HomeMy Public PortalAbout120_60PlanningCommission_mtg_min_06-21-11
1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Marianne Bramble Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Henry Levy Ethan Imhoff John Major, Vice Chair Tyler Marion
CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the June 21, 2011, Planning Commission meeting
to order. Other Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler Marion. Absent was Rob Callahan. Chair Monty Parks asked for discussion
on the Minutes of the May 17, 2011, meeting. Marianne Bramble moved to approve. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures
or Recusals. There were none. Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 122 Lewis Avenue, PIN 4-0004-14-004, Zone R-1-B. The petitioners were Cindy Kelley and
Kenneth Zapp. The request was an after-the-fact setback variance for a front stoop at a single-family dwelling. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning Manager, said the applicants were requesting
a variance for a stoop that was constructed without a building permit. He said the applicants did receive several permits to remodel. He said the existing front setback prior to construction
of the stoop was 17.4-feet. Imhoff said the required setback was 20-feet so the property was already nonconforming however with the addition of the stoop the setback was 13.5-feet. He
said there were not issues with the 50% substantial improvement requirement at this property. John Major asked if during the permitting process drawings or plans were submitted that
showed the stoop. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said no. Petitioner Cindy Kelley apologized for not getting the necessary permits; they made the assumption their contractor would get
all the permits. She said the contractor apologized and there was a letter from him in the Commissioners‟ packets. Kelley said they are interested in having the overhang for the issue
of rain as they go into the front door. She said the overhang was 4-feet by 4-feet. She said it is a nonconforming structure and when they spoke with Otto she informed them that one
of the ways they would be able to maintain the overhang was to tear off the addition that was probably done sometime in the „70s. Kelley said that would be a hardship for them; there
is a large fireplace that was built as part of the addition so they are unable to do that. She said majority of the homes on the block have coverings over the doors or enclosed porches.
She said they made a commitment to improve the value of the property. She said it was owned by a bank that turned off the air conditioning and mold took over and it was in rough shape.
Kelley said it was difficult to do the construction given the financial constraints of FEMA. She said she hoped they would accept their apology and take into consideration the fact that
they are newbies to Tybee and they were in error. Kelley explained that she and Zapp were husband and wife. Zapp said they were sorry about doing this after-the-fact. He said they directed
the contractor to obtain all permits and that they wanted all workers to be documented. Zapp said the contractor dropped the ball. He said they are not trying to make a profit on this;
they are not going to rent it. He said they are doing this for themselves. He said the stoop seems to be an expected part of a 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000001
2 house to protect people from rain and other weather when they are entering the house. Zapp said they asked the neighbors to support them and everyone they talked to has given them
support because of how they have improved the image of the neighborhood. He said they were not trying to do anything wrong; they apologize for making a mistake. Zapp said that reading
the Tybee codes, the purpose of the regulations is promoting public health, safety, morals, general welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the citizens of the City. He said they think
their improvement of the house, which given the FEMA constraints has been a real challenge, they are making it better. Connie Haley, 130 Lewis Avenue, spoke in favor of the request.
Major asked for clarification on the size of the stoop. Imhoff said it was 4-feet by 4-feet. Marianne Bramble asked if there was a backup plan if this does not pass. Kelley asked Bramble
if she meant after she cries. She said they have not talked much about it; they know they need some kind of overhang over the door so they would probably come back and speak with Otto
about what might be possible. Bramble asked the cost of the stoop project. Zapp said the contractor did it for $1,000 but work had stopped on it. He said the edge of the stoop was 25-feet
from the road so it was not like they were overhanging the road. He said it was a significant setback and does not interfere with the commerce and movement on the street. Parks closed
the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Henry Levy said they could indent the door into the house. He moved the request be denied. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. He spoke of an
exterior door on the north side of the house that also has an overhang that is not connected to the ground. He asked if that would also constitute an expansion into the setback if it
was not connected to the ground as is the front stoop. Otto said the covering affixed to the house on the northern side would be a portion of the structure and a portion of the footprint
of that structure. She compared it to a cantilevered deck or a bay window. She said anything that protrudes is required to meet setback requirements. Otto said a roof is allowed to have
a 24-inch roof overhang that does not impact the footprint or the setback. Bishop asked if the overhang was extending out from the front portion of the house would that be allowed. Otto
said if it was an extension of the roof structure it could overhang up to 2-feet. Bishop clarified that it must be part of the roof structure and not part of an additional item such
as a stoop roof. Otto agreed. She said she proposed that with the petitioners and they said given the slant of the roof they did not want to do it the way Bishop was describing. Otto
and Bishop discussed the option of overhanging the roof structure to 24-inches which would not require a variance. Major said the cottage was more beautiful with the stoop than it would
be without it. He said we have an ordinance that is very specific about when variances can be considered and about encroachment into the setback when remodeling is done. He said on their
application where it lists the different requirements for consideration of a variance nothing was checked or identified. Major said they have a definition when a variance is requested
that there be a hardship to the property such as an irregularity of shape or narrowness or smallness or something inconsistent with the surrounding properties. He said if this variance
had been before-the-fact it stood a pretty good chance of not being approved because it does not meet any of those requirements. He said the only reason he could see that they would
approve it is because it is there and it looks good and the neighbors like it. Major said unfortunately our ordinance does not allow that and the Mayor and Council may well look at it
and, for the reasons he said, decide to approve it but he cannot make a vote that would suggest that this complies with our ordinance because it does not. He said he has a hard time
distinguishing when a contractor forgets, does not know about, or just deliberately avoids a permitting requirement. He said nine months ago they could not be requesting this; we had
an ordinance that required that after-the-fact variances could not be considered. Bishop said he wanted to second Major‟s comments. He asked Otto if there were discussions with regards
to the fix-ability of this issue with the fact that it could be a 24-inch overhang to the existing roof line of the front portion of the house. Otto said yes. Bishop said if that modification
was made would that meet the intention of the LDC with not requiring a variance. Otto said that was correct. She said it would require a permit before the work. Bramble said it was unfortunate
the petitioners hired someone and directed them to make sure all the permits were taken care of but ultimately it was still their project. She said she cannot be against one after-the-fact
variance from a month ago and then be for this after-the-fact variance. Parks called for the 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000002
3 vote. The vote in favor of the motion to deny was unanimous. The motion to deny passed 5-0. The Mayor and City Council would consider the request on July 14. Chair Monty Parks opened
a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 301 Jones Avenue, PIN 4-0004-16-004, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Patrick Fucci. The request was an after-the-fact setback encroachment for
a 10-foot by 14-foot roof structure attached to a single-family residence. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning Manager, said the applicant had obtained a swimming pool permit and the roof
structure was constructed with that permit. He said the required side setback is 10-feet and the roof structure had been built to the property line so the setback was now zero. Henry
Levy asked what was under the overhang. Imhoff said when the building official visited the property there was some mechanical equipment under a small part of the roof overhang and the
rest of it was empty. Levy asked if the mechanical equipment sitting on the ground was in violation of of the zoning ordinance. Imhoff said pool equipment does not have to be elevated
so it would not be in violation. Levy said he thought the idea of the 10-foot setback was for safety purposes to allow equipment to get in there to fight a fire. He said this would interfere
with it. John Major asked if the Stop Work order had not been issued would it have become more than a roof structure. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said Fucci expressed that the roof
structure was designed and installed to protect the pool equipment and he contended it was part of the swimming pool permit that had been issued. She said Staff‟s position was that the
roof structure was not part of that permit. Otto said Staff asked that a lower, smaller structure be built if the pool equipment needed to be sheltered and Fucci was not receptive to
that concept. Fucci said he hired somebody to do a whole project: the pool, pavers, and the pool equipment. He said he never was trying to be underhanded and when he got the Stop Work
order he had no idea what they were talking about. He said the project was supposed to be finished within a month; four months later he ended up throwing the contractor off the property
and finishing the project himself. Fucci said the cover that was in question was a pool equipment cover and all the manuals he has from the pool company tell him he needs to cover the
equipment to keep it out of the sun so the motors do not overheat. He said it is a Polaris system that runs around the pool and cleans it. Fucci said when he hired the contractor he
expected everything to be aboveboard and taken care of. He said six weeks after the projects got done he did get a Stop Work order from the City, called Otto and asked what was going
on, met with her the next day, and he was told he was in violation of a setback. Fucci said for the cover itself, there was a preexisting pad there and it was infested with termites
and he took it down. He said it was four posts and a roof. Fucci said he got a bit more elaborate with this cover and he attached it to the house. He said he offered to unattach it from
his house and then he talked to an engineer about the problem. Fucci said he only has 10-feet on the side and the pump and all of the equipment has to be within 25-feet of the skimmer
for everything to run properly. He described that the roof structure was next to the neighbor‟s backyard and he said he asked the neighbors, since they already had seen the structure
that was there for 25 or 30 years, if there would be a problem with him raising it up and they told him there was not, but they are not the City. Fucci said he did not know how he got
in this situation; he paid a lot of money to get this project taken care of. He said the cover was to keep the heat off of the equipment and he also moved a spa that he uses for hydrotherapy
from his other house because he was going to cover it and he spent over $2,000 to have a tub relocated which is also under the cover. He said it is a little bit bigger than it was before;
it is not four posts standing there with a roof over it. He said it is an attached structure to the header boards and it is not going anywhere unless the City tells him he has to take
it down. Major discussed that Fucci indicated narrowness on the variance application and that in an R-2 zone the square footage requirement is 4,500. He said Fucci has 8,800 square feet.
Major asked Fucci to explain his hardship and how that applies to our requirement. Fucci said he thought everything he did was within the City‟s standards and codes, trusting the contractor
that he sent to City Hall. He said originally he tried to put in the permit himself and the contractor told him that it had to come from the contractor. Fucci said if he had come and
talked to people he would not be standing here today and the pool would have probably been relocated because on the other side he has a carport where he could have run the 20110714 CC
Packet 20110707 120_060_000003
4 equipment that was already covered. He said it was very, very bad guidance from a contractor. Fucci explained that the day after the Stop Work was posted when he came to see Otto it
turned out that the contractor had only turned in about $30,000 for the project and Fucci got charged the additional fees on the $43,000 project. Marianne Bramble asked what was Plan
B. Fucci said to not use or recommend that contractor. He said he did not know what his Plan B was. He spoke of the Stop Work being six weeks after the project was done and that he did
not understand why if someone saw this being built they could not have put the Stop Work up during construction. He said he worked on it from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm for almost a month and
it was very visible; he was not trying to hide anything. He said he was willing to unattach it and make it smaller. Bramble asked why Staff did not catch it and where was our building
inspector. Otto said our building inspector is from Chatham County and Wednesdays are the only days he he is on the island until 4:00 pm; all other days he is back in Savannah at 2:00
pm. She said there are a lot of things that Staff does not catch. Tyler Marion asked Otto if she had offered an alternative to Fucci. Otto said if the structure was not attached to the
house and was considered accessory to the house it would have a 5-foot setback requirement. She said she has not seen the equipment that the overhang is protecting, but she proposed
a small, lower shelter over just the equipment. Marion asked if that was not a good option for Fucci. Fucci said he never said that; when he came to City Hall and he talked to people
about what the code is and what he did wrong, his first response was that he would unattach it if that was the problem because now he was going back to an existing structure that was
already there that he just replaced. He said if they want it up on four pegs and just standing there it is not as safe as it is now but if that was what had to be done that was what
he would have done. He said he was not told that there was any setback at all and that was why he missed the first Planning Commission meeting because he was told if he unattached it,
so he brought an engineer out there and asked him how to unattach the overhang. Fucci said this is not his skill level; he did the best he could. He said the engineer told him to unattach
it but it would be four 4 by 4s and a roof setting on top of it like it was before. He said he did not feel that was safe to himself or his neighbors. He said a 4 by 4 structure with
that roof is going to end up in Ronnie Tatum‟s yard with a 60 mph wind and he did not want to do that either. Chair Parks asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. He closed the
Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy moved that it be denied. Major seconded the motion. Bramble said it looks nice but she cannot approve this and deny any other after-the-fact
variances. Major said he is feeling not good about what they are looking at that. He said the City is being asked why it did did not catch him doing something wrong and now because of
the Planning Commission his neighbor is going to end up with this in his yard. Major said he feels bad about that and he feels bad that a contractor was hired that did not follow the
rules and did not report the right amount of permitting, but we have an ordinance that says these are the circumstances under which a hardship can be defined and a variance can be requested,
and what has been presented here does not meet that requirement. Demery Bishop said there are reasons for the LDC [Land Development Code] and reasons we debate and discuss these types
of petitions. He said setbacks are established for a number of reasons inclusive of public safety which was raised earlier and is a very valid point, but because of the nature of this
and because there is a remedy and this is an after-the-fact, he has severe difficulty in saying this is fine this time because that sets precedent and it negates the purpose and reasons
behind the LDC. Bishop said it is a a very difficult situation because the way it was built is far superior to what it previously was but as it exists with an after-the-fact, with the
LDC, with our code; he would find it difficult to approve this for those reasons. The vote in favor of the motion to deny was unanimous. The motion to deny passed with a 5-0 vote. The
request would be heard by the Mayor and City Council on July 14. Levy and Otto discussed the location of the pool equipment. The next item was a Text Amendment to Article 3, Section
3-160 – Protective Screening of Adjacent Property Where Commercial Use and Residential Use Abut. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning Manager, said this section had been to the Commission
before and they made some recommendations to the Council who had discussed it at their meeting. He said there had been enough changes recommended 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000004
5 that, in the opinion of the City Attorney, this particular ordinance needed to come back through the Planning Commission and then back for a First and Second Reading to the City Council.
Imhoff explained that the changes define when this ordinance would go into effect. He said this was an ordinance for protective screening between commercial and residential uses, not
just zoning districts. He outlined that items 1) through 3) in the ordinance spoke to when the ordinance would be triggered, and items (A) through (C) were what would be required under
this proposal. Imhoff said Council had put in for discussion a 5-foot wide buffer and that would include a masonry wall as well as some vegetative plantings. He said also included in
the ordinance is a case of Special Review for plans that are incapable of meeting the requirements. Henry Levy asked which side, the commercial side or the residential side, would the
buffer be on. Imhoff said it would be the side that is being developed. Levy asked if it said that. Imhoff said the ordinance is triggered, “In cases where a residential use does or
will abut a commercial use and where: 1) New construction is proposed, or 2) Existing improvements are to be expanded by enlarging the footprint of existing occupied or useable improved
space, or 3) a change in the kind, character or degree of use of improved property is proposed.” He said the onus on making the improvement would be the property that is being developed
or being changed according to these definitions. Levy said it did not say that. He gave an example of a residence being built next door to commercial property. He asked if the commercial
property would have to put up a buffer. Imhoff said no, the intent of the ordinance is that the residential property, in that instance, would have to install a buffer. Levy said it was
very unclear as to who puts it up. Marianne Bramble asked Imhoff to repeat what he had explained. Imhoff said Levy had presented a situation of a commercial property and a residential
property, and the residential property is the one that is redeveloped or constructed upon, triggering the requirements in the code. He said the residential property would be responsible
for constructing the buffer between the residential and the commercial properties. Chair Monty Parks said the buffer was to be measured from the property line of the property being improved,
and the person seeking to improve or to build has to put the buffer up. Levy said because there is a commercial property the residence has to put it up when the commercial property is
the one that is causing the disturbance. Parks said if the commercial property is doing the improvement they have to put the buffer up. Levy said suppose the residential property is
doing the improvement. Parks said they have to put the buffer up. Levy said that was putting the burden on the residential property to protect themselves from something that the commercial
is doing. Imhoff said he would not disagree but it was his understanding that was the way Council wanted the ordinance written. He said that was somewhat different from most buffering
ordinances; usually the onus is on the commercial property and if the residential property is to be developed there are not any requirements, certainly they could put in a buffer but
it would be optional and not required. John Major said where commercial property abuts residential property, whether the residential is making improvement or not, the residential is
there. He said he agreed with Levy that the commercial property should be the one that buffers from its nuisances. To clarify his understanding of Levy‟s and Major‟s comments, Parks
said if a residence is making an improvement on its property which abuts a business then the business has to put up a buffer. Levy said that was correct. Levy motioned they reword it
so the commercial property has to put the buffer up. Demery Bishop asked Levy if it was a residential property that was being improved that abuts commercial property, was he proposing
that the onus be on the commercial, regardless. Levy said that was correct. Parks said in addition to that not only would the commercial property have to put it up but they would have
to put it up on the residential property because the ordinance says, “The buffer shall be measured from the property line of the property to be improved.” Levy said it should be reworded
so that the buffer has to be put up on the commercial property by the commercial interest. He said if commercial abuts residential property they ought to put the buffer up when they
build. Bramble said we already have a situation just a block over, new commercial property that was to have a buffer in place. She asked how this would affect that property; would it
be retroactive where they are going to have to put this buffer up when it abuts residential on three sides. Imhoff said no, it would not be retroactive. He said it would apply to projects
after this is approved by Council. Major asked the arguments in favor of doing 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000005
6 this as it was written. Imhoff said the argument was that many times a commercial use is established so you may have a longtime commercial use and then maybe a property that had one
single-family home on it and it gets purchased and somebody decides to tear down the single-family and build apartments so perhaps the residential use could intensify which would create
a need for a buffer. He said also there was a sense of fairness; if you are going to require a commercial property to install a buffer, if you are a residential property owner and you
are moving in on a commercial property, likewise, you would be responsible for the buffer as the property owner. Imhoff said there was an element of not just putting the onus on the
commercial property owner, but the commercial and residential property owners sharing the burden of that equally. Major asked if he has a house next to a commercial building and he wants
to add a deck, he also has to put up a privacy fence, plant some trees, and have a lawn. Imhoff said if Major put in a deck that would be enlarging the footprint of the existing space,
so yes, that would be required. Bishop read from the proposed ordinance, “In cases where a residential use does or will abut a commercial use and where: 1) New construction is proposed...”
Bishop asked if “construction” was defined and if “new construction” meant residential and/or commercial. Imhoff said “construction” was not defined in Article 2 and it would be added
to the ongoing list of definitions that needed to be included. Levy said the onus should be on the commercial property to build a buffer when they first develop irrespective of the fact
that the residential property may not be built upon and the [ordinance] is flawed unless it calls for that. He said the residence is not creating the noise; the commercial is creating
the disruption. He moved to ask Staff to reword it. Imhoff asked Levy to clarify if he meant to reword it so the residential properties are no longer responsible. Levy said he moved
to reword it it so the commercial property owner has to erect the buffer. Imhoff asked if that was even in the instance where the residential property owner is developing his or her
property. Levy said the commercial should put up the buffer when he firsts builds; the onus is on the commercial property and the ordinance should reflect that. Imhoff asked about a
case when there is an existing commercial property and a residential property develops next to that. Levy said the onus ought to be on the commercial to erect a buffer. Parks said if
he understood the motion correctly, in the case that Major gave of a deck, the commercial develops the buffer on their property. Levy said yes. There was not a second to Levy‟s motion.
Parks asked for another motion. Major requested clarity that this was coming from Council, not Staff. Imhoff said the Planning Commission had worked on this, then Council discussed it,
and the City Attorney had rewritten it to reflect Council‟s considerations at their last meeting. Parks said part of where it came from was the discussion of bed and breakfasts. Major
asked if it went back to the pig and shrimp thing. Parks said partly there and also the shark. Major said their options are either to accept this or disapprove. He said he was not comfortable
with building a deck and having to build a fence and trees and all that, nor was he comfortable with a small restaurant next door suddenly incurring great expense which may put them
out of business to build a fence and trees. Major said it may not be well thought out. He gave an example of putting in an arboreal, landscaped buffer as part of a subdivision next to
a commercial business not being a problem, but a 4-by 4-foot stoop that expands a footprint being expensive based on the wording of this ordinance. Imhoff said the role of the Planning
Commission was to review things like this to make comments to the Council so if there are comments those certainly can be transmitted to Council. Parks said there have been some good
comments made. Major moved this this be returned to Council with the comments, particularly the areas of concern. He said his motion was that they neither say don‟t do it nor do it,
but maybe think it out a little more. Major asked if that was going far enough or did they need to rewrite it and submit a revised version to Council. Imhoff said they all have made
their concerns known about placing the burden on residential property owners for constructing the buffers. Parks asked Major to restate the motion. Major said he moved that without voting
yes or no that with their comments be sent to Council for reconsideration with explanation of the significant concerns that were brought up. Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous. The motion that, without voting yes or no, Section 3-160 be sent to Council for reconsideration with the Planning Commission’s comments and explanations of significant
concerns
passed with a 5-0 vote. Section 3-160 would be on the July 14 City Council agenda. 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000006
7 * * * * * 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, 5-020, 5-030, 5-040, 5-050, 5-060,
and 5-070 which were previously approved, was next on the agenda. It was agreed to spend 20 minutes discussing it. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning Manager, said that Downer Davis,
the City‟s consulting engineer, had some input on Section 5-080, Site Plan Approval. Davis commented on the second sentence of the first paragraph following Section 5-080(A)(4) having
“imposition” and “imposed” in the same sentence. The sentence was reworded to, “Buffering requirements beyond those expressly identified may also be imposed.” John Major commented that
this proposed ordinance was a major change in direction of what Site Plan review is. He said under the prior ordinance a Site Plan came to the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission
when it was in compliance with all the ordinances, or there may be a variance attached to it, and basically it was held in order to educate the City and the surrounding neighbors of
something that was about to happen. Major said the words “approve” or “deny” did not appear in the ordinance. He said they needed to be aware that this was a much stronger ordinance
from the City‟s perspective in terms of the requirement that a Site Plan was just a request for something that meets all the requirements. He said it almost makes a Site Plan review
like a Special Review. Imhoff said anytime you have greater clarification and more information that is usually a good thing. He said if the applicant is presenting a Site Plan beforehand
and it is detailed, that is going to be less work they have to do on the tail end with their as-built plan, so it is information they are going to be providing at some point in time
and it makes the process easier for everyone the more information that we have upfront. Major said the big difference was this stating that the Mayor and Council can deny or modify the
Site Plan request. He read, “If all the foregoing requirements have been satisfied and further if the Mayor and Council find that the benefits of and need for the proposed use and project
are greater than any possible depreciating effects and damages to the neighboring properties, the application may be granted.” Major said if an application meets every requirement it
could still be turned down because somebody thinks it does not do something. He said it seemed subjective. Imhoff offered to check with the City Attorney and see what the reasoning for
that clause was. Demery Bishop asked if “depreciating effects and damages” was defined. He agreed that was subjective. Marianne Bramble said they need definitions. Bishop said either
definitions or deletion of those terms that are subjective. Imhoff agreed that the definition section of the Land Development Code could be improved upon. He said Staff has been compiling
a list for Article 2. He said there are a lot of words that carry a lot of weight and meaning that are not defined so there is no ambiguity or confusion. Bishop said they have done that
during the course of this review and this is another example of that. Chair Monty Parks referred the group to Section 3-080(A)(1), (2), (3), and (4). He asked if that was an attempt
at a definition of “depreciating effects and damages.” Imhoff said there is more specificity in the paragraph Parks mentioned. He said scale and mass, availability of utilities, consistent
with the Character Area, density – those things are tangible and can be measured whereas “possible depreciating effects and damages” is less quantifiable. Imhoff offered again to check
with the City Attorney. Major asked for an explanation of the last two sentences in paragraph (A), Process. Davis said in the past the Mayor and Council would approve a plan but might
have one or two minor engineering issues to address. He said it would not be material; everybody would feel good about it being easily achievable, but then the owners would drag out
or their engineers would not not respond or the owners would not give their engineers authorization to make a minor change, and it would be three or four weeks later and another Council
meeting might occur and there would be complaints that Council approved it, why isn‟t it getting out of Planning and Zoning. Davis said it seemed appropriate that while a plan can move
beyond the Planning Commission with a few minor issues, all should be in order and the Site Plan approved by himself, Public Works, Water/Sewer, and everybody before the Council acts
on it. Parks asked Imhoff if he would have 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000007
8 time before the next Planning Commission meeting to get with the City Attorney to clarify a “possible depreciating” situation. Imhoff said sure. The final item was an update on the
Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Chair Monty Parks said tonight was the last meeting for the Committee. He said a summary of the recommendations and findings was available
if the Commissioners would like to review that. He said the next step was to present the findings to Council on July 14. He said that would conclude the official business of the Committee
which was done on time and delivered as promised. Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and John Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned. 20110714
CC Packet 20110707 120_060_000008