HomeMy Public PortalAbout120_010_1Variance 5 Tenth Pl. 1of2 MAYOR ; nM L CITY MANAGER
rn
Jason Buelterman ,, C Diane Schleicher
CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK
Wanda Doyle,Mayor Pro Tem Janet LeViner
Barry Brown
Rob Callahan ' CITY ATTORNEY
Bill Garbett !f Edward M.Hughes
Monty Parks �moo.
Paul Wolff
CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND
City Council Agenda Item Request
Agenda Item Requests and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Clerk of Council by
4:00PM on the Thursday prior to the next scheduled Council meeting. If this form is received after the
deadline, the item will be listed on the next scheduled agenda.
Council Meeting Date for Request: March 13, 2014
Item: Public Hearing
Explanation: Variance—5 Tenth Pl.; zone R-2; Reshma Shah Johnson, petitioner; consideration of means
of egress
Budget Line Item Number (if applicable): N/A
Paper Work: Attached*
Audio/Video Presentation**
Electronic submissions are requested but not required. Please email to
jleviner@cityoftybee.org.
** Audio/video presentations must be submitted to the IT department at City Hall
by 4:00PM on the Thursday prior to the scheduled meeting.
Submitted by: Dianne Otto
Phone /Email: (912)472-5031 /dotto@cityoftybee.org
Comments:
Date given to Clerk of Council: March 6, 2014
* * *
P.O.Box 2749—403 Butler Avenue,Tybee Island, Georgia 31328-2749 *Certified
(866) 786-4573—FAX(866) 786-5737 , City of ,
1.4 Ethics f
www.cityoftybee.org ���B s
ik-(--. '.‘
sp:
Y
l�.Yh.�
n(
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Meeting date: February 18, 2014
Petitioner: Reshma Shah Johnson
Project Name/Description: 5 Tenth Place
Action Requested: Variance
Special Review Subdivision:
Site Plan Approval Sketch Plan Approval Conceptual
Zoning Variance X Preliminary Plan Approval
Amendment to Zoning Map Final Plat Approval
Text Amendment to Land Development Code Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision
Petitioner has met all documentation requirements, all external approval requirements, and all code
requirements, except for the following:
VOTE FOR AGAINST COMMENTS
Bishop X Second
Borkowski X
Bramble X Motion to deny
Livingston X
Major X
Marion Chair
McNaughton X
The Planning Commission recomm• •s: ❑ •pproval /1 Denial [1 Continued
Planning Commission Cha • Date: - - i C k
-
Planning& Zoning Manager: ii)t- 0 Date: -1 9 — ( 4
3- STAFF REPORT
i(-4/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: February 18,2014
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 13,2014
LOCATION: 5 Tenth Pl. PIN: 4-0006-18-018
APPLICANT: Reshma Shah Johnson,AIA OWNERS: Dr. &Mrs. Howard Levy
EXISTING USE: vacant property PROPOSED USE: new single-family dwelling
ZONING: R-2 USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT: yes
COMMUNITY CHARACTER MAP: Beachfront Neighborhood
APPLICATION: Variance
PROPOSAL
The request is a Variance from Land Development Code Article 9, Technical Codes Adopted; Section 9-050(C),
Two Means of Egress,for a proposed new single-family dwelling to be built at 5 Tenth Place.
ANALYSIS
The property owners are Dr. and Mrs. Howard Levy. According to Chatham County property records the Levys
purchased this lot in July 2011. Tenth Place is a private road. The agent representing this Variance request for the
owners is Ms. Reshma Shah Johnson,AIA, LEED AP. She is Principal of Shah Architecture, P.C.
A front setback Variance was granted for this property by City Council on March 14, 2013. The required front
setback in the R-2 zone is 20-feet. The granted Variance allowed a 17-foot front setback for a 3-foot deep, 14.5-
feet wide cantilevered front on the second and the third levels only. The Minutes of the meetings of the front
setback Variance considerations are included with this Staff Report.
A new construction permit application and plans were submitted by Shah Architecture in December 2013. It was
discovered during plan review the proposed structure did not meet the requirement of Section 9-050(C). It reads:
(C) Adopted in addition to the technical codes of subsection 9-050(A) is a local requirement that a
minimum of two means of egress shall be provided in every building or structure and/or section, and
area, including one- and two-family dwellings, where size and/or occupancy, and arrangement
endanger occupants attempting to use a single means of egress that is blocked by fire or smoke. The
two means of egress shall be arranged to minimize the possibility that both might be rendered
impassable by the same emergency condition.
Section 9-050(C) was adopted October 28, 2010. The Minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings when adoption was considered are attached to this Staff Report.This 5 Tenth Place application for relief
from Section 9-050(C)is the first Variance request sought since the two means of egress ordinance was adopted.
The architect submitted a revised plan adding a 4.25-foot diameter spiral stairway as a second means of egress in
response to notice that a minimum of two means of egress were required. Installation of a residential fire sprinkler
system in lieu of the spiral stairs is proposed in the applicant's Variance request narrative. A second access point
for firefighters to enter the elevated building from the ground has not been proposed. If the Variance is approved
the spiral staircase will not be installed. The heated/cooled square footage of the structure, including the ground,
first, and second floors, and the rooftop deck is 2,236. The unconditioned spaces are 1,052 square feet. The total
square footage is therefore 3,288.
The properties on Tenth Place have single-family homes and duplex units on them. A description of the R-2, one-
and two-family residential district as provided in the City's Land Development Code follows.
March 1st, 2014
PrrrIVED
City Council Members l 3
City of Tybee Island I pale'
PQ Box 2749
403 Butler Avenue
Tybee Island,Georgia 31328
RE:Variance request for#5 10th Place
Concerned Council Members,
It has come to our attention that some individuals may have questioned who we are and why
we have not been present to represent our variance request during the Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. We would like to take this opportunity to explain our absence and define our
intentions for the design of our new home.
We are both working professionals with full time positions; who have been enjoying vacationing
on Tybee Island for many years. We have now reached a point in our lives where we'd like a place of
our own on Tybee,to continue spending time with our family. The requests for variance, which we
have made, have all been founded in an effort to build a home on a very constrained site and only in the
case(s)where we feel there would be no negative impact on our neighbors or community. This lot is
limited in buildable area,and comes with the added responsibility of maintaining a detention area that
serves our neighborhood. With this in mind we hope you will consider the approval of the current
request before you.
With regard to our absence from this and our previous variance request,we ask for your
understanding. As full time working professionals in the Atlanta area,our schedule does not allow us to
attend weekday meetings out of town. Understanding the need for representation,we have asked our
Architects to represent us in these meetings. They understand the regulations and constraints related
to these requests and can speak to these issues as well as we might be able to. Please note this home
will not be used as a rental property. It is meant to be a private home for us and our family. We look
forward to getting to know our new neighbors better,so if you have any concerns please feel free to let
us know.
Sincerely,
Howard &Faith Levy
V V
RECEIVE
Memorandum 1 Pag` S $ T T
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
February 28, 2014
Dianne K. Otto, CFM
City of Tybee Island
dotto @cityoftybee.org
phone: 912-472-5031
fax: 912-786-9539
Re:Variance Request for substitution of the requirement stated in Sec.9-050(C)for Residential
Sprinkler System
Dear Dianne,
On behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Howard Levy, Owners of LOT A (SUB Lot 65) 10th Place, I am writing to
request a variance from the two means of egress requirement listed in Section 9-050(C) of
Appendix A to the Tybee Island, Georgia—Code of Ordinances.
PIN:4-0006-18-018
This request was denied by the planning commission on February 18th, 2014. We believe the basis
of the denial was twofold. (A.) We did not provide an adequate definition of the Hardship of the
property and (B)the examples, presented by Commissioner Bishop, argued that other jurisdictions
have adopted the second means of egress as an added life safety measure which is preferable to a
sprinkler system.
We would like to take this opportunity to respond to Planning Commission's comments and give
City Council the chance to hear our responses.
Hardship:
The property has a 25' detention pond easement at the rear of the lot. Due to this unique physical
feature of the site, the buildable lot area has greater limitations than that of the neighboring
properties as a result of the drainage easement and detention area. This easement and the areas it
facilitates/protects is a feature are maintained SOLEY by the Levy's for proper drainage achieved
not only for their own site—but all the sites adjacent,which are also served and by this unique
feature. Of all the properties in this area, it is the most difficult to develop under strict adherence
to the current building ordinances when you consider the added responsibilities Mr. and Mrs. Levy
have accepted, to maintain such a feature which is used by many neighboring lots.
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,ALA. LEED AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AIA SC-AR7871
7
Memorandum S
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
Commissioner Bishop's Examples:
We seek to address those examples cited by Commissioner Bishop(1) Chicago building Code, (2)
The California Building Code and (3)The Northeast Document Conservation Center, as we have
found that after further investigation,these examples that they are not relevant to this
requirement or allow the use automatic fire sprinkler system to be substituted for the second
means of egress. These sections are referenced below:
(1) Chicago building Code
10.14 (13-160-050)(c) Minimum number of exits from the 2nd floor of a single-family
residence
In single-family dwelling and townhouse units two exits are required from the second
floor if the area of that floor is over 1500 square feet. Given that sprinklers are allowed
to be substituted for the second exit from the third floor of single family and townhouse
units per section (13-160-050Xm), sprinklers can also be substituted for the second exit
from the second floor. This will be limited to floors with area up to 2000 s.f.
Please also Note that the second means of egress in this code only applies to floor area's above
1,500 s.f. where our subject property has a floor area of 1,334 s.f.
This code may be referenced at the following location:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d II/I11i nois/chicagobuilding/division 10-meansofegress/chapterl3-
16oexitrequirements?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlexal:chicagobuilding II$anc=JD 13-160-050
(2) California Residential Building Code
The California Residential Building Code Does not have a requirement for two means of egress from
a single family residence. However,the California residential code does require all new single
family residences be fully sprinkled.
(3) The Northeast Document Conservation Center
This is not a code but an organization which comments on, and makes recommendations for,
historic document preservation. This organization does make an argument that alternative means
of egress are a preferred alternate to sprinkler systems. However is it is plausible that this has more
to do with the nature of preserving the valuable documents housed in these facilities, and less to do
with a particularly unique life safety measure.
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.O.BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEED AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AIA SC-AR.7871
V
Memorandum S I I1
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
The current plans submitted to the city for permit and approval do indicate a second means of
egress in the form of a spiral stair, however,the constraints of the site and requirement to separate
the egress in such a small buildable area impair the already restricted usable area.
We would like to request a variance to the ordinance, allowing us to eliminate the second stair and
in its place install a whole home residential fire sprinkler system. We understand the intent of the
ordinance is for the protection of the building's inhabitants from a smoke or fire emergency. And
we feel the installation of a sprinkler system will better protect the building's inhabitants from a
fire. As evidenced by the attached documentation. A whole home system will work to suppress
any fire and prevent it from spreading throughout the house while a second means of egress only
allows escape for the buildings occupants in the case a fire breaks out in the main stairwell.
With that said, we want to be clear that we seek to maintain the basic purpose of Section 9-050(C)
of Appendix A to the Tybee Island, Georgia—Code of Ordinances. And we ask that the City Council
consider this alternative measure of protection for the purposes of life safety. A residential fire
suppression system is a very viable alternative to a secondary means of egress and is supported by
the attached information we have provided.
Other Code references and supported studies regarding residential sprinklers systems
The Installation of a fire sprinkler system is a recognized alternative to an alternate means of egress
by the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) as described in NFPA 101 Life Safety Handbook
Chapter 24 Single Family Dwellings—
"24.2.2.1 Number of Means of Escape.
24.2.2.1.1 In dwellings or dwelling units of two rooms or more, every
sleeping room and every living area shall have not less than one primary
means of escape and one secondary means of escape.
24.2.2.1.2 A secondary means of escape shall not be required where one
of the following conditions are met:
(1) The bedroom or living area has a door leading directly to the
outside of the building at or to grade level.
(2) The dwelling unit is protected throughout by an approved
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 24.3.5."
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.610$ WVVW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEED AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.ALA SC-AR.7871
Memorandum S
ARCH ITECTU RE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
The recently adopted 2012 Residential Building Code only requires a single exit stair, ramp, or door
to the exterior and an escape opening(window), balcony, etc. in each living space. However what
was added in this newly issued code was not a second egress stair, but the requirement that ALL
new home construction be fully sprinkled. It is only the State of Georgia,through their
amendments, has struck down this provision.
Some additional facts about Residential sprinkler system.
The Fire Protection Research Foundation, an NFPA support mission summarizes in its 2012
report:
"For more than two decades, NFPA has published annual reports on
the impact of sprinklers on fire losses,focusing exclusively on civilian
fire deaths and direct property damage. The latest estimates, very
similar to previous estimates,for sprinkler impact on home fire losses
are at least an 80%reduction in civilian deaths per 100 fires and
about a 70%reduction in direct property damage per fire. (More
recently,sprinkler impact on firefighter fireground injuries was
estimated using the same years of fire data and the same methods.
That analysis resulted in an estimate of 65%reduction in firefighter
fireground injuries per 100 fires.) "
Further study related to damage & injury from fires found:
p Sprinkler presence is associated with a 29%reduction in
injuries per 100 reported home fires;
➢ Sprinkler presence is associated with a 53%reduction in
medical cost of injuries per 100 reported home fires;and
Sprinkler presence is associated with a 41%reduction in total
cost of injuries per 100 reported home fires
SHAH ARCHITECTURE RC. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEER AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AIA SC-AR.7871
, V ",
Memorandum ,S I TIN H
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
Below is a diagram showing the impact of a fire sprinkler system vs.the second means of egress
provided for the subject property:
_-�1 _
, _k
r--- 7 ii 0 , =.
_ , . Y
i ; 7-. .1 [1 , -
,:•';: ',it:
r
Ground Floor First Floor
' The diagram here shows the
MIN O area's within the house where,
if a fire was to occur,the second
means of egress would provide
safe passage out of the residence
whereas it would otherwise be
av blocked.
Area's protected by
- '- second means of egress
... , _, _.
Second Floor Area's uneffected by
a second means of
egress.
Protection from second means of egress
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373,6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA_ LEER AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.MA SC-AR.7871
v
Memorandum S I 1.1 _1 I
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
® Iff E.- ® -9_
is
v ,
U' ._ 1:- I 4 HMIS N.. ik, -
Ground Floor First Floor
1
1 The diagram here shows the
.._ area's within the house which
would be protected by an
automatic fire sprinkler system.
L. - 1
i
V
1 Area's protected by
sprinkler system
Second Floor Area's unprotected by
sprinkler system
Protection from a sprinkler system
SHAH ARCHITECTURE F.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH.GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW,SHAHARCHITECTURE - COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEES?AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AlA SC-AR.7871
•
Memorandum SIJANI-1
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCH ITECTURE
DESIGN
We hope you will find the attached request an acceptable cause to be reviewed by the Tybee City
Council.Should you have any questions, or if you require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Again,we thank you for your consideration, and look forward to meeting with you.
Sincerely,
Reshma Shah Johnson, AIA
Michael C.Johnson,AIA
SHAH ARCHITECTURE F.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. COM
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA, LIED AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.ALA SC-AR7871
The purpose of this district is to provide for affordable development of single-family and duplex style
development. This district is intended for medium density residential neighborhoods which are quiet and
livable. This district includes a mixture of one and two-family homes with compatible educational,
religious, and public institutions as well as limited home occupations. [Section 4-050(C)]
The description from the Comprehensive Plan of the Beachfront Neighborhood Community Character Area reads:
This area includes the neighborhood adjacent to the beach on the east side of Butler Avenue. It is
defined by a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi family development. General characteristics of the
area include old-growth trees, on-street parking, wide streets, alleys, and public and private beach
access.
The table below shows how the proposed project fits with the Recommended Development Strategies outlined in
Section 1.2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan for the Beachfront Neighborhood Community Character Area.
Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2.4—Beachfront Neighborhood
Recommended Development Strategies
Meets Strategy
Strategy Y/N or N/A
1 New development, redevelopment and restoration should be consistent with
existing character of the area in terms of mass, scale, use, and density.
2 Historic structures in this area should be restored and/or preserved whenever N/A
possible.
3 The City should provide appropriate incentives for historic restoration N/A
projects.
4. The pedestrian environment should be enhanced where feasible. N
5. Old growth trees should be preserved. N/A
6 Public beach access should be preserved, maintained, and enhanced as N/A
necessary.
7. Do not allow intrusion of commercial uses. Y
8. The low-density character of this area should be preserved. Y
9. Encourage preservation of large,historic beach to Butler Avenue lots. N/A
STAFF FINDING
The proposed project is contrary to the two means of egress requirement of the Land Development Code. The
explanation of hardship on page 1 of the Variance application refers the reader to an attached letter and narrative.
Staff was unable to discern a statement by the applicant which meets the Variance hardship requirement of
Section 5-090(A). Shallowness of the lot size or shape has been checked on page 2 of the application. Unlike
installation of a second means of egress during initial construction, routine maintenance and inspections of a
sprinkler system would be needed throughout the lifespan of the building.
This Staff Report was prepared by Dianne Otto.
ATTACHMENTS a
nctrra var Su r a,x• ,.+rren�S, cro^^ p?lv�.c°-
A. Variance Application(2 pages,,ti .►,:} e t� a4 e r ?I 00-4,-..e-,3 Ca. .s s. n
B. Narrative and support documents from applicant(4 pages) (%%1::)o St S)
C. Planning Commission&City Council Minutes related to front setback Variance(6 pages)
D. Planning Commission&City Council Minutes related to adoption of 2 means of egress(3 pages)
E. Photographs of existing conditions(3 pages)
F. SAGIS map (1 page)
G. Storm Drain As-built, dated 11/20/2007(1 page)
H. Survey, dated 12/07/2012(1 page)
I. Proposed floor plan with 2 means of egress, dated 12/20/2013 (3 pages)
ritri„v
v CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND Fee
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION Commercial .$500
>
Residential .$200
Applicant's Name: Reshma Shah Johnson
Address and location of subject property: LotA SUB of the Eastern PT of Lot 65, Ward 4 on 10th Place
PIN: 4-0006-18-018 Applicant's Telephone Number: 912-447-3601
Applicant's Mailing Address P.O. Box 10226/Savannah, GA 31412
Brief description of the land development activity and use of the land thereafter to take place on the property:
The design and construction of a single family house.
Explain the hardship: Please see attached letter and narrative description.
Property Owner's Name: Dr. Howard Levy Telephone Number
Property Owner's Address 917 Springdale Road / Atlanta, GA 30306
Is Applicant the Property Owner? Yes _X_ No
If Applicant is the Property Owner, Proof of Ownership is attached: _X_ Yes
If Applicant is other than the Property Owner, a signed affidavit from the Property Owner granting the
Applicant permission to conduct such land development is attached hereto. _X_ Yes
Current Zoning of Property R-2 Current Use: Lot has no improvements.
Names and addresses of all adjacent property owners are attached: _x Yes
If within two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the Applicant's application for a zoning action, the
Applicant has made campaign contributions aggregating to more than $250 to the Mayor and any member of
Council or any member of the Planning Commission, the Applicant and the Attorney representing the Applicant
must disclose the following:
a. The name of the local government official to whom the campaign contribution or gift was made;
b. The dollar amount of each campaign contribution made by the applicant to the local government
official during the two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for this zoning
action, and the date of each contribution;
c. An enumeration and description of each gift having a value of $250 or more made by the Applicant to
the local government official during the two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the
application for this zoning action.
Disclosure of Campaign Contributions form attachment hereto: _x Yes
Signature of Applican Date
NOTE: Other specific data is required for each type of Variance.
Fee Amount$ a 0 0 Check Number l 0 2 Z 3 Date - 3-I4'•
City Official - — —
NOTE: This application must be accompanied by additional documentation, including drawings that include or
illustrate the information outlined below.
REFERENCE DESCRIPTION
5-040 (D) (1) Site plan and/or architectural rendering of the proposed development depicting the location
of lot restrictions.
5-040 (D) (2) A survey of the property signed and stamped by a State of Georgia certified land surveyor.
5-090 (A) (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding
properties, including:
irregularity,
narrowness, or,
_x_ shallowness of the lot size or shape, or,
exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the
particular property.
5-090 (A) (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot be
developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Land Development Code, without
undue hardship to the property.
NOTE: Provide attachments illustrating conditions on surrounding properties and on
the subject property indicating uniqueness, ete.
5-090 (B) If this variance application is for a Height Variance, in addition to other requirements, the
petitioner shall be required to:
Add two feet to each side yard setback for each one foot above 35 feet in
height, and,
Have safeguards consisting of sprinkler systems, smoke detectors and other fire
protection equipment deemed necessary at the time by the Mayor and Council,
and,
Where a rear yard abuts a side yard of the adjacent lot, the petitioner shall be
required to add two feet to the rear setback for each foot above 35 feet height.
The Applicant certifies that he/she has read the requirements for Variances and has provided the required
information to the best of his/her ability in a truthful and honest manner. V—(3/ ZOI
Signature of Applicant Date 7
1
Memorandum S I ]IJH
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
February 3, 2014
Dianne K. Otto, CFM
City of Tybee Island
dotto@cityoftybee.org
phone: 912-472-5031
fax: 912-786-9539
Re:Variance Request for substitution of the requirement stated in Sec.9-050(C)for Residential
Sprinkler System
Dear Dianne,
On behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Howard Levy, Owners of LOT A (SUB Lot 65) 10th Place, I am writing to
request a variance from the two means of egress requirement listed in Section 9-050(C) of
Appendix A to the Tybee Island, Georgia—Code of Ordinances.
PIN: 4-0006-18-018
The property currently has a 25' detention pond easement at the rear of the lot. The Owner plans
to build a modest single family residence. Due to the unique site the buildable lot area is limited to
a 32' x 42'. The requirement of a second means of egress from the first floor makes the
arrangement of any floor plan or layout awkward at best. The current plans submitted to the city
for permit and approval do indicate a second means of egress in the form of a spiral stair,
unfortunately the only location for this stair was on the screened porch making much of the space
unusable for dining as originally planned.
We would like to request a variance to the ordinance, allowing us to eliminate the second stair and
in its place install a whole home residential fire sprinkler system. As the intent of the ordinance
seems to be protection of the buildings inhabitants from a smoke or fire emergency, we feel the
installation of a sprinkler system will better protect the residences inhabitants from a fire. A whole
home system will work to suppress any fire and prevent it from spreading throughout the house
while a second means of egress only allows escape for the buildings occupants in the case a fire
breaks out in the main stairwell.
SHAH ARCHITECTURE RC. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. CO?
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON.ALA. LEED AP -GA: RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON,AA SC-AR.7871
Memorandum S I I-i
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
Below are some facts as published by the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, a not for profit advocacy
group:
• It typically takes fire departments 9-12 minutes after a fire has started to arrive. By
then firefighters will have to use high pressure hoses, applying water at 125 gallons
per minute. The home may be lost and the family displaced.
• Fire sprinklers work so fast that they often put out a fire before the fire department
arrives.
• In Scottsdale, AZ, a 15-year study of home fire sprinklers showed that the average
loss per sprinklered fire incident was$2,166 compared to more than$45,000 for
unsprinklered homes.
• Installing both smoke alarms and a fire sprinkler system reduces the risk of death in
a home fire by 82%, relative to having neither.
• Home fire sprinkler systems are at least as reliable as home plumbing systems.
Further information can be found at www.homefiresprinkler.org
We hope you will find the attached request an acceptable cause to be reviewed by the planning
commission and the city council. Should you have any questions, or if you require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Again, we thank you for your consideration, and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
I 'f
Reshma Shah Johnson A
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.O. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373.6108 WW V.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. CO,
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEED AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AIA SC-AR.7871
V
S I T
ARCH ITECTURE
Residential Fire Sprinkler PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
FA 2 W Gl -.
11-:4 :• a .'
r. 0 , , ...
-. _ ._, /1, , ....
, _6 T�. _ ._
,.._
' � ,: i - Jam-'_
: ,........ . „.„„...__ 1,0„.:
Ground Floor First Floor
__ _ The diagram here shows the
— '. area's within the house which
,,_.
iti.
would be protected by an
automatic fire sprinkler system.
s .
Area's protected by
W h
r- '' sprinkler system
1 r
Second Floor Area's unprotected by
sprinkler system
(Fig. A)
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. P.Q. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH.GA,_ 31405 912.373.6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE .. CC
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEER AP-GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.AIA SC-AR.7871
V \
S FI
ARCHITECTURE
Second Means of Egress PLANNING
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
7 -1
- _
_ L-7
a+- r
ill [ —tr
0 >t
Ground Floor First Floor
The diagram here shows the
area's within the house where,
if a fire was to occur,the second
Ammo area's
of egress would provide
safe passage out of the residence
whereas it would otherwise be
blocked.
. , Area's protected by
yw �I second means of egress
Second Floor Area's uneffected by
a second means of
egress.
(Fig. B)
SHAH ARCHITECTURE P.C. PO. BOX 10226 SAVANNAH,GA. 31405 912.373 6108 WWW.SHAHARCHITECTURE CC
RESHMA SHAH JOHNSON,AIA. LEER AP -GA:RA012295 MICHAEL C. JOHNSON.ALA SC-AR.7871
Ili "1"
w PC& CC Minutes related to approval of in
a front setback Variance for 5 Tenth Pl. '"
Planning Commission Minutes 02/19/2013
Variance— Reshma Shah Johnson - Front Setback for 5 Tenth Place
Ms. Otto—This request at 5 Tenth Place is to build a single-family home. On the rear of the property is a drainage
easement that has taken a portion of the property that normally would have been building footprint. The request is
to encroach into the front setback,which is required to be twenty feet,with a three foot area which would only be in
the center portion of the proposed structure. In your packets are diagrams of each floor level and a rendering of
what the home would look like. On the ground level there would not be a three foot extension into the front setback
but on the second and third levels there would be. Highlighted in yellow is the three foot area protruding into the
front setback(referring to PowerPoint). Here is the rendering that shows if you are looking straight at the home and
what it would look like. If you are looking west, on the left side,you see the protrusion of the second and third
floors beyond the footprint of the ground floor. Here is a photograph of the lot and that drainage area in the rear of
the property as well as a couple of shots looking east and west along Tenth Place. Tenth Place is a private road and
all the homes own to the middle of the lane; the required twenty foot setback is measured from the center of the
road.
Mr. Callahan—Since we are measuring from the middle of the road,that makes it narrower than we would normally
be dealing with because we're usually measuring from the edge of the pavement, correct?
Ms. Otto—We're usually measuring from the property line that has a city right-of-way in front of it but this does
not. The house across the street, they share a common front property line which is the middle of the street.
Mr. Callahan—The concern is the width that will be remaining with the three-foot overhang on the second and third
floors. Is it going to impede emergency vehicles or large moving vans or anything of that nature?
Ms. Otto—I have not experienced what large vehicles are doing on that lane so I don't have an answer for that.
Mr. Callahan—Such as a fire truck.
Ms. Otto—Fire trucks do not place themselves in harm's way so they would not go in there and not be able to turn
around and come back out. They are going to use their equipment from Butler Avenue to access any structure in
there;they don't take equipment or fire trucks into a place where they can't turn around and get back out. They
would be too close to the source of the fire and that would endanger the fire trucks. Based on prior questions I have
asked about dead ends like this,they don't put their equipment in that situation. Mr. Smith is here this evening and
he could probably answer that question better than I could.
Mr. Callahan—I think you have addressed it adequately if they don't even venture down the road. Other large
vehicles, especially taller ones like moving vans,would the width of the road be so narrow between the edge of the
house across the street and what will be the front overhang of the new house that it may become a problem? Is there
any way to know that?
Ms. Otto—I don't know of a way to know that.
Mr. Callahan—Do you know what the setback is to this home?
Ms. Otto—In your packet is the drainage as-built from the other projects and it does show that the home that is
closest to the ocean has a fifteen foot setback[referring to PowerPoint]. The next one looks to be twenty though it is
not called out. The one shown here, at the far end nearest the beach, is at fifteen feet,this one is at twenty, and they
are proposing seventeen but only on the second and third floors.
1
Mr. Callahan—I was thinking that the new house was to the left of this one [referring to PowerPoint]. Is the house
on the right in that photo,is it set back far enough to allow passage of the larger vehicles?
Ms. Otto—Looking at the photograph,I would say yes but I don't have a measurement of what their front setback is.
Mr. Callahan—The house on the right was probably constructed many years ago or before we had setbacks.
Ms. Otto—I believe because it probably has a Strand address, and the front is probably considered to be the ocean,
that the fifteen is actually a side setback. It's a duplex that faces the ocean so what you see there is a side of one of
the units, so that is a side yard setback.
Mr. Callahan—I understand that. I was referring to the other photo that was up. I'm just trying to establish what the
setback is for that one.
Ms. Otto—I do not know. I've seen Waste Pro garbage trucks back into these types of lanes because there is
nowhere to turn around. I would suspect that may be the situation unless they are currently using this lot to turn
around on.
Mr. Bishop—When I was looking at the lot and the proposed floor plan,the house has one dimension according to
the Shah Architectural drawing,is 32 feet and the extension is three so we have a total of 35 feet total. Is that
correct?
Ms. Otto—The total depth of the home,yes.
Mr. Bishop—In the measurements taken from the drainage ditch, approximately,going forward to that 35 feet,it
appears that the duplex that is located to the east on the beach side, that appears to be where their side is
approximately the same distance into the lane that this house would be in general measurements. With that,as fat as
a public safety or an issue,I guess that would be considered a precedent—which it is already out into the lane at
approximately the same amount of distance.
Ms. Otto—I would agree with that statement.
Mr. Bishop Looking at code section 5-090, that we could grant a variance from the strict application of the Land
Development Code if there are unique physical circumstances inclusive of exceptional topographical or other
physical conditions. Topography being basically graphic representation of a surface feature of a place or region on a
map or survey. Wouldn't the detention pond fall squarely within the definition of exceptional topographical since it
is in fact a surface feature that is reflected on a map as well as a survey? That could potentially place it into a
category of may grant a variance based on a unique physical circumstance based on exceptional topographical or
other physical conditions.
Ms. Otto—In my opinion,this detention/retention area is a man-made topographic feature that did not originate to
that lot. It was created as a drainage area to serve multiple lots in that vicinity. In my opinion,when the code
references the topographic,it is referring to something that naturally existed not to something that was man-made
and placed there within recent years.
Mr. Bishop—If it was man-made, could it be filled in since it's not naturally made, to accommodate the current
design of the home? If there was a drainage plan that would allow the filled in area to act as the appropriate
drainage for that Iot and the adjoining lots there too?
Ms. Otto—It is currently a platted drainage easement. If the owner proposed an alternative drainage system that
served the same purpose, that would be considered by the city and then the lot would have the normal footprint that
a building is allowed in this zone. It would be an expensive venture because of the number of lots that are using that
detention area for their drainage.
2
Mr. Bishop—As it is currently, on the surveys and maps, the fact that it is a detention area without that filling, the
city would not consider that exceptional topographical finding thereby inhibiting the ability to build from a
reasonable position on the lot forward with a variance because actually that existing topographical item is a
uniqueness to that lot and prohibits the owner from building without corning forward because we can't build over
the detention pond,so that is a uniqueness to that lot.
Ms. Otto—It could be interpreted in that way. In my opinion, I find it to be a man-made item that was placed on
that lot for a different purpose and it was known at that time that the footprint would be reduced because of it. It is
certainly buildable without the three foot requested in the front; they could still build a suitable home. I believe the
petitioner is going to share the design aesthetic as a more pleasing appearance with the bump-out on the front,but it
certainly could be developed as a box home without needing a variance.
Mr. Parks—This detention pond,when was this done? What is the history of this pond?
Ms. Otto—I have the permit that was issued in 2005 for the drainage for the minor subdivision that occurred in this
area, That retention area serves the two lots that are shown in this photograph [referring to PowerPoint] down the
street and also serves a drainage outlet that goes over to the street to the south. It is a comprehensive area for
drainage that solved the building of these other lots in 2005.
Mr. Parks—There have been many houses built without ponds; was there a specific reason for one there?
Ms. Otto—It needed to be sizeable. Recently we worked with Neptune Lane and it has two on that subdivision.
When you have development on a large overall tract and you're going to build major impacts, there needs to be a
way to address that. This being a private lane, there is no city storm sewer for the runoff. Subsurface detention is
used other places, that is an option,but for this particular situation their engineer designed a detention area instead.
Mr. Parks—I assume that pond was there when they negotiated the sale of the property; this was a known
characteristic.
Ms. Otto—That is correct.
Mr. Parks—They can't fill it in?
Ms. Otto—They cannot fill it in. They could hire an engineer to design and there are many different ways to design
drainage. Another engineer may come up with a design that serves the same purpose but doesn't take up as much of
this particular lot. It would be an expensive thing to engineer but if you went with some type of subsurface
detention area,it is doable.
Mr. Parks—Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Do we have somebody for the petitioner that would like
to address this?
Reshma Shah Johnson came forward and introduced herself. I am the architect for this proposed design. We feel
that the retention/detention pond was a topographic anomaly to the site and that was our reasoning to get a variance
to extend the center section. The buildable lot is 40 feet by 32 feet and we have tried to put as much house as we
can into that modest footprint. The owners want something understated and low scale and we feel like it would be a
good design choice to let the center bay come out also enabling them to get a better view, albeit small,of the ocean
proper.
Mr. McNaughton—Are the support posts for that front bump-out in the setback area?
Mr.Johnson—No,they are not. It's a cantilever.
3
Mr. McNaughton—That small space from the column out is the overhang.
Ms.Johnson—Yes, from that red dot to the edge [referring to PowerPoint].
Mr. Marion—Your clients have also explored options. Talking about a box style home,would they consider
something like that to mitigate any additional costs such as exploring the whole idea of the retention pond?
Ms.Johnson—Yes,if the only options were to look at the retention pond or forego the bump-out, they're going to
forego the bump-out. This is a very cost limiting project and for the owners it is a numbers game as to what you can
put on this lot that will work. He doesn't want to touch the retention/detention pond whatsoever because you don't
know what you're going to get into once you get into it.
Mr. Bishop—The three feet that would put you into the setback, in essence,that would allow the prospective
homeowner to have an east ocean view?
Ms.Johnson—Correct.
Mr. Bishop—Without the bump-out,would they have a view?
Ms.Johnson—If you stood in the corner of the most east porch.
Mr. Bishop—Aesthetically they would still have an ocean view without the bump-out but just not as grand?
Ms.Johnson—Correct.
Mr. Bishop—Without the variance that is.
Ms.Johnson—Without the variance, correct.
Ms. Bramble—Is the hardship for the owner the ocean view?
Ms.Johnson—No, the hardship is the additional setback requirement brought on by the retention/detention pond
that exists on the property; that changes the allowable footprint that can go there.
Mr. Bishop—Dianne,the detention pond, in your opinion,is not a hardship?
Ms. Otto—That is correct.
Mr. Bishop The detention pond requiring them to come to us tonight does not constitute an exceptional
topographical item under the intent of the LDC because it was man-made?
Ms. Otto—That is my opinion. The value and marketability of this property were based on the existence of that
retention area which was installed in 2005. If it was a Corps of Engineers recognized marsh land or fresh water
spring or something similar would fall into the category of what, to me,is a topographical feature. For a detention
area to be in that same category, that was its function based on development not on natural features of that land, it
does not qualify in my opinion.
Mr. Bishop—The LDC does not define topographic as having to be natural.
Ms. Otto—It does not.
Mr. Bishop—That detention pond is a physical condition that is particularly unique to that property.
4
Ms. Otto—It is.
Mr. Bishop—In line with the wording of the LDC.
Ms. Otto—It could be interpreted that way,yes.
Mr.Parks—We have established that a very reasonable house could be developed there within the LDC
requirements if it is considered a topographical,right?
Ms. Otto—I agree with that statement. The square footage of a home based on this little bit of variance that is
requested is not substantial;it is not habitable area except on the third floor.
Ms.Johnson—It would be on the third floor.
Ms. Otto—It's not that big of a protrusion that if it were not granted that they couldn't build a home that is livable
based on the available square footage given the footprint that is allowed by the setbacks and that retention area.
Ms. Johnson—From a Shah Architecture standpoint, it is a design aesthetic that helps the overall massing of the
design project.
Mr. Bishop—It is noted that the LDC does not define unique physical circumstances or exceptional topography
anywhere; it's just used in that particular portion. This lot was bought subject to the existence of the drainage pond
by the current owners in 2011,correct?
Ms. Otto—I'm unsure of the date they purchased the property. I had many inquiries about the possible development
of the lot when it was on the market and all potential buyers understood that the detention area was in a platted
easement which needed to remain and the setbacks for the zone were identified and the footprint could be
determined by that means.
Mr. Bishop—So the purchasers would have known that setback and that detention pond would directly affect the
footprint of any residence being built at any future date?
Ms. Otto—Any potential buyer that chose to do due diligence on the property,yes.
Mr. Parks—Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.]
Mr. Parks Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak? [There were none.] At this time I would like
to close this hearing. Do I have a motion for discussion?
Mr. McNaughton—I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Bishop—Second.
Mr. Parks—Those in favor of a motion to approve,please signify. McNaughton and Bishop voted to approve.
Bramble, Callahan, and Marion voted to deny. Do I have another motion?
Mr.Marion—I make a motion to deny. There are options on the table. As the representative for the applicant said,
this is design aesthetics; there is no hardship where the applicant is going to suffer.
Ms. Bramble—Second.
Mr. Parks—All those in favor of denial of the variance request as presented,please signify. Bramble, Callahan, and
Marion voted in favor to deny. McNaughton and Bishop voted against the motion.
5
Ms. Otto—This will be considered at the March 14`h Council meeting.
City Council Minutes 03/14/2013
5 Tenth Place, PIN 4-0006-18-018; Zone R-2; Reshma Shah Johnson, petitioner. Ms. Otto approached mayor
and council stating that this is a vacant lot zoned R-2 and the proposal is to build a single family on the property.
She further explained that in the rear of the property is a drainage feature which takes a large portion of the rear
yard.This drainage area was installed in 2005 as part of the subdivision of other lots in the area. Ms. Otto
stated that the proposal before mayor and council tonight is to have a home that would be three bays wide.The
front setback would be encroached by 3' on the center bay only as well as the second and third floors. She then
presented drawings which were shown on the screen for mayor and council.The first picture showed the
ground level which would meet the 20' front setback and the second drawing showed the 3'x17' protrusion into the
front setback which is the case on the third floor. Ms. Otto stated that this was heard by the Planning Commission
and the vote was 3-2 to deny the requested variance. Mr. Brown asked Ms. Otto to confirm that this lot has the
detention pond in the rear. She stated that in 2005 as part of the subdivision of these particular lots, the
infrastructure that was installed resulted in the rear of this particular property having the detention area.
Mayor Buelterman stated that this would not be an issue with fire truck access as fire equipment does not use
these short lanes. Ms. Otto stated that she did not speak with Chief Sasser regarding this particular property.
She further explained that on other occasions she did speak with him regarding these short dead end lanes.
Chief Sasser indicated that fire equipment does not travel on these lanes as the equipment stays on the main street
using hoses to reach the fire. Mayor Buelterman then asked Ms. Otto what is the hardship regarding this
property. Ms. Otto stated that the architect, Ms.Johnson is present and would be better able to respond. Mr.
Garbett also asked what hardship is relating to this request. He feels the architect should move the footprint of
the proposed residence back 3' which would not require a variance. Ms. Johnson and her partner Michael
Johnson approached mayor and council. She stated they have been working with the owner to create a reasonably
sized vacation home and wanted to keep with the neighbors and neighborhood. What they are proposing is extra
overhang with the proposed residence. Ms. Johnson stated that the proposed overhang is well over the 10' above
the grade of the street which meets emergency vehicle clearance.They are trying to be compatible with the
neighborhood, get closer to the square footage of the neighborhood and be more equal in property values of the
neighbors. Mr. Garbett asked Mr. Johnson why they don't make the residence fit in the footprint of the lot as he
does not feel this is a hardship. Mr.Johnson explained that the 20' setback is determined by mayor and council
and is the zoning ordinance of the rights of way and they are not impeding with the traffic. They could
design the property to be within the footprint but do not feel it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr.
Brown asked Mr. Hughes to confirm if there was an easement in the front of the property. Mr. Hughes stated the
private drive could be considered an easement. Ms. Otto read from the site plan stating there is a 20' private drive
access and utility easement which is common to the center of the road, which is an additional 20' easement for
the owners on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Hughes then stated that the easement is the setback. Bill Garbett
made a motion to deny. Paul Wolff seconded. Voting in favor were Bill Garbett and Paul Wolff. Voting against
were Tom Groover, Jan Fox, Wanda Doyle, and Barry Brown. Motion failed 2-4. Tom Groover made a
motion to approve. Wanda Doyle seconded.Voting in favor were Tom Groover,Jan Fox, Wanda Doyle and
Barry Brown.Voting against were Paul Wolff and Bill Garbett. Motion carried 4-2.
6
PC & CC Minutes related to adoption of
Section 9-050(C), Two Means of Egress
Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2010
Vice Chair John Major opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development
Code Article 9, Building Regulations. Jonathan Lynn said that it was a Staff request and he
commented on some of the proposed revisions. Randi Bryan commented on Section 9-030(B)
regarding a permit for removal of a living, dead, or damaged tree. Lynn said that Joe Wilson,
Public Works Directors, signs off on dead trees. Bryan asked about the permit fee. Lynn said that
it was $15 if the tree is dead. Major asked if they approved this were they de facto approving the
new fee schedule. Lynn and Major discussed. Referring to Section 9-030(A), Major asked about
the word "all" as used in the sentence, "...all interior and exterior property alterations and all
interior and exterior property repairs." He and Lynn discussed. Rob Callahan suggested that a
definition of"alteration" consist of reconfigurations or additions. He said that "repair" would be
defined as replacement of a failed or failing system. He said that there was also the category of
"maintenance" which was not spelled out in Section 9-030(A). Callahan, Major, and Lynn
discussed. Demery Bishop asked how the City defined "alterations." Lynn's reply suggested that
if it was not in the definitions (Article 2) it would need to be added. Bishop recommended that
"repair" also be added. Lynn, Bishop, Callahan, and Major discussed. Callahan said that parking
was a problem. He suggested adding to Section 9-030(C), "Owners of property while under
construction shall ensure there is sufficient space on their property for all construction vehicles,
materials, or other related items so as not to unduly interfere with adjacent property owners
access or parking on their property." After discussion, Major recommended that Lynn make
Callahan's comment available to Council. Callahan's suggestion was discussed. Marianne
Bramble asked where removal of debris was addressed. Lynn and Bramble discussed. Major
asked if there were any other comments. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion.
Callahan asked if it should go forward as other sections have gone forward to City Council with
comments attached. Major asked if there was an emergency. Lynn said there was a little bit of an
emergency. After discussion, Callahan moved to send Article 9 forward to City Council as
marked up and with comments attached. Bramble seconded that they send a clean copy and all of
the other marked up copies. Callahan concurred with the amendment. The vote in favor was
unanimous. The motion to approve passed with a 5-0 vote. The Text Amendment would be
heard by City Council on October 14.
City Council Minutes 10/14/2010
2. Text Amendment, Land Development Code, Article 9 in its entirety.
Mr. Lynn said this request is from staff. This article deals with building regulations because
while reviewing the code they discovered some serious discrepancies that need to be corrected as
quickly as possible. He said they do not have code enforcement in their department any longer
and wanted to change the ordinance to reflect that. He said it will reference the building official
where the City Marshal used to handle those issues. Mr. Lynn said this ordinance is also where
we address the two means of egress under 9-050(c). Mayor Buelterman asked if this change
would increase the number of people applying for variances to create the second egress point.
Mr. Lynn said it shouldn't because they cannot retroactively make people do that. If they want it
1
done they have to do it on their own. He said the possibility is always there. Mr. Lynn said we
added the life safety and hurricane resistance residential construction code, being we are in the
highest velocity wind zone that you can possibly be in. Mr. Wolff said in section 9-030 it says a
permit must be secured for all new construction, all interior and exterior alterations and all
interior and exterior property repairs which could be interpreted to mean if you want to change a
light bulb or paint a room you have to have a permit. He said he doesn't think that is the intent.
Mr, Lynn said normally the only thing they tell people they don't need a permit for is painting.
He said if you're changing out a light bulb we understand but if you're changing out a toilet, you
might have to redo piping or other access points and we would like to know about that. Mr.
Wolff said he understands and would like to add: with the verbal approval from the community
development department. He said Mr. Lynn's explanation made more sense but he would be
violating the code if he gave authorization without a permit. Mr. Hughes said he would work on
the verbiage for the 2nd reading. Ms. Williams asked if they could add something referencing
cosmetic improvements such as painting, carpet,tile, etc. Ms. Doyle said she has had several
people tell her they had to get a permit to remove and install new carpet. Mr. Lynn said a lot of
old residences on Tybee have wooden floors and when you pull the old carpet up to access the
wood floor there could be damage and you have to start replacing them and could actually
interfere with the floor joist; which is where the permit comes in to make sure the floor joist are
in tack when you are redoing the floor. He said it isn't for the carpet itself but what it affects.
Ms. Doyle said what if I had a new home and wanted to pull up the carpet,would I need a
permit?Mr. Lynn said yes. Ms. Doyle said after the last election, council was standing out in
front of city hall waving and someone drove by in a pickup truck and said I voted for you but I
had to get a permit to put carpet in my house. She said she has problems with that. Ms. Doyle
said she had a citizen come up to her this week and tell her he was putting a wooden flower bed
in on Jones in front of his house and was approached by the building inspector and was told he
had to have a permit to put the flowerbed around the tree. Mr. Lynn said if he was installing a
garden pathway of brick pavers he would need a permit. If the work is valued at under $500 the
permit is free. Mr. Frank Schuman said he agreed with Ms. Doyle and said sometimes he thinks
we are permit happy. He said if you want to do something to your house and you're not messing
with the structure, he doesn't see the need to get a permit to replace the carpet in your house or
put a flowerbed around your tree or any kind of landscaping around your house. He feels
sometimes we go overboard on the permit thing. Mayor Buelterman asked what article permit
requirements would be in. Mr. Lynn said article 5. Ms. Doyle asked what article the permit costs
are in. Mr. Hughes said article 9. He said we adopted a fee schedule a while back. Mr. Lynn said
we were using another fee code when he came to work here and so the old fee schedule presently
contained in the code is non applicable. He said that is one of the main reasons for changing the
code. Mr. Hughes said code revisions have been going on a long time and we are trying to catch
up with the practice. Ms. Williams said we can't negate the value of having certain
improvements regulated because its not only for the safety of the property owner but it is for the
adjacent neighbors as well. Mr. Wolff said his only concern over this article is adding exclusion
for cosmetic repairs to include but not limited to carpet, etc. Ms. Sessions said she can remember
back in 1999 there were committees reviewing these ordinances because this is a living document
and will always be changing. She said understanding the intent of the changes would be helpful.
Mr. Lynn said he can address article 9 real quickly; it is outdated; codes are listed that we don't
2
enforce and there are codes mandated by the state that are not listed in here and it has wrong
personnel listed in the wrong department.
City Council Minutes 10/28/2010
a) 2nd Reading Land Development Code,Article 9 in its entirety.
A Motion by Bill Garbett to approve was seconded by Paul Wolff.
Ms. Doyle asked why you have to have a permit to remove a dead tree. Mr. Lynn said the amount
covers staff time to verify the tree is dead before removal. Ms.Williams said she thinks the
reason it's important to have the fee is because in the ordinance you can imagine how many trees
would conveniently die if there was no charge. The permit fee helps protect the integrity of our
tree ordinance.
The vote was Garbett,Wolff, Williams and Sessions voting in favor and Doyle and Schuman
opposed.
3
ti
1.114111111175111341P
•
{
•
•
. 4 .' *l .y
~ ter \ i #. ^.� ,
cec ----.7--=. — — _,,..- , i
._
- .. -_
Y f
K
'"l Yet
S -
.r
- .N - ¢ * J•
4 R '�
, .—::il.. .0 -,-, NI, T-tklitti .i / ry _a�yrw
.,,, , ,--,..,,,,L -lc, oi......gorr- ,
AV , .,.; .;. , -
c: -
llli
\ 6y .
Irdligk
,.
,.. I - .4'. \ .
V
"" -``
�_,` F �, .•
i ittli. sip:
- •
f }
►i1911 -
•
'WO"'. sit :j'- . -
•
1
. .' _= :I.
,) - - - "":i1= -
v- 1,_„?.
Y 1 • �a '
..* _ = `- • `i 02 11 . 2013 09 23
t
•
M ■
0
may. ��
sfY a(� r ya '�• I
I
AN( _ ,...--_ ._______.
qet
_ '° •, • .c ......„11 X91:41.a' Skis')41$ 'r3 ?!.!- 1•/7 AliVillk.
e.
ilk /
fir_ r
tiip„-,,,- .
pJ ~ _: 1
it itli1.. I
VACATION irt.NTA! --_
1.
i - qi1 'dt a,._
.i
•
4 '�
Printing: Layout Page Page 1 of
iF.-...,\///./
SAGI Savannah Area GIS
Savannah Area Geographic
Information System
yM._ ' • I6. i
i K4 a4a F
- -. `, :-'::- -.- . ' ''■- '. .;_ L.:ai A 'ft 4......
4
fry 1.,,g f �! .\�._. .sik ...„ ,.`:;ic:_era05.? .41411, _
;(`wr - ,, �yy �' emu' IV
15. 1r- i t "' Sr
•
Owner: LEVY HOWARD&FAITH*
PIN: 4-0006-18-018
Property Address: 10TH PL
Zoning: R-2
Flood 7one: AE
Aldermanic Code: Unincorporated Chatham County
4
Commissioner Code: Patrick K. Farrell
Phone:912-355-6699
Voting Precinct: 4-11C
Elementary School: HOWARD ELEMENTARY
Middle School: COASTAL
High School: Islands
Zip Code: 30306
Neighborhood Code: 20213
Calculated Acreage: 0.1087646
Land Value: 189100
Building Value:
Real-estate Value: 189100
Sale Price: 192000
Sale Month: 07
Sale Day: 22
Sale Year: 2011
Legal Description: LOT A SUB OF THE E PT OF LOT 6
Property Card: Click Here
Powered by Binarybus
http://www.sagis.org/app/NET/print.aspx 2/10/20