was well within the setback. Otto said mechanical units are allowed in setbacks. Levy said it was not in the setback. Otto said she did not have a survey; she did not know the answer to that. Major clarified with Puljung that he wanted to replace the unit at grade and not raise it. Puljung said on a package unit the ductwork comes directly out of the side of the unit so to raise it they would have to have a horizontal, a vertical drop and then a horizontal to tie into the ductwork at the level of the main trunk lines which adds more width. Major asked if it could not be considered a continuation of a previously existing nonconforming condition. Otto said the standard for replacement of mechanical units requires that a change-out meet FEMA regulations. She said it was comparable to a change-out of windows; old windows cannot be replaced with windows that do not meet current code. She said when you change something you have to bring it up to code. Otto said the variance request was Puljung’s avenue to follow if he does not choose to follow those regulations. Major said if he left it on the ground and it was flooded, it would be his loss and there was no liability to the City. Otto agreed. She showed in the PowerPoint a slide of another package unit that Staff worked with successfully to elevate 5 and meet the regulations. Otto asked Puljung about the drawing showing an additional 1-foot of platform that she did not know was necessary. Puljung described it as a perimeter area around the unit. He said he believed it was related to serviceability if it was raised. Otto said she was not aware of any requirement that there be an additional 12-inch perimeter around the platform for the unit. Puljung said it was what they [the contractor] proposed and he could see a ledge on the package unit she represented. Otto said that unit took the ductwork underneath the platform. She said Staff would not require that additional one-foot extension which would diminish the amount of space required. Major and Otto discussed Puljung’s handout and the package unit shown in the PowerPoint. Levy moved the application be approved. Parks told Levy we were not at that point. Levy told Parks to catch up. Tyler Marion asked how much space Puljung was losing. Puljung said he has approximately 106-inches of space from the house house to a large hedgerow and what they have here is 103-inches of equipment inclusive of the 12-inches that we have been talking about so that left 3-inches of clear space so if he takes the 12-inches off the platform that would be 15-inches. He said this was access to the meter and the propane tank in the back of the house. Marion asked if it was the backyard or side yard. Puljung said the side yard. He used photographs included in the PowerPoint to describe the locations of the meter, tank, and a shed. Marianne Bramble discussed the area with Puljung. She asked if the platform would take out the pathway or just obstruct the view. Puljung said it would take out most all of the walkway; there would be 3-inches left of the walkway. Bishop said the proposal would still not bring it into compliance because according to statute it has to be located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Otto said that Puljung was tying into existing ductwork; we do not require compliance with any portion that is not being changed. She said the portion that is coming down out of the unit to tie into we would accept. Bishop said that would then make it in compliance with FEMA guidelines and our code. Otto said the intent was to get the unit up. Major asked Puljung, given the configuration that Otto showed with the ductwork running under the unit rather than on the side or behind it, would he be willing to take a look at whether or not that would preserve enough of the sidewalk and still be in compliance. Puljung said that his preference was to get it located on the ground so it has a direct shot into the existing ductwork. He said that was going to make it the best for the way they use the property and as far as tying into the ductwork. Puljung said that was how the system was designed. He said he does not know the cost associated with the unit that was shown; he knows the unit that he would like to put in was $4,900. He said the additional cost, which he knows does does not pertain to a hardship, of the platform and the exterior ductwork was another $3,800 so obviously getting it down on the ground was advantageous financially for him. Bishop asked if the diagram Puljung presented tonight was not his intent to remedy the situation. Puljung said the document shows what the problem is for him. Bishop said it was not a proposal to remedy the problem. Puljung said it was not a proposal to remedy; it was what the heating and air people responded to him with when they found out the unit had to be raised and that was when they realized it took up too much space to allow access from front to back of the property. Bishop said on that side. He said it does not prohibit access to the back completely. Puljung said not completely, just to the meter and the propane tank. Bishop said there would be access to the meter and the propane tank within the parcel of property. Puljung said there would be and it would be difficult to use the shed. Parks called for public input. There was none. He closed the Hearing. Bishop said based on the rendering presented, even though it is not preferable from the applicant’s perspective, there are means by which the fix could be made to accommodate the specifications and FEMA guidelines. He said there may be some degree of inconvenience based on traversing in and out of the lot but it does not completely obstruct the ingress or egress, and it would potentially bring it within the statute and the intent of FEMA and also preservation of what we are about when we build, alter, or modify an existing structure. Bramble said it should be brought up to code and lifted to meet FEMA. She said everyone has to do that in new and old. She said she cannot understand why you would want to not have it insured if something happens and the flood insurance would not cover it if you are concerned about cost right now. Puljung said the whole house was below floodplain so basically if we have the flood issue he is only protecting the unit. He said 6 the added cost of raising it versus the loss; he could replace the unit a second time. Levy moved to approve. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Callahan and Levy. Voting against the motion to approve were Bishop, Bramble, Major, and Marion. The motion to approve failed with a 2-4 vote. The item would be heard by City Council on May 12. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan at 106 South Campbell Avenue, PIN 4-0003-04-006, Zone C-2. The petitioner was Chuck Vonashek. The request was an addition of a deck to Charly’s restaurant. Dianne Otto said at the Commissioners’ chairs was a color rendering provided yesterday. She noted that the tree would remain, the proposal was a 16-foot by 18-foot patio and because it was commercial it did require site plan approval. Rob Callahan asked about the Staff Report stating it was a 16 by 18 patio but the application stating it was a 16 by 16 deck. Otto said when the building permit came in it was 16 by 16 and on the site plan application it was still a 16 by 16, but when the plot plan was submitted then it became a 16 by 18 with the additional 2-feet across the restaurant, not in depth. Otto said she believes it is a 16 by 18; once Vonashek got his surveyor to show how much room he had he chose to expand it. Henry Levy asked if it encroached into any setbacks. An encroachment of a ramp at grade of 0.2-feet into the front setback was discussed. Parks noted the petitioner was not present. Otto said he stated that attending the meeting would be difficult as he is working right now. Levy asked if it was considered to be facing Linton Street or South Campbell Avenue. Otto said South Campbell. Levy asked if there was not a 20-foot setback. Otto said no, it was commercially zoned and it was a 10-foot setback. Levy noted that several of the items on the plan were proposed. It was clarified that the patio and ramp were added to a 2006 plan. Levy moved it be approved. Parks informed Levy of the order of Public Hearings. Levy told Parks that he ought to get a copy of Robert’s Rules. Parks said he would be glad to discuss that with him after the meeting. Major asked if we were going by the Site Plan Approval process that has been in effect. Otto replied that Article 5 has not gone to Council. Major said under the current ordinance a Site Plan Approval is intended to provide the general public, Planning Commission, Mayor, and Council with information pertinent to how a new development will affect the surrounding area. He said basically it was for information and to get recommendations. Major said the new ordinance has much stronger language about approvals and denials. He said this seemed like more an education process if there are no variances being requested. Otto said another intent was the public process where the neighbors will be aware that an outdoor use was now proposed at this property. Major asked if they have been notified or will be. Otto said the property was posted, it would be published in the newspaper, and notices to the adjacent property owners would go out tomorrow. Levy asked if anyone wanted to bet that in five years they will want to enclose it with screen or solid walls. Parks said that five years seemed long. Bishop said the item before them was a Site Plan Approval. Parks asked if they put tables on this and enlarge the seating capacity of the restaurant does that effect parking. Otto said it does. The parking calculations provided in the Staff Report were discussed. Otto pointed out that on the plat that was provided some of the parking encroached into City right-of-way however it was approved that way at the last Site Plan. After further review of the parking being sufficient with the addition of the patio, there was not any public comment and the Hearing was closed. A motion to approve was made by Levy. Bishop seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous. The motion to approve passed 6-0. City Council would consider the Site Plan on May 12. The next item was Article 5 but it was agreed to consider items 7, 8, and 9 of the agenda and see what time they took before working on Article 5. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Section 3-080(A)(1), Off-street Parking Requirements. The request was made by Commissioner Henry Levy. Dianne Otto said Levy requested and met with her on April 7. She said among several items he proposed were the next three items on the agenda the first of which was a proposal that: residential off-street parking spaces shall be provided one for each bedroom, office, or den, and one additional. Otto said the current ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces per unit. Levy 7 said he proposed it because we end up with a place with 14 or 15 cars parked out front; this would help to alleviate some of that and if they enforce the ordinances it would probably alleviate all of it. John Major asked if it was intended to apply to new construction or existing dwellings. Levy said it applied to new construction; the other stuff would be grandfathered. Major said okay because a lot of Tybee places do not have any parking off-street currently. After Major and Levy discussed, Parks asked if it should be reworded to say on new construction for residential. Levy said he would accept that. Demery Bishop calculated that a four bedroom house with a den would require six off-street parking spaces. Levy agreed. Bishop asked what if there was no room. Levy said then the owner needed to get a bigger lot. Bishop said that some lots would not be able to be built on. Levy said certainly they would be able to build on them; they just would not be able to crowd them. Bishop, Otto, Levy, and Parks discussed parking in setbacks and curbs. Marianne Bramble asked if we all ready have ordinances for how many parking spaces rental properties have to provide. Otto said no. Bramble asked if that was what Levy was asking. She also asked if this was strictly for rentals. Levy said it would be any residential property. Otto described a short term rental ordinance that has been proposed that has requirements for rental properties including that in order to get their business licenses they would have to demonstrate they have adequate parking for the number of sleeping areas. She said it would be Municipal Code, not Land Development Code. Levy asked if it had passed. Otto said no, there was a workshop on it that was well attended. Major said that while limiting parking and impacting the parking problems was a great idea, he would really be concerned about the issues that have come up like where there are curbs and making something that was currently developable undevelopable by ordinance. He said there was not enough information to understand the impact. Bishop said he shared those concerns. He suggested more review of the overall impact on new construction and what issues would be created for potential builders or owners. He said he had some issues at this juncture; he was not saying it was not something they needed to look at. Bramble suggested combining this with the Short Term Rental Ordinance. After discussion Levy moved to adopt this Text Amendment. There was not a second to the motion. It was agreed that Staff would communicate the new construction discussion and the vacation rental parking discussion as input to the proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance to the City Attorney and to City Council via these Minutes. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Text Amendments to various sections related to setbacks. Dianne Otto said this second request from Commissioner Henry Levy was: No intrusion into any front or side yard setback of any obstruction including air conditioning units, carports, porches, balconies, storage units, stairs, swimming pools, etcetera. She said the discussion with Levy was that front and side yard setbacks needed to be open for fighting fires. Otto said she did not attempt to identify the large number of Land Development Code sections that would be impacted by this proposal. Parks said he tried to look up the number and it was staggering. John Major said there was a time when most of us assumed this was part of our ordinance. He referred to somebody that had come before the Planning Commission wanting to build a roof over an air conditioning unit and the Commission could not find that units were prohibited. Major said this addressed what he had thought was on the books. He asked if the code was silent on a unit being allowed in the setback. Otto said there was a section that addressed items servicing a structure. Various items that are or are not allowed in setbacks were discussed. Levy expressed that nothing should be allowed to obstruct a setback. He then said the question comes up about trees. Demery Bishop said air conditioning units were not considered obstructions. He referred to a prior setback variance request for an emergency stairwell at a home that had been damaged by fire. Bishop said something of that nature could have a positive impact and fulfill the intent of the setback for public safety. He said we needed to see what obstructions they were talking about and how they have an impact. He said there are things that may be allowed to be in the setback that might be of benefit to the property without creating a public safety hazard. Levy asked if he could think of anything. Parks said balconies. Otto said balconies are not allowed in the setbacks. Bishop gave the example of the external stairwell that was allowed to be placed at an existing unit in the setback to give ingress/egress in the event of an emergency. 8 He said that would be a normal and reasonable exception to the setback. Levy said if it was new construction you can design it so that a stairwell was not within the setback. Bishop and Levy discussed. Otto said in response to the numerous variance requests for a second means of egress it was adopted that all plans for new construction require two means of egress. Bishop confirmed with Otto that those were not in the setbacks. Parks said he would like to see the code sections that this affects. Otto requested that they identify the items. The list that was developed was: accessory structures, carports, swimming pools, air conditioning units, and patios. Otto noted that they may be cross-referenced in other sections but she would locate the primary ones. Major recommended they not entertain an ordinance with the word “etcetera” in it. Parks agreed. Levy moved its adoption. Parks said what they were trying to do was piece by piece figure out what they were adopting. No second was given to Levy’s motion. Tyler Marion moved they hold the discussion until the next meeting. Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to hold the discussion until the next meeting passed 6-0. Levy asked who was going to research it before the next meeting. Otto said she would. Major commented that if the purpose was to keep fire lanes open there should be consideration of plantings and trees. He said it would be helpful to have a list of the things they talked about and then whether they were currently allowed or not allowed. Levy said he did not know what to do about trees. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Section 10-080(D)(7), Design Standards. The request was by Commissioner Henry Levy. Dianne Otto said Levy proposed that at dead-ends there be a 60-foot diameter turnaround. She said when she advised Levy that ordinance requires 80-feet he said it should be 60-feet. Otto said she consulted with the City’s consulting engineer, Downer Davis, and he advised against this change. Levy Levy pointed out that the turning diameter for most cars does not exceed 50-feet. John Major asked about a fire truck. Levy said that was a different thing. Parks asked about a garbage truck. After discussion, Demery Bishop asked why it was currently at 80-feet. Otto said it was for service vehicles and emergency vehicles. Bishop asked if 80-feet was a standard throughout engineering codes dealing with transportation, highway safety, and things of that nature. Otto said it was; the engineer referenced Savannah and Chatham County, and he specified that was for roads that were not over 150-feet in length. Major said he recalled more than one City Council discussion about subdivision applications where this has been a big issue. Otto said she also recalled that. She said as we progress through articles of the Land Development Code the Subdivision Regulations will come up and it may be the time then to address this. Referring to the turnaround area, Levy said to put some plantings in the middle of it. Marianne Bramble asked Levy why he wanted to take it down 20-feet. Levy referenced that a large vehicle could turn in 60-feet. Parks called for a motion. No motion was made. Levy said we just voted for what exists. Chair Monty Parks asked, given the hour, was there a motion to delay consideration of an earlier item on the agenda which was a Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for Administration and Enforcement, other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-010, 5-030, 5-050, and 5-070 which were previously approved. Dianne Otto said no motion was needed. Chair Monty Parks said the final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee. Parks said they have had two meetings and have determined that they will craft an ordinance. He said they have had the State in to make two presentations and they are making good progress. Demery Bishop asked if the recommendations that had been made prior to adoption of the current ordinance were being considered. Parks said they are in the packet and will be part of what is considered. Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn and Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.