Loading...
20121016_PC_mtg_min_.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Randi Bryan Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER John Major, Vice Chair Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the October 16, 2012 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were John Major, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, and Randi Bryan. Mr. Parks - The first order of business is the minutes of the September 18, 2012 meeting. Do I have any comments on the minutes as presented? I would like to make one on page nine; I did not mean to say ‘contemptuous’ issue, I meant to say ‘contentious’. Do I have a motion on the minutes? Mr. Bishop - I make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. McNaughton - Second the motion. Mr. Parks – All those in favor signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Are there any Disclosures or Recusals from anyone on the Planning Commission? [There were none.] SPECIAL REVIEW FOR 1204 BUTLER AVENUE – DUNE CROSSOVER Ms. Otto – This special review is required by Land Development Code Section 3-100. The request is for 1204 Butler Avenue; it’s owned by Jay and Linda Hellstrom. The single-family dwelling currently has a crossover, this request is to make improvements to that and extend it further. This lot runs from Butler Avenue to ocean front. The survey shows a very long parcel with a single-family house. In your packet is a diagram of various options that were considered. It is the green line shown on that document that will be under consideration tonight. DNR preference is that the extension of the crossover follow the existing footpath that has been in use. Once the crossover is constructed to its limits, the footpath would continue on its way out to the beach. This is a survey [referring to PowerPoint] of the current walkway that shows the proposed walkway as it would be extended and there are pictures of the property. If you visited, you saw that the crossover does need some improvements but this is not going to be a crossover that’s going all the way to the end of the dunes. It will be far shorter than some of the others as shown in that area. You are welcome to ask me any questions and the owners, with their agent, are here tonight to answer questions as well. Mr. Parks – What motion do we expect from the Commission tonight? Ms. Otto – I would be looking for a motion to approve or deny the green path as requested. Mr. Parks – Any questions for staff at this time? Mr. Major – Are all the requirements that have been submitted, the height above the dunes, the railings, etc. within our codes? 2 Ms. Otto – Yes. Ms. Bryan – If this gets approved by the DNR, do they need our approval? Ms. Otto – Yes, our ordinance requires an approval before permitting so they need both DNR and a Tybee permit. To get a Tybee permit they need approval by the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Bryan – I saw in there that the red line is really not an option. Ms. Otto – That is correct. The DNR’s request is that the construction occurs in the same footprint as the path that is currently being used rather than to further disturb an area that’s not. Ms. Bryan – Is this going to be a public path also? Ms. Otto – No, this is a private path. You can see the aerial shots describing how this would be a much shorter crossover than the others shown to the north. It’s not going to come any further than the green drawing there. Ms. Bryan – So it’s actually going to be shorter than the black? Ms. Otto – The construction would be to the edge of the green which ends right there [referring to PowerPoint]. The black would continue to be the foot path as it is now. Either of these other two possibilities would have disturbed areas that have not been disturbed and the preference by DNR was to keep this in the area already established as a footpath. Mr. Parks – At this time do we have anyone representing the request? Please come up and introduce yourself. [Tara Merrill came forward.] My name is Tara Merrill and I’m with the Environmental Science & Technologies, Inc. (ES&T) and I’m here representing Jay and Linda for the proposed dune crossover. Most of the things have been covered by Dianne but I have some additional photographs and aerials if you would like to look at them. The proposed walkway is 5 foot by 141 foot with two cantilevered 2-1/2 foot by 12 foot sections that will serve as resting areas with benches. The intent and purpose of this project is to provide the homeowners, plus their renters and guests, safe access over the landward dune. Three things we did consider during planning and design was to keep the riparian buffer, which is completely intact, with the exception of the existing crosswalk, intact. We attempted to avoid any disturbance to the seaward dunes system which appears to be undisturbed in its natural state at this present time. We also worked with Habitat Management Program and the Wildlife Resource Division of DNR to lessen the impacts to any kind of critical habitat associated with the dunes, the dune field, and any animals and vegetative communities that may be residing in or using that area in-between. This is existing conditions [referring to PowerPoint] and basically you can see that we have an existing 4’ walkway. It is elevated to 30” above grade now and what we want to do is tie in with the at-grade boardwalk and then go over the dunes. For the past 15 years they have been using this sand path. The at-grade boardwalk comes over the landward dune and meets with the sand path. This sand path then joins with a neighbor to the south and then carries out to the beach through the dunes, not over the dunes. The alternatives were discussed; the first two went through the DNR with the CRD and the Habitat Management Program of the WRD. It was requested and recommended that we stay within the footprints, so we revised the design and angled the walkway to stay within that footprint. It’s always been the Hellstrom’s opinion that less is more to them; they are just trying to get safe access over the landward dune and are not wanting to see a big structure go over the seaward dune. They are trying to get where they have always gone without any further disruption to the critical habitat of that dune meadow. Finally what we did was take into account the visual impact of the structure. By design, the structure should be more invisible to a spectator and it has cable in place of wood so you can almost see straight through it. That was another design modification we made in an attempt to make certain that the structure was less obtrusive from an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Callahan – Is there any technical reason why the dune crossover needs to be extended from its current point of termination to the toe of the dune? 3 Ms. Merrill – From an engineering standpoint it would be the slope of the ramp that would require it to be extended beyond. With the at-grade boardwalk, you hug the surface and go over. In this particular instance, you are up 36” so you have to ramp back down to elevation of the grade and have enough space to do that safely. Plus the at-grade boardwalk, before it started twisting, turning, and degrading, it went all the way over and no longer does that. People are going any way they want at the base of the seaward side of this most landward dune so they need to be directed on a path and this structure would do that and get them safely where they need to go. Mr. Parks – Other questions for applicant. [There were none.] Thank you. Are there other members of the public that would like to address the Commission at this point? [Randy Booker came forward.] I’m the immediate neighbor to the south, the project is immediately north of my property line and the property line comes up to 16’ feet behind the old seawall. I have been on this island virtually all my life but I wasn’t here in 1930 when they deeded that property. I think the City of Tybee owns that property and not the State which is an interesting question. I reached out for Jay and Linda who are our neighbors, had some conversation with them but haven’t gotten into any details because I just heard from Tara today. I had communicated with Jay a few weeks ago about the possibility of joining in with a neighborhood elevated walk all the way to the beach. For some time I have wanted to extend a walk from where we are and if you can look at it where the ‘Y’ takes place, the red and yellow lines - is that what you originally applied for? Ms. Merrill – No sir, our original application is shown in the green line. The first two options were not presented to the DNR but were communicated through a pre-application process with the DNR. We presented those options and they presented their recommendations for us to take the existing foot path which is how we ended up with the design we have now. Mr. Booker – Do you recall who that was at DNR that you communicated with initially? Ms. Merrill – That would be the project manager for this project, Deb Barreiro, Brad Gane who is the Assistant Director, and Trina Morris who is the Non-Game Conservation agent for the Wildlife Resources division. Mr. Booker – And it was Deb and Brad Gane that suggested you come over our property to the walkway? Ms. Merrill – Yes sir, they would like us to stay on that existing footprint. They think if you extend yours that you could do the same and not interrupt any more riparian corridor. We’re going to come off that way and you could come off the same way and then those two could meet and that foot path could be used thereafter. Mr. Booker – Our concern is that if we built an elevated walkway, which has been discussed and I had communicated to Jay and Linda Hellstrom several weeks ago, and said would you be interested when I saw their application for improvements to their dune walkover. Would you be interested in participating in this, and if certain conditions were met, it could probably be done at a very, very low cost to you. In exchange for some other things, it would turn into a communal, although I did not communicate with anybody else about this but they politely declined, which I certainly respect their right to do that. They noted the cost and this was mentioned earlier they didn’t like the look of an elevated walk. I do, as I get older, it looks more and more attractive so I can get across the dunes easier. In several ways we think that is something we want to do. The three cottages involved, if we could go back to that slide that showed the cottages by their early names, if you start on the bottom end, what is now the Booker cottage, my cottage was the Bremer property, next to that was the McCall property; these were all built in the 1930’s and some of them as early as 1912. The Fulmer cottage was built in 1912 and there was a row of strand cottages and each of them had their own walkway, most of them were improved back in the good old days. My concern is that what they’re doing is crossing the projected property line between our two properties. I understand clearly that the State claims right to all of that property and it is theirs to do with it as they see. I think the City of Tybee actually owns it but the simple truth is that we don’t want to add to that traffic. Mr. Hellstrom points out in his letters that I have that he thinks less is more and he doesn’t like the 4 look of an elevated walkway and he doesn’t want to disturb the beach any further and quite frankly I concur with that in general terms. But I also don’t want him opposing our elevated walkway because it would preempt if we come straight out our pathway and go straight to the beach in the traditional, and that is a historic route for that cottage. We wouldn’t want to set up a situation where he opposes us in the future for building an elevated walkway. That’s my concern and I’m going to communicate with DNR about what is a major variation. I can tell you factually because I have experienced it first hand, they do not as a general rule, allow people to cross extended property lines on dock permits. They do it where there is absolutely no other choice involved and they can’t get to deep water without crossing a property line but we would respectfully request that the project be approved straight out to the beach until such time as we build an elevated. I don’t think Jay has owned this property, how long have you all owned this property Jay, has it been 15 years all total? Mr. Hellstrom – Owned it since 1989. [other conversation unintelligible.] Mr. Booker –I have a porch that sits low over the top of the dunes and they certainly have the right to rent their property, it is rental property primarily, they live down here a few weeks each year, but it is basically rental property as is the property behind me. We would respectfully request that the City consider sticking with traditional routes that provide beach access. I’m going to speak to DNR about their policies and why they were varied and why Deb and Brad Gane would have suggested this. These folks applied, as I understand it now, you didn’t actually apply but you had shown this to DNR showing the straight out route which is the red and green, and DNR suggested they move it over to our side of the property line. Ms. Merrill – If you notice in front of your home and in front of the Hellstrom home, there is a large expanse of seaward dunes that are undisturbed at this point; that is the immediate environmental impact factor and why disturb something that is not already disturbed. The other part of any federal or state project is you really need an intent and purpose, a need for the project. The need for the project was to get them over the landward dune. There were no complaints about getting through the seaward dune because the pathway takes you through the dune - not over the dune. It only made sense to just make a short landward dune that would cross over and give safe beach access. At that time the DNR did not want us landing in the dune field because it is outside the existing footprint of the path that has been used for years. Mr. Booker – You are not anywhere close to the shoreward dunes with what you are proposing, are you? Ms. Merrill – Just the landward dune. Mr. Parks – I appreciate the questions and I share your concerns but this sounds like a discussion that should have happened when the property was posted with a review. I don’t mean to be rude or impertinent, it seems like this is something for the two of you to discuss. Ms. Merrill – It actually has been discussed. We have all of the comments that were received during the public comment period; three are in favor of this project and Mr. Booker is not. We did send him a written response to his concerns almost two weeks ago. Mr. Parks – That’s not in my packet; I’m not allowed to consider that. Mr. Booker – I only received that yesterday. Mr. Parks – Let me tell you what I’m hearing and see if I’m close. The red line is what you see as being within the property boundaries and is the preferable crossover in your mind; either the red or yellow. 5 Mr. Booker – That would be the preferred route and historically accurate route. They didn’t start cutting across to our pathway until they started renting in large numbers and it’s the renters that use that. They completed their project maybe eight or ten years, or seven or eight years ago. The heavy rentals didn’t start until recent years. Mr. Parks – Did I get close as to what you’re asking? Mr. Booker – Yes, I think that is it exactly. We would like for them to stay on their side of their beach path and we would like to stay on our side because we will be applying to build an elevated beach walkway and if they are putting traffic on the surface path it will create a future problem for us that we don’t want to have to deal with. Mr. Parks – Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Callahan – Where is the property line on the ocean side of your property? Ms. Otto – Let me refer to this, this is the Hellstrom survey of their lot which runs from Butler to the ocean. This is Butler on this end, this is the ocean, this is the edge of their property line, and there is a comment here that it’s 500 feet or more to the high water mark. Mr. Booker – The line is approximately 11 feet off of that house [referring to PowerPoint] and it extends out to the Hellstrom’s current walkover, I’m going to guestimate 10 feet, 12 feet, beyond that 11 feet. It’s about 20 feet from our house and porch. The Hellstrom’s are delightful neighbors, they are very fine folks, some of their renters are not quite so fine, their rowdy, boisterous, and rather inebriated renters do create problems for us and we would like for them to stay on their side. Mr. Callahan – But is the property line on the landward side of that dune? Mr. Booker – It is right in the middle of the dune or the edge of the dune. Mr. Callahan – It’s at the top of the dune? Mr. Booker – The location, the north side line, is approximately right down through here [referring to PowerPoint]. The east/west line comes down 11 feet off of this house and roughly 20 feet off of this and passes just north of this dune walkover. We have approached this group of people to see if they want to participate in a community dune walk. If they do, we have a plan for absorbing most of the cost so it can serve the entire neighborhood – that’s basically what I asked Jay and Linda for. Mr. Major – Is there anything in this proposal that would in any way change the traffic pattern of people walking to the beach, increase the number of people, or further encroach onto your property beyond what is happening right now, other than there being a structure as opposed to no structure? Mr. Booker – I would say that in the future, yes, as they rent the property more and more. Mr. Major – Wouldn’t that happen, whether the structure was there or not? Mr. Booker – If they were on their side of the property line, it wouldn’t be right underneath my porch which is here [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Major – That’s where it is right now though, right? 6 Mr. Booker – Where it is in recent years, historically no. We started with the Hellstroms and asked them if they wanted to participate in a community walkover. If we do that they may agree to participate or they may not but we don’t know anything about that at this point in time. Mr. Parks – Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak? [Jay Hellstrom came forward] I’m Jay Hellstrom and my wife, Linda, and I own the cottage in question and the walkway that is being discussed. I wanted to clarify a couple of points that we just raised. In the sense of, I grew up at Isle of Hope and Tybee has been a vacation spot for my family for years, decades. One of their favorite places was coming down to Tybee. Even living on Isle of Hope which is pretty nice, we used to come down here. I got married to a wonderful lady, raised a family up north, we used to come down every summer, and my dad said don’t waste your money buy something. We bought a place down on Sixth Street and then ultimately bought this. In that period, we rented numerous cottages, one of which was the McCall cottage which we rented for two years so I’m not the first to rent this cottage. If you like, you can talk to Charlie McCall, who is a survivor of the McCall cottage, and he will testify to the fact that this was quite actively rented in the period in which they owned it. Yes, we do rent, we think it’s a wonderful, historic cottage which we seek to share with others. It’s one of the things that we feel strongly about that we have been able to preserve something that is unique to Tybee and we like to share it, and we do rent it. It does have a source of income, taxes are not insignificant, I think we have good renters, and there is clearly, from our standpoint, the concern of safety for these folks. On many occasions, we have been told that they have come back and said it is somewhat dangerous and that is what has prompted us to do this. We were approached by Mr. Booker, in a letter, in which he discussed this communal walk and mentioned of others that were interested in it. Sand Dollar is now the name for the Bremer cottage and the participants in the Sand Dollar are in serious discussions with Mr. Booker. I reached out to them, they are good friends of ours, they said they had absolutely no knowledge and would have no interest in such given their relationship at this time. I can say that the Delaney’s, who own the property, which is Lot C, I have discussed with and have not been approached so I don’t know the group that Mr. Booker is speaking to. I hope you approve this project. We have tried to be aesthetically as low key as possible. We did look at the yellow first and were told it would have to go even higher because of the dune length height from where we are which would have a much higher visual impact in the community. In discussions with the DNR, they said it would have less of an impact if we stay on this existing lot by about two feet over and above the fact that we have to be 36” off the top of the dune we are crossing. In addition, we have put materials together in trying to minimize visual impact for the neighborhood. It is lower, we have maintained the vegetation all the way over the dunes, and we have tried to have this sheltered. Mr. Major – The entire structure that you are requesting to build, every bit of it is on property that you own or property that the State or City owns, it’s either yours or ours? Mr. Hellstrom – Every bit of it. Ms. Bryan - What is your safety issue? Mr. Hellstrom – I don’t know if you have had a chance to go out there; this is what was originally on our property. What we have done is stayed within that existing path. This is the route and the path down which we took in 1978 but there were boards then. If you had a chance to go over the top and down, you will see a structure that is somewhat buried which was the butt end of the boards that came over and was attached. Those boards are long gone and became very dangerous and had to be removed. The bulkhead is buried down there and if you go further you have the original concrete bulkhead we used to jump off and go to the beach. You can get up on that but it becomes very unstable so when you come down from that it is a difficult path for folks. Mr. Parks – Other questions for Mr. Hellstrom? [There were none.] Thank you sir. Mr. Hellstrom – I thank you for the time and effort you have put into this. 7 [Mr. Booker returned to the lectern.] First of all, I don’t have any problem with Jay and Linda’s dune walkover, it’s just that the selection to guide the traffic to my side of the line where I sit on my porch and concentrate the traffic even further. Mr. Major you asked what would be different, the fact is that there is an increasing amount of traffic because of more and more renters of the surrounding houses. Mr. Major – But not because of this walkway. Mr. Booker – Yes, this walkway walks right into my porch. Mr. Major – I saw that. But the walkway is there regardless of whether or not it’s made of wood or sand. Mr. Booker – If the walkway were on his property, as it historically and traditionally was, it would be less traffic in my face and on my porch. The renters are different and for what they get for that cottage they get a high class renter so they are above average. Others in the neighborhood don’t do so well and we get an awful lot of beer cans that I pick up every weekend. The bottom line is that we just want them to stay on their side of the property. As far as impact on the dunes, my concern is the storm surge when it finally hits is going to cut through my dunes more rapidly than anybody else’s, that is going to put my house at a greater risk than the Hellstrom’s; they are four or five hundred feet behind this dune, I’m dead on this dune. I ask for our peaceful enjoyment of our property. I don’t object to an elevated walkway and I think folks in the neighborhood will enjoy having one as soon as we put it together. Just to clarify the fact that apparently Jay has been very busy talking to neighbors and I have not, I wrote him a letter when his announcement came out and said this is the time to talk about this thing if you are remotely interested in it and very politely said no they weren’t. They didn’t want an elevated walkway. I do want an elevated walkway and whether I build it, the neighbors to the south or neighbors to the north or no neighbors at all, I want the right to build it straight out and I don’t want to have to fight a future battle because these people have dedicated my property to a communal walkway. I don’t think that is a fair thing to ask of me. I have as much invested in my house as Mr. Hellstrom has invested in his and his is substantial. We would like to keep our peaceful enjoyment of the beach walkover and those who are entitled to use it. I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Major – Maybe I missed this but do you currently have a walkway, a structure? Mr. Booker – The Bremer cottage was built in 1932 and this walkway has served that cottage since that time. Mr. Major – What are we talking about? Mr. Booker - We’re talking about the house that is behind this house [referring to PowerPoint] that is called the Bremer cottage, now called Sand Dollar by the rental agent. Mr. Major – Point to your house. Mr. Booker - My house is right here. Mr. Major – What do you do now to get to the beach? Mr. Booker – I go straight through the dunes right there [referring to PowerPoint] and walk out the traditional Bremer path straight down this way. They have encroached, maybe that is a little harsh, but they have gravitated in the last five to ten years, and come over and joined that walkway that was not the historical McCall walkway. I remember the boards that Jay was just alluding to, walking down here when the McCall and Bremer properties were pretty much under water most of the time; there were huge swamps involved. Jay still has a fair amount of standing water around and that was the reason, I assume, he built his elevated walkway from his house and he has done a beautiful job with it. Mr. Major – He is quite lower than the surrounding properties that seem to have gotten built up. 8 Mr. Booker – Yes, that property was a natural runoff; he takes almost all the water off of Twelfth Street. Mr. Parks – I understand what you’re saying. Are there any other questions at this point? [There were none.] Is there anybody else that would like to address the Commission? [There were none.] That being the case, I would like to close the public hearing. Can we get a motion for discussion at this time? Mr. Major – I’ll move to approve. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion to approve; do I have discussion at this time? Mr. Bishop – I second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a second. With a motion and a second, those in favor of approval, please signify with a raised hand. I’ve got five for. Those against please signify; I’ve got one against. The motion carries five to one [Bryan voted against]. When will that go before Council? Ms. Otto – That date is November 8th. Mr. Parks - I want to thank everybody that participated. Our second piece of business is a minor subdivision of land, Neptune Lane Subdivision. MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND – NEPTUNE LANE SUBDIVISION Ms. Otto – This is in Neptune Lane subdivision. In March this year, you considered a request for Mr. Moses that resulted in what is in your packet labeled ‘Current Plat’; it was recorded April 19th of this year. That placed this lot that has the retention area with lot 26B so on your current plat you will see that those two properties were contiguous, there is an opening that links those two together. Mr. Moses approached the City recently and has a potential buyer on 26A and that buyer would also like to purchase what would be the newly created lot 26D on the proposed plat in your packet. As you can see the lot is no longer connected to 26B, it is a standalone lot to be placed in perpetual conservation. After the packets went out, I did receive this document [referring to PowerPoint] from the Tybee Island Land Trust. Mallory Pierce submitted this that discusses that conservation easement for that newly created lot 26D. Also received was a letter from one of the property owners in the subdivision, lot 26C owned by the Stipp family, and they have submitted a letter in support of Mr. Moses’s request. He is in the auditorium this evening to answer questions. Ms. Bryan – I thought the purpose the last time was to place the detention ponds in a way that it would be a conservation area. Ms. Otto – Mr. Moses placed it with his property to protect it from ever being developed but he did not place it in a conservation easement. Ms. Bryan – Now he wants to put the retention area, make that a lot, open up the other lot so he can sell it? Ms. Otto – He has a potential buyer for lot 26A which he currently owns. The potential buyer would also like to purchase lot 26D and place it in a conservation easement. Mr. Moses occupies the home on 26B, the letter from the Stipp family they are in 26C. Ms. Bryan – So 26B will become 26D in the old plat? Ms. Otto – They were connected. Ms. Bryan – So 26B will be 26D? 9 Ms. Otto – Only this portion of it. There will not be a connection between the two, they would be separate lots. Mr. Callahan – Is there some reason why, what is going to be 26D, has to be sold in order for it to become a conservation easement, could Mr. Moses not just do that now without selling it? Ms. Otto – His concept of protecting it was ownership. By allowing the sale to a new buyer, that person’s decision is to protect it by putting it into conservation easement. It’s two different methods with the same outcome. Mr. Callahan – But he could make it a conservation easement himself, could he not? Ms. Otto – He could. Mr. Major – I have some confusion about the easement. 26A is the property that the new owner will occupy, is that correct? Mr. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Major – And the chart shows the pedestrian easement as in favor of lots 26A and 26C. Ms. Otto – They both have access, yes. This potential buyer is requesting a wider access than the current. Let’s have him answer your question since he has worked with the potential buyer. Parks – Do we have other questions for staff? [There were none.] Do we have the applicant or representative present? [Mr. Moses came to the lectern] I’m Harry Moses. I was here six months ago asking you to agree with what was created and now we are asking for a change. When I bought lot 26A, this line was not there [referring to PowerPoint]; 26D did not exist and 26A went from the western property line all the way back to here. I bought the property on lot 26A to ultimately sell and I didn’t want the buyer to develop this open piece of property which is in the back; it was originally part of 26A. My solution was to join this empty portion with my lot, 26B, which in this configuration was approved earlier this year, which gives me control over 26B. I could still sell 26A without fear of somebody coming in and trying to build something here. The current prospective buyer of 26A wasn’t satisfied with me having control over 26B and ultimately some successive owner behind me would have control so they asked to put this property back into the deal. They would purchase it and put it in a perpetual conservation easement which satisfies their needs to leave it undeveloped and it satisfies my need to leave it undeveloped. It adds perpetual greenspace to that end of the island which is a little crowded, not necessary from the home standpoint but there is a public parking lot right behind here so it’s crowded down there. Except for the fact we had to go through resurveying, everybody sort of gets what they want. The property is perpetually protected; lot 26A gets control over that. I don’t have any more control over that except that the easement will protect the rest of the neighborhood from facing any kind of development threat in what is now 26D. In order to create an easement on this property, and this is a perpetual conservation easement which is not the same as the access easements, it has to have its own PIN so that it can be encumbered by this easement which would prevent it from any further development. That is why we are trying to get it into its own separate piece. 26D would get a PIN and the easement and the sale won’t go through without the easement. I’m not going to sell that property unless easement is put into effect. The first draft of the easement using Mallory Pearce’s guidelines has been created by the attorneys and we’re probably close to some approval between us on that. Mr. Parks – Personally I have a problem with things that we don’t see prior to the meeting. Ms. Otto – I would be glad to read the letter into the record that came from the property owner. The conservation easement is on the proposed plat. This document from Mr. Pearce only discusses how it would be enhanced to be a more recreational area, leisure area, not a developed area. 10 Mr. Parks – By conservation easement, are we rezoning this? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Parks – This stays in its current zoning. Tell me about this conservation easement; is that in the deed then? Ms. Otto – It is. It is a recorded conservation easement that would prohibit any development on the property, any structures to be built. For folks that are able to create such easements, there are tax advantages to having done so. Mr. Major – This conservation easement goes with the property if the subsequent buyer sells the property? Mr. Moses – It is perpetual. This is going to be recorded perpetual. Mr. Major – You say in your narrative that you’re going to deed a small piece of property for an access easement and I don’t understand that. If he’s buying 26A, how come he doesn’t get that little piece of property? Mr. Moses – 26A, if we didn’t deed the little strip to the beach, would have an easement but the buyer’s husband is an attorney. He insisted on some fee simple title to the western property line which is on the seawall. It’s a Tybee creek, but not right now because nourishment has pushed the water out, but it would be waterfront access. It would have an 8-foot strip of waterfront access from their new property, 26A, down to what used to be the high tide line. Mr. Major – There are about four red flags down at the foot of that easement. Mr. Moses – We have to re-survey, but that is the general position of that deeded portion; the easement is south of that. It would be a deeded portion of eight feet and a five feet easement. The easement is also in favor of Lot 26C, they have an easement so they have beach access, it comes down this dotted line [referring to PowerPoint] follows behind this property line and crosses out to the beach. Mr. Major – When you sell that strip of property, does 26C still have their access? Mr. Moses – Yes. Their easement will still exist because it was given by the property owner before me. It ran to me and it will run forever with 26A and this piece of easement here. It doesn’t affect the 26A and 26C easement and it doesn’t affect the easement here [referring to PowerPoint] for access to this property. All it does is give those people fee simple title to the beach which they insisted on having. Mr. Major – And you’re giving up any rights of anything to that property if they want to build something on it? Mr. Moses – They can’t, it’s on the dunes and they can’t build on it. Mr. Major – But if they could, you don’t care? Mr. Moses – I don’t care. They’ll own it and I prefer them to use the easement but they were nervous about that and frankly what they’re doing with the back is an advantage for the neighborhood. Even if the front was a concession, I would be willing to make that to get the 26D easement thing settled. Frankly I would have to pay property taxes on that from now on so ultimately it’s a benefit to me. It’s also a benefit to the neighborhood to tie that undeveloped land down and leave it undeveloped from now on. Mr. Major – The narrative and write up that we saw, as far as I could see, said that in addition to having the deed to that easement, he also wants to widen it. How wide is it now and how wide does he want it to be? 11 Mr. Moses – If I put that in the narrative, I misspoke. There won’t be any widening of an easement. Mr. Major – It says the potential buyer of lots 26A and 26D has requested a wider access easement. That’s not from your narrative, that’s from the staff write-up. Mr. Moses – Maybe I misled Dianne when I talked about the deeded strip in the front, which is beside the easement, so we’re not changing any easements. The access easements and conservation easements are not the same thing. All the access easements, beach access, utility access, and driveways stay the same. The only change is that 26A will own a little strip right here [referring to PowerPoint] that does not go with 26A currently. Right now that little strip belongs to me and it goes with this parallelogram which goes with 26B. Basically I’m letting them have the southernmost eight feet of my property. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Thank you. Do we have anybody else from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Do we have any staff comments? Ms. Otto – If you would like I will read the letter into the record. Mr. Parks – I’m good. At this point, I would like to close the public hearing on this piece of business. Can I get a motion at this time for discussion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve the minor subdivision as per the application. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion to approve on the table, do I have a second? Ms. Bryan – Do we need to put into the motion about 26D, the conservation part? Mr. Parks – I think that is in the proposal. Ms. Otto – What is under consideration is this proposed plat before you so a motion to approve would be all components as shown on that plat. Mr. Parks –I saw a conservation easement. Mr. Parks – Do I have a second? Mr. Marion – I second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a second. Mr. Callahan – Are we in affect relying on Mr. Moses to be the enforcer of this change in the deed to include the conservation easement if we approve this? Ms. Otto – No, you are relying on the Tybee Island Land Trust to do that. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion as presented please signify. I’ve got a unanimous vote. When will that go to Council? Ms. Otto – November 8th. 1105 HIGHWAY 80 Mr. Parks – You want to bring us up to date on 1105 Highway 80? 12 Ms. Otto – October the 8th was the deadline that had been given to the applicant at last month’s meeting to provide a revised plan. On that date we received notification from Franklin Edenfield, the attorney who spoke with you at that meeting, that he would not be available to attend the meeting this evening due to medical reasons. The plan was received as agreed but they have requested a one month postponement; this would be back on the agenda for the November meeting. Mr. McNaughton – The revised plan was to include the indication of the buffer, I don’t see one. Ms. Otto – That feedback will be provided to Mr. Edenfield along with other staff comments. It is anticipated that another plan, since they have plenty of time, would hopefully be provided that addresses all the comments that were in the motion that was approved when this was continued. Mr. Major – Does this delay in any way affect the status of their Certificate of Occupancy as it stands? Ms. Otto – The City accommodated the request from the attorney to postpone. We did require compliance with the agreed upon submittal of the plan which they did comply with so it has not had any affect. Mr. Major – Other than the buffer are there other items missing from this plan in terms of parking spaces or others? Ms. Otto – The square footage of the dining area has been reduced with a note, it is not from the engineer, and that calculation was provided by the owners. That reduction in the size of the dining room has resulted in a reduced requirement for the number of parking spaces. Mr. Parks - What about the parking that is on the western side? Ms. Otto – That has been removed from this revised plan. Mr. Parks – Because they reduced the size of the dining area and brought down the parking requirement? Ms. Otto – Hopefully in response to the report that DOT would not authorize that area. Mr. Callahan – Is there a question about reduction in dining area and whether that is legitimate or not? Has anyone checked behind them? Ms. Otto – The plan that had been received prior had, I believe, 1,200 square feet plus or minus. It was a scalable plan, so I calculated the square footage based on the scale as drawn on the plan. I have not been inside the dining room to measure the actual room. Mr. Callahan – It seems like they were discussing that maybe some kitchen area had originally been included, do you remember that? Ms. Otto – That may have been in the last meeting. Mr. Major – Do you need a motion Mr. Chairman? ARTICLE 18 - LIGHTING Mr. Parks – I don’t think so, I think this is just for discussion. At this time I would like to move onto the next piece of business which is Article 18 – Lighting. 13 Ms. Otto – I apologize that last month we were not prepared to move forward with it, however, here it is tonight. Following the subcommittee’s work on it, there has been some additional fine tuning, some additional definitions added. I have not yet received input from the City Attorney; it’s been requested that he provide a legal opinion on perhaps adding a portion to this proposed ordinance that would perhaps put a five-year requirement in that all lighting on the island be in compliance at the end of that period. In your packet is the language that, from the model lighting ordinance that we were using as a resource, he has received that it could look like if legally that requirement could be put into place. Other than that important aspect not yet being received from the City Attorney, this document and all parts of it are open for consideration tonight. I have received some input from our City’s consulting engineer who is here tonight to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Parks – Without Bubba’s input, are we prepared to move forward? Ms. Otto – Your option now would be to move forward as it is without the existing lighting requirement. Mr. Parks – I’m a little hesitant. He might totally revamp sections of this. Ms. Otto – His intention is only to respond to the existing lighting question but I have not received any input yet from him. Mr. Parks – Are you looking for a motion? Ms. Otto – That’s at your will if you want to move forward with the document as it is without any existing lighting with any requirement. If you want to wait for the attorney’s feedback then we could postpone until another time. Mr. Parks – Do we have an advocate on the Commission who wants to drive this forward without the attorney’s input? Mr. Callahan – Move we wait on the attorney. Mr. Major – I second. OFF-STREET PARKING, SECTION 3-080 Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion, please signify. Vote was unanimous. Off-street Parking, Section 3-080. Ms. Otto – The last cycle that it went through was primarily about compact spacing. When it got to Council, at first reading they approved a required compact spacing requirement but on second reading they denied it. It came back to you and you removed any reference in the document to compact spaces. When it went back to Council in response to that, a discussion began on the pervious requirement of Section 3-080(C)(5). Residential driveways have been required to be pervious since 2004, which was initially for new driveways only. In April of 2011, the language was amended to include replacement of existing driveways if it was more than a 50% replacement that it had to be pervious material. At the City Council meeting on October 11th, they voted to temporarily suspend enforcement of the ordinance as it is currently on the books. For the time being, they have approved that any material in an existing driveway that is more pervious than concrete would be allowed. There have been no new suggestions for any changes to newly constructed driveways. They would like the Planning Commission to review the three different sections within the Land Development Code that call for pervious driveways. The first two occurred in Section 3-080, the first is in Section B, item 5 where it speaks about the two required parking spaces on an improved lot if a private dock is to be installed; it calls for those two parking spaces to be pervious. The thought pattern of Council, as they have indicated, would be that they do not want to have any changes to new impacts, like a new driveway. That would lead one to conclude that perhaps this section of the code does not need modifying because if there is not currently a dock and there are not currently two parking spaces, than any new parking spaces would be a new impact like a new driveway. Anything new does have an impact and does need to be pervious material. That leads to the Section (C)(5) that we just discussed. Council is 14 requesting that the new driveway standards remain but for existing driveways any material that is more pervious than concrete would be allowed. Mr. Major – The heading in Chapter C starts out by saying that regulations shall apply to all newly constructed driveways and everything does until you get down to that part and then we’re talking about replacement of an existing driveway. It’s a question of whether that should go under newly constructed driveways or be set off in its own section because it really doesn’t apply to newly constructed driveways. Ms. Otto – That would be an option. On the screen, the document in your packet with the purple writing came from the City Attorney’s office following the meeting on October 11th by Council and it contains the language as the legal team understood the desire of Council. On the screen here, I further modified it but fundamentally it could be broke out new versus existing if that’s the desire to separate those two and have two different standards. Mr. Major – Was there an absolute standard of what is more pervious than concrete. If I have some material that I want to use, does Downer say this is more or this is less? Mr. Davis – I would refer to the manuals that are accepted widespread throughout Georgia. We have adopted the Green Book as the license issuing authority for the EPD and we’re mandated to follow it. The Green Book has tables for the older form of drainage and a newer form of drainage analysis. It classifies what impervious and pervious materials are. In the newer methods, strictly paving is one thing and gravel is lower but it is still considered impervious. In the older drainage methods, asphalt and concrete were rated to have a higher degree of imperviousness; brick was impervious but slightly less impervious. It’s my understanding that some people on Council were having us consider a material that was not as pervious as asphalt or concrete that would include oyster shells, crushed stone, gravel, and brick. It could also include stamped asphalt and stamped concrete which has ridges. When you look at the flat plane surface of asphalt or concrete, there are a lot of different materials that are not as impervious. They may still be classified as impervious but they are not as impervious as asphalt or concrete. The existing driveways already had an impact. We’re the only City or County I know of that requires porous driveways on new single family houses. We also have a higher degree of marsh perimeter than our land mass so maybe we should be doing something. Of all our ordinances, I believe the porous driveway ordinance is the only one that is not a state mandate. We do need to be looking at green infrastructure, that’s a mandate by the State. Don’t classify materials as pervious or impervious; just state they are going to be not as impervious as asphalt or concrete. Mr. Major – Should it say asphalt or concrete, this only says concrete? Mr. Davis – I have never been posed the question which is more pervious or impervious, asphalt or concrete. Everything I tried to look up talked about how, over time, one cracks more than the other and lets water through the cracks; I didn’t get an absolute answer. I would have to believe that asphalt is more impervious than concrete just by its nature of having a petroleum base and liquid throughout but I could not find documentation on that. Concrete does have pores even though it is impervious. If you just talk about traditional concrete driveways and traditional asphalt driveways, you state that the material has to be less impervious than that. Mr. Major – If I have a concrete driveway and I want to replace 60% of it, can I use asphalt? Mr. Davis – Not under the current ordinance. Mr. Callahan – You just said you didn’t have the data but in your opinion, asphalt was more impervious than concrete. Mr. Davis – That is only my opinion because the manuals do not discriminate between one or the other. Currently if you do 50% or more, you have to comply with the driveway ordinance; they are talking about taking the 50% out. If you didn’t take out 100% of the driveway, you took out 90%, there was a percentage in there before that quantified it, so I’m unable to answer your question. If you don’t have a percentage, if you take out any part of the driveway, does it have to 15 be more porous? If you have to take out the whole driveway for it to be not as impervious, you have a 50% benchmark in there, I don’t know what the percentage is going to be. Mr. Major – Why did they take it out? Mr. Davis – I wasn’t there. Mr. Callahan – Can you replace part of a driveway and not the whole driveway? Ms. Otto – According to their intent, if there currently exists a driveway and you want to replace any or all of it, your requirement is to use a material that is more pervious than concrete. Mr. Major – Can we state replacement of any or all of an existing driveway? Mr. Callahan – If I wanted to replace the first ten feet of a thirty foot driveway, all I have to do is make sure that the first ten feet is more pervious than what was there before? Ms. Otto – Yes, if that is the portion. Mr. Callahan – I don’t have to redo the entire driveway. Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Parks – I thought we were after achieving some level of porosity or permeability rather than just more permeable than concrete. I thought we were trying to get to somewhere where we actually had a standard, whether it is pavers or… Mr. Davis – We do have a standard but what has happened is people who had agreements with the City to build a house and put in a driveway, or they bought a house and they were under certain building codes and certain standards, they go to replace or repair a driveway and are now being held to the standard that they have to put in a porous driveway to match new construction. That is putting a burden on older citizens and people on fixed budgets, so now it’s an attempt to come back and say we want you to do something, no matter how little, slightly better for the environment but do not hold them to the same standards which gets quite expensive. What if somebody has a pothole or a minor crack in a concrete driveway, what is going to happen is Ms. Otto is going to get someone saying I’ve got a pothole and it is 10% of my driveway and can’t patch it, I’ve got to now use a material that is slightly more porous. It’s something the Planning Commission probably needs to grapple with that we haven’t yet discussed at the City Council level. Mr. Parks – It sounds like we’re back to John’s question of maybe we should have two different sections, one for new construction and one for repair or replacement. Mr. Major – I think that needs to be pulled out and kicked around. Was Council open to any percentage? Ms. Otto – Their discussions did not go into that direction, they were very much about existing driveways having any kind of leeway other than using concrete to replace. They didn’t address the situations like Downer just described and it will come up. They are asking for your typical handling of its proposed text amendment. If you choose to move it forward it would not go to them until November 8th because if needs to be properly advertised for the meeting. Mr. Bishop – I have a driveway, I need to repair a pothole. Ms. Otto – Do you have a concrete driveway? 16 Mr. Bishop – I do, I want to repair a pothole, a crack, a hole, what material must I use? Ms. Otto – Under the current ordinance, if that area is less than 50% of your total driveway, you could use a concrete repair, under the proposed you could not use a concrete patch. Mr. Bishop – I’m not replacing an existing driveway, I’m only repairing a portion of a driveway so therefore I can use concrete under this terminology. Ms. Otto – My interpretation would be contrary to that so obviously we need clarity. Mr. Bishop – It says, “replacement of an existing driveway will require that the materials used be more pervious than concrete”, if that was the current ordinance. Mr. Major – What if I have 25 potholes in my driveway? Ms. Bryan – So we need another sentence in there. Mr. Bishop – What constitutes replacement? Ms. Otto – In my interpretation, replacement of that pothole is a trigger of a material that is not concrete. Mr. Bishop – I didn’t replace that driveway. Ms. Otto – You are replacing a portion of the driveway. Mr. Bishop – That doesn’t say a replacement of a portion, it says replacement of an existing driveway. Mr. Major – What would happen if we put the 50% requirement back in and now you can measure 300 square feet and say you are replacing 120, you can use concrete. Ms. Otto – That would follow what we currently have as a standard. Mr. Major – I think we should stick with the 50%. Mr. Bishop – Or you could simply say replacement of an existing driveway or a portion thereof. We’ll require that the materials used be more pervious than concrete. Mr. Parks – How big a portion? I like the 50%. Mr. Major – Pull out replacement and make its own section and go back to 50%. Ms. Otto – Their action at their last meeting was to suspend the current ordinance and deal with existing driveways as if any material is allowed as long as it’s… Mr. Major - Does that mean the current projects are on hold until this gets done? Ms. Otto – They had been on hold, there was requests for replacement driveways that had been denied based on the current ordinance. With the vote they took last week, those permits could now be approved. Mr. Major – They are going with concrete? 17 Ms. Otto – No, it’s a material more pervious than concrete. Mr. Davis – What that means, you could now use basically any type of gravel or stone. There is relief right now but here is a standard that people cannot put asphalt or concrete driveways down. I have not read what they did as far as new repairs. Ms. Otto – I want to make clear, we are not just amending (B)(5) or (C)(5). Ms. Bryan – Can we table this until the next meeting? Ms. Otto – It is an option. With the vote that Council put into place last week, they have suspended enforcement of this ordinance for existing driveways at this time. Mr. Parks – If we came back with a 50% rule plus a new construction rule, would the permits that have been issued be not allowed under that? Have we opened the door here for a brief period of time to allow crush and run, or whatever, to go down that might not be allowed after we come back with wording if we do table it? Ms. Otto – That’s possible. The current standard for existing driveways is anything that is more pervious than concrete, in the meantime, until this gets back to Council and has had first and second readings that will be what staff bases permit approvals on. Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion? Mr. McNaughton – I would like to ask Dianne about another section; (B)(3) about required parking spaces for theaters, auditoriums, gymnasiums, and other places of assembly. Would the Tybee Post Theater be able to open with this existing ordinance? Ms. Otto – They have already proceeded through their site plan years ago that led to them being able to do the renovation. Their site plan had an alternative parking plan that was approved. Ms. Bryan – I make a motion to table it until the next meeting. Mr. Tyler – Second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion and a second; those in favor of the motion signify by raising your hand. I’ve got three in favor. Those opposed; I’ve got three opposed [Major, McNaughton, and Bishop]. I’m opposed. Do I have another motion? Ms. Bryan – I make a motion to add a sentence after “replacement of an existing driveway will require that materials be more pervious than concrete”. I would like to add “repair of an existing driveway will require that materials be used of similar materials”. Mr. Major – So I can’t use more pervious? Ms. Bryan – If they have concrete they can repair it with concrete, anything that is similar to what is existing. Mr. Parks – What level of replacement constitutes a repair? Ms. Bryan – Replacement, in my opinion, means the whole thing. Mr. Parks – So anything less than 100% is a repair. 18 Ms. Bryan – Correct. Mr. Parks - Do we have something that addresses new construction? Ms. Bryan – That is covered at the top; all new constructed driveways shall be constructed of pervious materials. Mr. Major – You said the existing ordinance says more pervious than concrete for new construction. Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Major – What is new construction today? Ms. Otto – New construction has not changed. All newly constructed driveways serving residential shall be constructed of pervious materials designed to manage stormwater. Mr. Major – And we’re not recommending that be changed. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Major – So nobody is going to be held up. Ms. Otto - That’s for new construction. New construction comes in with an engineered plan that shows a pervious driveway, it shows soil erosion control and drainage addressed. Mr. Major – What are our rules right now for replacement, we’re saying that 50% or more require material more pervious than concrete? Ms. Otto – The vote taken at the last Council meeting, to suspend the existing driveway ordinance, did not speak to where it was a more or less 50% replacement or repair. Mr. Major – But they suspended that and some people were able to do things they would not have been able to do. Was that because they wanted to replace more than 50%, what was it that they couldn’t do under the old ordinance? Ms. Otto – They could not install a brick paver that did not meet the 24-hour 25-year storm and now they can. Mr. Major – Where does it say that? Ms. Otto – It’s in the crossed out section. Prior to last Thursday when they voted, if I had an application for a paver replacement driveway, that paver had to meet a pervious standard of a 25-year 24-hour storm, which is a heavy rain event. With the suspension that was approved last Thursday evening, that standard is gone and any brick paver, any rock material… Mr. Major – That person doesn’t need a maintenance plan? Ms. Otto – You don’t need a maintenance plan and any material is allowed for replacement; any brick paver, any stone, anything other than concrete. Mr. Major – Is it Council’s recommendation that the language about maintenance plans and 25 year storms be removed? 19 Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Major – I would recommend that we leave those things out and go back to the 50% or more. Mr. Parks – We have a motion on the table. Let’s restate that. Ms. Bryan – Leave in existing replacement and add another sentence that says “repairs of an existing driveway will require that the materials used be similar to the existing materials already in place”. With like materials and if you have a concrete driveway and you patch it, you patch it with concrete. Mr. Davis – Are you speaking about repair and not complete replacement? Ms. Bryan – Replacement of a driveway means to replace it. Ms. Otto – All of it is gone and you are replacing all of it. Ms. Bryan – A repair is to fix your existing drive. Mr. Parks – A replacement is 100% in this case. Ms. Otto – And a repair is what percent? Ms. Bryan – Zero to 99. Mr. Davis – If you don’t put a percentage in, if somebody comes in to Zoning and wants to replace 98% of the driveway, that’s not the intent of Council right now. She’s going to be challenged if you let them do this but it will probably get corrected at City Council. Repair means you are fixing it and leaving it in place. Ms. Bryan – That was the intent, to repair it, not to replace it. Mr. Davis – If you do 98%, which is a virtual replacement, even 90%. Mr. Parks – We want to allow for potholes but we don’t want to allow for abuse. Mr. Bishop – How do you define? Mr. Parks – Greater than 50%. Ms. Otto – Are you saying that if it was a repair of less than 50%, they could use like materials of whatever is already in place? Mr. Bishop – That would constitute the majority. Ms. Otto – I said less than 50%. So if I have a concrete driveway now, I need to repair less than 50% of it, I may do so with concrete. Mr. Bishop – You’re saying 50% or less. Ms. Otto – Yes. Ms. Bryan – Could it be just repair and leave replacement out? 20 Ms. Otto – I’m looking for the percent. Ms. Bryan – Let’s say less than 50%. Mr. Parks – They struck the 50%. Ms. Bryan – They’re talking about replacement; I’m talking about a repair. Mr. Bishop – If you’re going to repair less than 50% of your driveway… Ms. Bryan – Exactly. Mr. Bishop – Fifty percent and above would be a replacement. Mr. Major – I remember clearly the discussion about the maintenance plans for pavers and you spent a lot of time explaining that to us. Was that mandated by anybody or is that just a best practice that we adopted? Mr. Davis – The porous pavers are not state mandated. Where they are allowed is used for stormwater management practice on projects that do have mandates that require certain water quality improvements, reduction of pollutants that go into the state waters; they do require maintenance plans. As far as for traditional brick pavers or gravel, people have a responsibility to maintain their property. I’m not overly concerned with the striking of the maintenance requirement because people still have to maintain their property to operate as intended. We’re going to a lower standard for new construction but again the new construction is reducing runoff to our infrastructure, it’s addressing water quality, aquatic protection, and other things. This lowering of the standards to replace existing driveways and say you’ve got to do something a little better to be a little more environmentally friendly, that’s the intent I understand from Council. The motion as I understand it, with clarification of what constitutes repair, I would think the fact that Council may adjust that 50% down. Mr. Major - Have we seen a lot of maintenance plans for pavers since we put this in? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion on the floor, did we put the 50% in? Ms. Bryan – Less than 50. Mr. Parks – Less than 50. Do I have a second for this motion? Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion on the floor, please signify with a raised hand. I’ve got five. Those against; I’ve got one [Callahan voted against]. Motion carries. Ms. Otto – This will go to Council on November 8th. Mr. Parks – Do we have other items here to be discussed? SECTION 3-200 – Decks and Patios Ms. Otto – There is one, Section 3-200 - decks and patios. At that same vote, on October 11th, Council also included with that walkways and patios could be any material more pervious than concrete. That language is within Section 3-200, 21 Decks and Patios. This was amended in October 2010 to read “all newly constructed decks, patios, and walkways must be constructed of pervious materials and have those materials approved by the appropriate City personnel before commencement of construction”. Council did not have a distinction between whether it’s a new construction site or an existing home. If there is to be a deck, patio, or walkway installed, their vote was that it not be required to be pervious, it could be any material more pervious than concrete. What is before you is the text that requires decks, patios, and walkways to be of pervious material. The proposed request from City Council would be to remove that pervious requirement. Mr. Major – Does this apply only to decks and patios at ground level? Ms. Otto – No, patios are considered to be at ground level. Mr. Major – Decks could be not at ground level. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Major – If I have a deck on my house, it has to be of pervious material, it’s going to get wet. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Major – How do you do that? Ms. Otto – The spacing of the wood treads, the boards. This would be newly constructed deck addition over ground. Mr. Major – Does this mean on the ground because this says all decks and patios and if someone wanted to build a deck over their kitchen… Ms. Otto – It would not apply to that. The only concern I have about removing the pervious requirement for the patios, that are generally in the dirt, if those areas are required only to be a material that is more pervious than concrete and they are allowed to be the full extent of a property, the standard we have that 65% of an area should be greenspace will become questionable. We have considered a pervious area to be greenspace, if it takes water even though it is made of grass, rocks, or pavers. If it takes water than it is considered to be pervious and therefore considered to be a greenspace. If the intent here to change those patios that are in the dirt to a material that is more pervious than concrete but not nearly as pervious as what we have currently been requiring, you can have all your property without having any grass left, because there is no limit on them. Because you can go from property line to property line, you are going to end up with a drainage nightmare but still have met the 65% greenspace requirement. Mr. Parks – Right. We could return this to Council as it is written. Ms. Otto – That is the only downside I saw to it. The extreme use of a material that would eliminate the need to mow and would create one giant lot patio, even to the point where we restrict driveway sizes; if somebody says that it is not a driveway that’s my patio then it could lead to potential problems. I’ve got some concerns about removing and allowing patios to be of any material more pervious than concrete. Mr. Major – Is this our current ordinance? Ms. Otto – The current ordinance is this section. On the screen is the proposed change that changes the pervious material requirement to a material more pervious than concrete as Council requested. Mr. Major – What could you use if it is more pervious than concrete? 22 Ms. Otto – Rocks or any type of paver. Mr. Major – But pavers aren’t pervious. Ms. Otto – Some are and some are not. The guide in your packet about permeable pavement talks about an interlocking pavement system, the grid pavement system, porous concrete or porous asphalt. The intent of Council and they did vote unanimously, I believe it was, to remove that requirement that they be a material that met a standard of a 25-year 24-hour storm to any material that is more pervious than concrete. Mr. Parks – So this allows the white stone; you could cover your entire lawn with white stone. Ms. Otto – Correct. Again, my concern is because something called a patio that is at grade, has no setback requirement, and could potentially cover an entire lot. Mr. Parks – We didn’t get rid of the 25-year 24-hour in this, we got rid of it in the off-street parking. Ms. Otto – That has been struck. Mr. Parks – That has been struck but it is in the original. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – And the 24-hour 25-year would be the approval in the original. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Major – If I look at 3-200 right now, would I see that? Ms. Otto – You’re going to see “all newly constructed decks, patios, and walkways must be constructed of pervious materials and have those materials approved by the appropriate City personnel before commencing of construction”. With this change, as proposed, it would simply be a material more pervious than concrete, you would see rocks, any type of paver, any material other than concrete for a sidewalk that connects from a front door out to a city street. Mr. Major – Is there any place else in our Land Development Code, other than where we just struck the 25-year 24-hour, are those words used any place else in this code? Ms. Otto – Yes, they are used in the Stormwater Management article. Mr. Major – And that is the one we adopted. Ms. Otto – I see it in section 16-190, Minimum Stormwater System Design Standards. Mr. Major – But single family homes are exempt, right? “Exception to this requirement shall be made for single-family homes provided that post-development run-off does not exceed one cubic feet per second”. I recommend we leave the pervious materials in there. Mr. Parks – Is that a motion? Mr. Major – It’s a motion. Mr. Parks – What would your motion read? 23 Mr. Major – I move that we leave the language as pervious materials. Mr. Parks – You’re saying send it back to them with their strike-through removed. Mr. Major – That’s my recommendation. Mr. Parks – Do I have a second for the motion? Mr. Tyler – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor, please raise your hand to signify. We have unanimous. Could you give us a status update on number seven? ARTICLE 5 Ms. Otto – On-screen is a summary of Article 5. It was asked of the Mayor and City Council that they begin work again on Article 5, specifically the variances, special review, and site plan approval sections. It was noted that those had been delayed due to the C-2 charette that had been done in March and the final report that they were to review at their workshop in November. At the last meeting, they voted to consider your request at their November workshop. You actually have one item that’s not gotten past you yet; all the others have been through Planning Commission; there have been three adopted by City Council and a long list of others that have not. The minutes where the City Manager acted as Planning and Zoning Manager, you had continued it with some suggestions and language changes but it never came back to you with those changes. If you like we can pursue that. Mr. Parks – In the discussion of 5-090 it is going to be in-depth. Ms. Otto – I could bring it back with the recommended changes from that meeting that Ms. Schleicher led so you could see where you were with it. Mr. Parks – Let’s review where we are. Do I have a motion for adjournment at this point? Mr. Tyler – So move. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor, please signify; unanimous. Thank you. Meeting ended at 21:10 Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant