Loading...
20121113_Minutes_PC_.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 November 13, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the November 13, 2012 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, and Randi Bryan. Mr. Parks - The first order of business is the minutes of the October 16, 2012 meeting. Do I have any discussion on the minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion on the minutes? Mr. Marion - I make a motion to approve. Mr. Bishop - Second. Mr. Parks – All those in favor signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Are there any Disclosures or Recusals at this time? Mr. McNaughton – I will recuse myself from Item 3. Mr. Parks made the announcement regarding three commissioner positions that will be open at the end of January 2013. The application process is posted on the City’s website. Terms ending are John Major, Tyler Marion, and David McNaughton. Site Plan Approval with Variances – Vicki’s Restaurant – 1105 Highway 80 Mr. Hughes – You will recall that in September we had a rather lengthy public hearing on this site plan with variance application and there were some items that were deemed to be in need of additional information. One of which was the plan submitted with the original application had not been signed and sealed by the engineer; that issue has been resolved. There were other issues not resolved with one of them the DOT reservations about what is now the lower left hand area [referring to Power Point]; that area has been redesigned so it will not be parking as originally proposed on the earlier diagram. That removed an issue that concerned the Department of Transportation. The main issue is parking and how much parking it requires. They have now proposed two bike racks which can be used to alleviate one regular parking space as required by either the internal seating or the expanded deck area with proposed seating. The bike racks would eliminate the need for one normal parking space. The only issue now is the location of the bike racks appear to be very close to, if not in, the DOT right-of-way. DOT would have to have some involvement in that; they would have to give permission if the bike is going to stick into their right-of-way. When the deck was expanded with the intention of allowing outdoor seating that triggered a couple of things. Number one was additional parking and number two was the buffering requirement all across the north side. There are residential uses behind the restaurant and under the applicable code Section 3-160 where commercial abuts residential, the buffer is required if it’s expanded or the nature of the use has changed to that extent. What got all of this started was the deck and walkway were expanded. When it was expanded, it encroached into the existing parking and that gets to the next issue which was raised. The buffer issue still remains; that has not been resolved. The drive aisle width, that is this area between the parking places [referring to PowerPoint], the ordinance requires that it be 24-feet and as I understand it is about a foot shy of that. The 2 parking could be skewed somewhat to pick up another foot but as it is drawn it won’t do that. They’ve got some space on the eastern boundary where a fence is but there are trees in the way that would have to be altered to accommodate moving the fence, which may not be a realistic proposal. We still have the issue of the drive aisle width and the problem there, from the City’s standpoint, is this is expanded construction and the concern would be establishing precedence for having allowed something less than what the ordinance requires. The parking requirement itself, the interior dining area on the diagram as provided by the engineer, has the square footage with an asterisk as having been determined by others or by the owners, so the engineer hasn’t certified this number, 1,066 square feet. When this started it was shown to be 1,200 or so. It says eighty seats and eighty seats is going to require twenty places. Either way, you are going to end up with 20 places because of the 80 interior seats. Outside, the expanded area for outside seating was 180 square feet per their calculations, which would be three more spaces. They’ve indicated they have six employees which is three additional spaces for a total of 26 spaces. You can reduce that by one by the bike rack but if you’re over 26 then you need two handicap spaces. They’ve got one handicap space. A handicap space only has to be eight feet wide and a normal parking space has to be nine feet wide so they could actually put in two handicapped and be over that limit and gain a foot but the way it is drawn it encroaches into the right-of-way. That is another issue that still needs to be addressed. What got this started was the expansion of the deck and the walkway. Prior to this construction, the vehicles that were parked facing the building on this side [referring to PowerPoint] would overhang the sidewalk; the sidewalk was enlarged too. That is what has backed all the parking up to the east. The staff report was included in the package and attempted to lay out these issues and again, the application as I understand it, is for site plan approval with a variance. The variance required would be at least seven parking places, the drive aisle width, the number of handicapped parking spaces, and the buffer. Mr. Parks – I’ve gathered from your opinion, we’ve got three main variance points; the buffer, the drive aisle width, and the number of parking spaces. Mr. Hughes – That is correct. Mr. Parks – Any questions for staff at this time? [There were none.] Do I have a representative for the applicant present? Frank Edenfield came to the lectern and introduced himself. I’m a part-time resident of the island and very happy to be able to say that. I appreciate you accommodating me last month. We are where we are, basically where we were last time other than we have eliminated the issue of the parking spaces on the west. Let’s back up for a minute and remember why we are here. When Rich bought that building, the ramp had to be replaced; it was falling down and unsafe. In replacing the ramp, he triggered the new ADA requirement which required a larger wheelchair radius to turn which required some expansion of the deck. He is simply asking to use that expanded area. The application says for dining purposes because he may do that but as he told you at the last meeting, what he may do is use that as a waiting area for his customers. As we have discussed, this is a restaurant building that has been there for as long as any of us can remember. He has a finite piece of property, it has a finite number of parking spaces, it has a finite size driveway, and he can’t have more dirt than what he has. You can’t do more with that property than he can do and all he is asking is to do what has been done in the past. As far as the buffer, as I understand it, the problem is if you put that in you are going to eliminate two parking spaces so we’re back to the parking issue. We don’t have any fewer parking spaces than we ever had, we don’t have any less wide driveway than we ever had other than vehicles overhanging the sidewalk. All Rich is asking you to do is be allowed to try to make a successful upscale restaurant on the northern side of this island and the building has been used for that purpose for generations. The same piece of property has always been on the same configuration it has always had except for the deck. It had to be expanded in order to comply with federal law, he can’t tear it down. If he tears it down it will close him down because he won’t have an adequate handicap access ramp. If you don’t recommend approval of these variances, you are going to shut Vicki’s down. He can’t do any more than he has done, he can’t increase the size of the property, he can’t increase the number of parking spaces, if he puts up a buffer he is losing parking spaces, he is just asking let him do what all the previous owners of this property have done; run a restaurant with what is there. 3 Mr. Parks – Any questions for the applicant at this time? [There were none.] Doesn’t the buffer go further than the parking spaces; is it the entire back of the lot? Mr. Hughes – The buffer would go from property line to property line along the northern edge. Mr. Parks – Okay, so part of the buffer could be put in? Mr. Edenfield – It looks to me like it could. I’m relying on Steele’s [Knudson] issue of parking places but obviously on that side you’re going to lose some parking spaces. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue right now? [There were none.] Mr. McNaughton – If dining on the expanded deck was prohibited or the dining on the inside was reduced in size, could they meet the parking space requirement? Mr. Hughes – They would still be short. The addition on the outside adds three and they’ve only got nineteen and they need twenty based on the inside seating as they represented it to be 80 seats. Mr. Parks – I’m going to close this public hearing. Can I get a motion? Ms. Bryan – Motion to approve. Mr. Parks – The site plan as presented? Ms. Bryan - Correct. Mr. Parks - Do I have a second? [No second] Motion dies for lack of a second. Do I have a different motion? Mr. Bishop – I’m going back to the original questions from our meeting in September which we gave specific directions and requests to be answered and come back to this Commission. I see that the drive aisle width, the buffering, and the total number of parking spaces inclusive of handicap has not been answered adequately to my satisfaction that would yield a need, at this point in time, a variance. I preface that with the fact that this all began without site plan approval, without a building permit, without a professional design, and without a GC. I think some of this could have been avoided and I still feel that we do not have sufficient information to complete our deliberations consistent with prior discussions. I make a motion that until those questions are answered to satisfaction and provided by staff to us, that we deny. Ms. Bryan – This establishment, this building, has been here forever. So they messed up and built a deck, we see it all the time. We see restaurants that have no outside parking; these people have a parking lot. I think we need to try and work with these people, just because they haven’t done everything exactly as requested, that we are going to deny everything. Mr. Bishop – My motion was to deny the variance with the information presented. I think if they came back and attempted to fulfill all the requirements that the staff has brought back to us and in some way accommodate those items, then potentially there could be an approval of some type of a variance. We’re not shutting anybody down, there is a conditional Certificate of Occupancy that would continue – is that correct? Mr. Hughes – It will continue, as far as I know, until this is ultimately acted upon, yea or nay. We’ve got to get to the end of this and the conditional occupancy; we are many months into what was authorized. 4 Mr. Bishop – I’m not at all about shutting them down. I think we need to be right in our planning so that we don’t make exceptions to a rule that may set precedence for future development, which is my concern. Certainly not to shut a business down and let the motion emphatically indicate that is not my purpose. Ms. Bryan – Could you put more bike racks over by the dumpster? Where are you going to come up with more parking spaces? There is no land to put the parking spaces. Mr. Edenfield – We have a limited amount of dirt and we’ve put all the parking spaces in there we could. Ms. Bryan – Can you put six bike racks over by the dumpster? Mr. Edenfield – Even then we’re still going to be short on parking. Mr. Hughes – You can’t really do that under the ordinance. Ms. Bryan – There is no more land, I don’t understand where we’re going to get more parking spaces. Mr. Callahan – The code only allows you to replace one parking space with a bike rack. I basically agree with Demery with some exceptions. There should have been some conscious effort made at some sort of vegetative separation in the rear. It was just pointed out that the area from the edge of the parking lot to the northwestern corner could easily be landscaped without any problem but there was not any effort made to show anything even in that part. Also, without encroaching on the parking, maybe it wouldn’t totally meet the five-foot requirement, but nobody made any effort to try and show anything there. If we’re actually one-foot shy of a drive aisle width, since this is a parking lot with not much traffic to start with, to me one foot isn’t enough to cause a major problem; I could live with one foot if that is truly what the measurement is. I don’t see how the number of parking spaces can be expanded either except maybe if everything was re-measured totally, you might squeeze one more space out of what you have. There are parking spaces along the road and we do allow use of public facilities in other cases but that still probably will not get us up to the required number as shown on the drawing. We haven’t discussed, although it was originally and still in the paperwork, adding parking to the west. Mr. Hammons didn’t want to do that even though he owns that lot; I’m sure he has got some other idea on what he wants to do with that empty lot but that certainly is an option. My concern is that it doesn’t appear that anybody has really made a conscious effort to do much since we met two months ago and all you are doing is coming back and begging and pleading for a variance without attempting to do anything at all. Mr. Parks – I have a motion on the floor to deny; do I have a second? Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Do I have other discussion pertaining to this motion at this time? Mr. Bishop – What other type of discussions has occurred other than what I have read? Has there been any continuing discussion that we may not be privy to with regards to the buffer or any type of exception to the driveway width of the one foot being a public safety issue or not? I’m concerned that nothing has really been done since we brought this discussion two months ago. Mr. Hughes – Mr. Edenfield and I have communicated a number of times but beyond that, no, there hasn’t been any alteration in the scheme of the development nor has the owner’s engineer communicated with Mr. Davis or with Dianne [Otto]. Mr. Bishop – In order to alleviate some of the issues that I mentioned in my motion, could a discussion among engineers come up with some resolution in regards to the drive aisle width and the required spaces, etc. that would help to overcome these obstacles? 5 Mr. Davis – I believe in a very short amount of time, yes. A brief telephone conversation would serve well. Mr. Parks – Just a point of business, have they paid for a site plan approval with variance or a site plan approval? Ms. Otto – The City received a $500 payment; the fee owed for site plan with variances is $1,000. Mr. Hughes – I think because when this started, there was a dispute over whether or not a variance was required. In order to move this forward, we have gone ahead as is and hopefully that issue will get resolved as part of resolving everything else. Mr. Parks - It’s not the point of this Commission to pursue $500. Other discussion? I have a motion and a second; the motion is to deny. Mr. Bishop – Based on what Downer just provided to us, could I amend the motion to incorporate that we deny at present and that a discussion be held? Mr. Parks – The first step would be to retract the motion. Mr. Bishop - I retract the motion as stated previously. Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion to be made? Ms. Otto – Mr. Marion would need to withdraw his second as well. Mr. Marion – I withdraw. Mr. Parks – Can I get a motion from the Commission? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to deny at present until engineering decisions have been made that could provide a decision on the variances associated with drive aisle width, buffering, and parking spaces and that the conditional CO continue until resolved by this Commission and Council. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – Those is favor please signify. [McNaughton, Callahan, Bishop, Marion were in favor of the denial.] Mr. Parks – Those against. [Bryan was opposed.] Mr. Edenfield – If I understand it as it is, our engineer should get with him [referring to Downer Davis] and see if there is some method of resolving these three issues that we are unable to resolve. Mr. Parks – I believe that was the intent of the motion. Mr. Bishop – Yes, that is the intent. Mr. Hughes – One thing that is left vague to me is where this goes from here. Whether it should go directly to Council and have the engineers communicate in the meantime. That would be my recommendation; we have got to get to the end of this thing. 6 Mr. Parks – I think the problem is we are not sure whether a variance is in order or not because it doesn’t sound like it has been explored; we need to recommend something to Council. I don’t know if we can recommend a variance. Mr. Hughes – I understand. Mr. Parks – Where does this go Mr. Hughes? Mr. Hughes – I think that is up to the applicant. I’ll talk with Mr. Edenfield about it. Zoning Variances – new single-family dwelling – 14 Robinson Ave. Ms. Otto – This request is at 14 Robinson Avenue. That is a vacant lot that was recently assigned to that address; it did not have a street address prior to this. There appears to have been a building on this location many, many years ago and there is a foundation remaining from that old building. The applicant is requesting to build on that existing foundation and have those setbacks be approved through a setback variance tonight. There are unopened rights-of-way on two of the sides and a right-of-way that is open on the front side. There is one property line on the north side that does abut somebody else’s lot otherwise it is surrounded by rights-of-way. In your packet is the proposed footprint of what the new single family home would have if approved. The applicant is here tonight and I am also available if you have any questions. Mr. Parks – Do I have questions for staff at this time? [There were none.] If I understand right this does qualify as a substandard lot. Ms. Otto – Yes, it’s very small. Minimum lot size in the R-1 zone is 12,000 square feet; this particular lot has 3,457 square feet so it is much smaller than the required lot size in R-1. Mr. Bishop – When I went to do a site view and trekked through those massive vines and trees, there is the manhole or whatever that is [referring to picture on the screen]. If I understand correctly, they are going to build on the old building foundation. Ms. Otto - Yes, I had that discussion with the owner and would encourage him to answer that question directly. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? Is there anybody here to represent the applicant? Gary Sanders came forward and introduced himself. I’m the architect for the project. As Dianne mentioned, it is a substandard lot of record and the foundation is apparently from Fort Screven so it is a historical fort foundation. The first slide that was up [referring to PowerPoint], that was a survey where the surveyor had actually measured the slab and that is where the setbacks are involved. In R-1 zone it is 20 on the front, 20 on the back, and 10 on either side. In that orientation, there is only thirteen feet of buildable area in the longitudal dimension. We could build the slab to code exactly on top of it and reinforcing anywhere it may need to be reinforced. We are hoping, since it is a historic fort slab, it is a very sturdy slab but we will investigate that as well. The other thing that is very important is that Sprucewood is on the western side and it is unopened. Where it says twenty foot lane, that is Sprucewood Lane and it is completely unopen. The slab nearly meets R-2 setbacks in that it is 20 feet from Robinson, which would be the front, it is 10 feet from the abutting property to the north and it is 10 feet from Sprucewood Lane, but the slab is 5.5, I believe, from the unopened Sprucewood. Robinson ends at our lot; it doesn’t continue through either. Mr. Parks – Questions for the applicant? Mr. Bishop – The old building foundation, you’re still looking at the exploration? 7 Mack Kitchens came forward and introduced himself. We haven’t wanted to disturb anything until a later time when everybody could see. We got it surveyed and you can see in this shot [referring to PowerPoint} where the slab is. It has stem walls and I would imagine it is about a 6 inch slab poured in there. What I have torn out in the past, as far as construction by the Army Corps, they are usually pretty good. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Mike Burnstein - I’m the adjacent property owner. The slab is from the fort. I imagine it is 28 x 44. My house was built on a similar slab. It is 48 x 24. The slab is not in very good shape actually. The perimeter wall is but I think if you look a little closer that there is some damage to the slab inside. My house sits on 16 inches but I think it was 8 inches poured on eight. That has been in disrepair for a long time. That is a working sewer that you see on the side [referring to PowerPoint]; it’s called a bell. My concern is that I am the only adjacent property owner surrounded by City property on the other three sides. We’re fairly closed off and I’m wondering what the use of the house will be. He says single-family but I don’t want a rental house right on top of me as far as people coming in and out. It is a very small lot, I think it is 52 by 65. I’ve spoken with some of the neighbors over there and they are a little concerned about what we might end up with. I would ask that some of the setbacks be required. On the east and west side, if he stays on the footprint, will be about seven feet off the property line on each side. On the west side it would probably be closer to four feet because that is how far my house is off the property line. Those slabs were probably built symmetrically. I’m concerned about what is going to be going on over there. Also, will there be any decks or anything else coming off the front or back of the house that approaches my property line. I’ve lived over there for twenty-two years and when I built out the back, I had a nonconforming structure, I had to adhere to all existing setbacks. My neighbor, Gladys Wise, who lives on the other side of Sprucewood, she was told her lots would not be given any variances. She has a regular shaped lot. We expect that everybody be treated the same way we were treated over there. Everything had to be built off the line even though I had a nonconforming structure. When the lot was bought it was really small so I don’t understand why it was bought to begin with to get that variance. I don’t know if you can build on that slab; I think you’re going to have to tear it out. You might build on the footprint of it but I don’t think you can build on that slab. I think the slab is in bad repair so I have some serious concerns about this project. Mr. Sanders - We don’t have any intention of building a rental house; we’re building a house. Mr. Parks – We as a Commission cannot hold you to that. You build the house and then sell it basically what we’re buying is any applicable use that can go into that house. Ms. Otto – Mr. Bernstein did not visit the office and take a look at this survey so let me read what the setbacks would be. On the west side, the existing foundation is 5.3 feet from the property line. On the north side, which is the line that abuts his property, the existing foundation is 9.9 feet and 9.5 feet on the other corner. On the east side, the existing foundation is 11.8 feet and 11.7 feet from the property line. On the south, what would be the front of the house, is 18 feet and 18.2 feet from the property line. Mr. Parks – We’re missing two feet on the front. Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Parks - The side facing the nearest neighbor is 9.9 feet with a required ten. Ms. Otto – No, the required would be 20 feet in R-1. Mr. Parks – And it is 9.9 feet. Ms. Otto – Correct. 9.9 feet on one corner, 9.5 feet on the other corner. The side to the right exceeds the 10 feet that is required, it is 11.7 feet and 11.8 feet. The west side should be 10 feet but it is 5.3 feet. 8 Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody else from the public that would like to address the Commission or any other questions for staff or the applicant? [There were none.] At this time, I will close the public hearing. Can I get a motion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of approval as presented, please signify. [McNaughton, Bishop, and Marion were in favor. Callahan and Bryan were against.] Motion carries. Ms. Otto – This will go to Council on December 13th. Subdivision of Land – minor subdivision; division of one lot into two lots – 1517 Chatham Ave. – Diane Kaufman Ms. Otto – This request from Diane Kaufman, who is the owner of the property, wants to subdivide what is now one lot into two lots. This property is at 1517 Chatham Avenue. It has two existing family homes built on it. The request would divide the house near Chatham Avenue into one lot with the garage, which is located between the two houses. The other lot would be the house that is closer to the back river. This is requested in an R-2 district. The minimum lot size in R-2 is 4,500 square feet per single family home. If this subdivision is approved, that lot on the street would meet the minimum lot size at 4,501 square feet. The lot size created for the back river house would exceed the duplex lot size of 6,500 square feet. The required easement to access the back property is shown on the proposed subdivision plat. The reason this is needed is due to the historic designation that is being sought for the rear property. The applicant and her assistants are here tonight to speak with you about that aspect of it. Mr. Callahan – The house nearest Chatham would ultimately be a single family residence? Ms. Otto – It is now and if that home was ever destroyed it could only be re-developed as a single family given the lot size. Mr. Callahan – There is no intention under this proposal to make it a duplex. Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Callahan – The duplex proposal is for the house nearer the back river? Ms. Otto – There is no duplex proposed. Again, if the house on the river was destroyed, that lot size would allow a duplex to be built there in the R-2 zone but there is no proposal to make a duplex there currently. Ms. Bryan – What about setbacks? Ms. Otto – The Chatham house would not conform to the required setbacks, it is nonconforming as it sits now and placing that property line behind the back door would make it further. Ms. Bryan – So we would be continuing a nonconforming use? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – We would be adding a nonconforming use on the south side? Ms. Otto – Yes. Currently it does conform to that setback but if that line is approved to be there through this subdivision it would create an additional nonconformity on that side which is actually the rear of that property. 9 Mr. Callahan – What about parking requirements? Ms. Otto – The two required parking spaces for the house near Chatham Avenue are on the south side of the easement. The two required parking spaces for the river house are in the garage. Mr. Parks – Is there any consideration of an easement to go from Lot B to the river through Lot A? Ms. Otto – Such access was not discussed nor was it shown on the plan. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is anybody representing the applicant? Whitley Reynolds came forward and introduced himself. I prepared the plat that you see [referring to PowerPoint]. We were really fortunate once we slid that line back to create 4,500 square feet. Fortunately it went between all the buildings but again created setback issues. The house on the street has always been a setback violation to the north and to the street and then to create a rear yard setback. If you have any other questions about the drawing I would be happy to answer. Bob Ciucevich came forward and introduced himself. I’ve been working with Diane [Kaufman] to get her some tax credits. The reason why she needs to have the partition is because the back building does not qualify for tax credits because she’s not going to do enough work on it. It won’t meet the financial test required to get tax incentives however the front building will. In speaking with Mary Osborne at the Chatham County Tax Assessor’s office, she indicated that when there are two buildings on a lot, and both of them are being renovated for the purposes of tax credits, there is no problem. If there is only one of the two buildings being renovated, there has to be a clear parcel division because she has to assign that valuation to the building being renovated. In order for Ms. Kaufman to get the state tax freeze for the front, Lot A building, she needs that partition. Diane Kaufman came forward and introduced herself. I am the owner. This is a historically significant property on Tybee and I purchased it from the original owners. The people that I bought it from are my age and it was their great-great grandparents that developed this property. They are featured in this wonderful book about Tybee. They paid $7.50 for it after the 1983 hurricane. We’ve also done extensive research on the property, which is why Bob and Cullen have been involved. We were taking off the siding per the permit and found the original siding so every piece of both of these houses is history. The other amazing part was when I purchased the house, the other person trying to buy the house was going to tear it down and put up a mansion. One reason why the owners allowed me the privilege of buying the house was restoration of this property. After what Monty said earlier you can’t dictate what happens after I buy the house but as long as I own this property it will be nothing but two historical houses. Mr. Parks – Will the people who are in the street house be able to access the river? Ms. Otto – It would need to be shown on a plat to be granted. Cullen Chambers came forward and introduced himself. I’m addressing you very briefly tonight under both capacities because of the enormous historical architectural importance of this back river property. This is an opportunity for Tybee to re-enforce a buyer to preserve rather than destroy Tybee’s architectural history. Any consideration you can give the applicant we would greatly appreciate. Mr. Parks – Do we have any other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] At this time I would like to close this for public hearing. Can I get a motion for discussion? Mr. Marion – Motion to approve. 10 Ms. Bryan – I think this whole project is amazing. I think that it is a great endeavor. My only problem as a Planning Commissioner is creating a nonconforming issue with it because I believe as Commissioners we should not be creating problems. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion for approval; do I have a second? Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a second. Those in favor please signify. [Callahan, Bishop, and Marion approved/Bryan was opposed.] Motion carries. Ms. Otto – This goes to Council on December 13th. Text Amendment – Special Use of Designated Off-street Parking Areas Ms. Otto – This is a request from staff. We received an inquiry about a business closing their parking lot in order to hold a special event there. Under site plan when we approve a facility, their designated off-street parking is very much required to go along with that business. What was proposed was policies that would allow the temporary closing of an approved parking area for a special use. The last item in your packet related to this item is titled Policies and Procedures for Special Use of Designated Off-street Parking Areas. That particular part of this is not an ordinance; that is what staff would use to guide those who are applying to close their parking lots to have a special event. If you read through that, you will see that it refers to how frequently they can do it and how much notification they would need to give staff of that request. If it is a parking area shared by other businesses, they have to receive permission of their neighbors that use the same parking area in order to proceed with it. Staff would use these Policies and Procedures to administer and issue a temporary use permit to hold a special event. What would be in ordinance form is in Section 4-050, at the end of Subsections E, F, G, L, and R; those are the C-1, C-2, Neighborhood Marina, Maritime, and Neighborhood Grocery districts. The document that you have, which is all of 4-050, has in red at the end of those five sections, language that would allow this special use of their approved site plan to close their off-street parking and it refers them to the Policies that are on file. What’s before you is only what is in red; the Policies and Procedures are not part of this ordinance. This list of the five possible districts came from staff and is open to suggestions if you have fewer or larger numbers that you would like added to this. It was thought that these five are the commercial type; they don’t all have C in their names but they are all the commercial type parking areas. Staff has had requests for special uses of parking lots to perhaps bring in a special musician or to hold a special event and not be able to provide the parking because that would be the festival area or the special use area. This is designed, if you are agreeable, to allow that on a very temporary basis. Mr. McNaughton – Are there any events that are prohibited or anything goes? Ms. Otto – Anything goes. The only prohibited activities would be during the high seasons of June, July, and August. It was considered that during those times parking is already too short on the island to allow parking areas to be closed and put further burden on the City’s parking during those months. Mr. Bishop – Is that in the Special Use policy section? Ms. Otto – That is in the Policy and Procedures; that one page at the end. It is item number 9 on that list. The intent here is by not having the Policies and Procedures in place, since we’ve not tested this, there might need to be tweaking once or twice that we need to do. Any changes to the Policies and Procedures, by reference of this in the text amendment, would send any changes to Policies and Procedures to City Council rather than coming back to you. We have a similar arrangement with the South End Policies and Procedures; there are certain standards that the businesses down at the south end have to satisfy, for example, to have merchandise displays or sidewalk cafes out on the City sidewalk. Those lists of requirements and restrictions are in the South End Policies and Procedures. It references that in a different section of 4-050, Section O; that refers to the south end overlay and in that section references the Policies 11 and Procedures that oversee that area for special uses. This would be a similar arrangement but it would be for these zones listed here. Mr. Parks – What do we need to do? Ms. Otto – I’m looking for a motion on amendment Section 4-050 E, F, G, L, and R. Mr. Parks – Can I get a motion at this time? Mr. Callahan – I move that we accept the language that has been added to these five different sections of Section 4-050 and refer it to Council. Mr. McNaughton – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor please signify. Vote was unanimous. Ms. Otto – That will go to Council on December 13th for first reading. Text Amendment – Section 14-060, Demolition or Relocation Permit Application Ms. Otto – In your packet I have provided the policy that staff has used for a large number of years to handle applications for demolitions on the island. That policy is contrary to the ordinance in Section 14-060. The policy was developed by Mr. Dee Anderson, a former Planning and Zoning Manager. It was requested from the Historic Preservation Commission that the policy be amended primarily to change the number of days from 15 to 45 days. Rather than amend the policy, staff would like to amend the ordinance so that we are calling it an ordinance, not a policy that is contrary to an ordinance. So with input from the Historic Preservation Commission, what is before you is an amended Section 14-060. This would apply not only to demolition permit applications but also to applications to relocate structures on the island which had not been a policy we had been following, it only applied to demolitions. Mr. Chambers is here to represent the Historic Preservation Commission and he and I can answer your questions. Mr. Chambers - This is primarily a housekeeping measure to bring the procedures used by the Zoning staff into compliance with our Historic Preservation ordinance which has been on the books since 2000. The ordinance actually provides for a 45-day period for the Historic Preservation Commission to review the application for demolition, and as pointed out by Ms. Otto, now would include the language for relocation. That 45-day period has actually been replaced with a 15-day period by a staff member some years ago which puts us into a nonconforming policy with an ordinance that is the governing body of the Historic Preservation ordinance in our City Charter. The Historic Preservation Commission members have asked that Ms. Otto bring this before this panel so that we can get some compliance consistency and uniformity in both the staff procedures as well as the ordinance itself. Fifteen days is woefully inadequate to research the historical significance of a property, to locate a sizeable compliant vacant lot, to locate a willing owner to accept the structure, and to line up a house moving company to actually relocate a structure. Forty-five days is more realistic; fifteen has proven to be unworkable particularly of late with the Kaminsky cottage when the owner insisted that staff adhere to that 15-day procedure as opposed to the 45-day ordinance. Ms. Otto – Mr. Chambers, if you would, share why we would want to expand this to include the relocations as well as the demolitions. Mr. Chambers – Whenever possible we try to relocate a historic structure. To date, we’ve been successful in relocating eight historic structures to new locations. The original wording in this ordinance did not provide for relocation so this is an advancement again helping to save the architectural heritage of this community by cleaning that up and wisely including the provisions for relocation as well as demolition. There are times when the house cannot be relocated; it’s 12 either structurally unsound, it’s too large, the pathways are not sufficient, or we cannot find a willing owner. But whenever possible, we do want to try and relocate those historic structures. Ms. Otto – What typically would happen in a relocation application is you think it is a good thing; they are saving what may be a historic structure, and they are relocating it. When they do that, they lose the historic character by needing to elevate it and comply with other requirements whereas if we are working with them it may be possible to preserve the character of the house instead of just using it as a box to build around. It can still retain perhaps some historic character though it doesn’t keep its historic eligibility for the historic register as I understand it. Mr. Chambers – We will be defining those provisions as the Historic Preservation Commission moves forward. We were actually trying to update the entire ordinance to make it more compatible with standards of the community today. This is the first step in trying to clarify this basic conflict between staff procedure and the language of the ordinance. Mr. Parks – When does the clock start ticking? Ms. Otto – The fifteen days we are currently under? Mr. Parks – No, even the forty-five days. Ms. Otto – This version proposes that it would be the day he is notified by staff. I think the current practice had been the date of the application which ought to be within a day of notification to him. We try to get them out the same day, at most it would be the next day but it might throw a weekend in there if we received it late Friday and then he doesn’t get it until Monday. I restated it as the date we get notification to him the 45-days would start. Mr. Parks – Are there other activities that can be going on while Mr. Chambers is researching or is it a 45-day stop work? Ms. Otto – It is pretty much a 45-day stop work. If the application is to demolish the structure the folks are generally eager to receive a permit. When I initially get an inquiry about demolitions, I always advise of the longer processing time because most of our permit applications say at the most 7 to 10 days, but it is already known that it could be up to 15. I don’t try to determine if the structure is or is not historic or can or cannot be saved. Frequently I get responses very quickly that it is not historic or it is not salvageable or moveable quicker than 15 days. Mr. Chambers – I have to commend Ms. Otto. She has always been very timely in letting me know about the application for demolition or relocation. We are asking for the 45-days as per the original ordinance. The 45 days is not something that we always will need in its entirety. I may be able to go down upon notification and determine that the house is either structurally unsound, non-historic, or it’s not cost effective to move it and give her a notification within the day and very often that is what I do. We do need that 45 days, as in the case of the Kaminsky cottage, when the owner doesn’t want to allow enough time to relocate a historic structure; we’ve got to have that option available to us in order to save those structures that can be saved. Mr. Callahan – Would 45 days always be adequate? Mr. Chambers – No sir. We’re trying to be reasonable and fair. In my ideal world, sixty days would have been better but the ordinance says 45 so we’re trying to keep that within the language of the original ordinance. We may come back to you at a later date and ask for sixty days but we want to set the threshold right now at 45 days so we can at least utilize that as quickly as possible should another Kaminsky cottage situation arise in the near future. Mr. Callahan – Is that one you lost? Mr. Chambers – Yes sir. We lost it because of the 15-day rule. 13 Mr. Bishop – In the previous 2005 policy, in regards to the demolition of existing residences, the proposed ordinance doesn’t specify residence or structure. It says strictly Zoning Department of each application for a demolition or relocation permit; is that across the board, any structure, within an historic district? Mr. Chambers – Not necessarily within a historic district but is deemed to be historic. In my capacity, I’m empowered to make those determinations. For instance, if it were a commercial building and if it was feasible to move it and it was historic and we could find another commercial vacant lot for it, we would want to move that commercial building to that commercial lot. So it’s not strictly tied to residential. Mr. Bishop – For an existing residence. Mr. Chambers – Yes. Mr. Bishop – If it is a piece of property that an owner determines they want to relocate, but it is not in an historical district, you possibly could step in and say it does have a historical significance but must comply. This would add an unknown burden perhaps to the owner at that time, not knowing it was of historical significance and delaying that relocation if this was to be passed, is that correct? Mr. Chambers – We have a wonderful working relationship with the Zoning Department. In their applications for demolition, they cite the fact that if the building is 50 years or older, that building would fall under this ordinance in terms of going through the 45-day review process. The owner of that property could be notified by staff of this provision and they would not be caught off guard. This should become a normal part of the Planning and Zoning process throughout this community and that should be communicated to any applicant at the time of the application. Mr. Bishop – Once it is determined to be historic. Mr. Chambers – Yes. There are many, literally hundreds, of historic buildings that are outside the national historic districts. It is vitally important that we all get on the same page and do whatever we can together as a community to save these historic structures wherever they are located on Tybee Island. Mr. Bishop – In the proposed ordinance, I see that the public hearing has been stricken as it was in the previous ordinance. Is there a specific reason why that type of deliberation, because of the importance, would not be of public interest and therefore no longer part of the ordinance? Ms. Otto – The current version of Section 14-060 didn’t flow to me that you would go for a public hearing on this. That is a 60-90 day process. Mr. Chambers – Mr. Bishop, to your issue or concern about encumbering an owner, we agree with this revision because we want to reduce the encumbrances on an owner. We want to make this as smooth of a process as possible. Through my capacity I can determine whether it is historic or not and not go through that extra time delay going through a public hearing, Planning Commission, or City Council. This is a much more streamlined and owner friendly process as presented by Ms. Otto. Ms. Otto – I don’t know if this version of 14-060 was ever enforced. I wasn’t here, so I don’t know how it would have been handled back then. Did they ever have public hearings? Mr. Chambers – We did not because once we, as a body, failed to get local historic districts, much of the review process was removed. We wanted to keep the process in place and a process of trying to save as many buildings as possible without any undue encumbrances on the owner. It did not deal with the public hearing. It would have added a lot of extra time constraints on the owners and the way we had it working under the 45-days would have provided enough time for us to do our due diligence and find relocation opportunities without undue hardships on the owners. We found 14 most of the owners more than willing to work with us. I have a file of about fifty buildings that we approved for demolition but we were able to save ten by relocation. That shows you that the wait is in favor of the owner and when we determine them to be not historic, not architecturally significant, not structurally sound, or not feasible to relocate in an economic way, we allowed the demolition process to go through in a timely manner. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this text amendment at this time? [There were none.] I’m going to close the public hearing. Motion and discussion? Mr. McNaughton – I move that the provisions in 14-060 be approved as written. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor please signify. Vote was unanimous. Ms. Otto – This goes to Council on December 13th. Text Amendment – Section 5-090, Variances Ms. Otto – At the recent workshop City Council held, they have taken your advice and they are ready to proceed with Article 5 Sections that had been on hold including your specific request of variances, special review, and site plan and also all the others that had not gotten to Council. The one before you tonight, 5-090, has never been approved by you. At the same time they had ceased working on Article 5 due to the C-2 charette that they wanted to have the report from, and time to consider that report, it appears that the Planning Commission had stopped work on this last section of Article 5. In the version before you tonight are the changes that were proposed the last time you did consider it. This includes all of the input up until that point which I believe was perhaps January of this year. Your options tonight are to continue to provide staff input on how you would like the document to read and it can come back to you or if you are in agreement on how it currently reads would be to send it on to City Council. They are also going to be considering those other items that you had requested be sent to them. Mr. Parks – I think we have had membership changes since the last time we did LDC review. Ms. Otto – Especially if it was in January because you would have had new terms in February. Mr. Parks – A large part of our evening was spent prior to then doing LDC review; going through, updating, and changing. Ms. Bryan – We have granted variances before for a personal hardship, in particular I can remember granting a variance for someone to build an elevator due to an amputation. I’m just wondering if we should take that out on the first page under three, it says “A request for a variance and the granting of a variance shall not be based upon consideration of personal or financial hardship”. Mr. Parks – Several of the variances that we were presented with were “I can make more money” if you give me this variance. Ms. Bryan – Leave financial in there. I’m saying personal because we granted a variance so that he could build an elevator when he had his leg amputated and that is a personal hardship. Mr. Parks – I think we considered elevators as safety. Ms. Bryan – It does have safety in another section but I do think that is a personal hardship. 15 Mr. Bishop – How do we define legitimate considerations, Item 2 redlined, “there are legitimate considerations that warrant the granting of a variance…” going to what Randi just raised? Ms. Otto – That language, if I recall, was related to variances that have been granted for trees, for example. There has been setback variances allowed because if they built per setback requirements it would have required removal of a significant tree on the property, which was my understanding of why that language was added. Mr. Bishop – I did not recall or could not find what a true, legitimate consideration would be. I guess that would be open for discussion if we approve this as it goes forward. Ms. Otto – I do not have the minutes of that meeting where that language was determined or how we came to those words. I could provide that if you would like me to. Mr. Bishop – In that same paragraph, in item #1, where we refer to “peculiar to the particular property”. I think it might be better in item 2, as opposed to the way it is written at this point, simply to say “that warrant the granting of a variance related to the environment, safety, or historic significance peculiar to the particular property” and it will follow suit with paragraph 1. Mr. Parks – Take paragraph 2 out. Mr. Bishop – I’m not taking 2 out if we could find what legitimate considerations are. Mr. Parks – Just incorporate it into #1. Mr. Bishop – We could. If we continue with whatever is a consideration, in the last paragraph of proposed item #3, it concludes with “A nonconforming use or structure does not constitute a unique physical circumstance or condition”. If we are going to consider considerations, we would need to include “physical circumstances, conditions, or considerations” to make it complete because we have already discussed that up front and we can’t leave it out in that paragraph. Ms. Otto – Was that phrase you used “non-unique”, is that what I heard you say? Mr. Bishop – A nonconforming use or structure does not constitute a unique physical circumstance, condition, or consideration. Ms. Otto – Thank you. Mr. Bishop - In paragraph B, height where we have struck all the previous verbiage, we then have a new red line “No part of any structure shall project beyond 35-feet above the average finished grade of a property except…” when you look at sub number 2 in that paragraph, we say “existing flagpoles”. Then we move down and say “transmission line towers”, does that mean existing transmission line towers? Ms. Otto – Yes, all items in number 2 would be existing. Mr. Bishop – If in fact, a broadcast relay tower, a transmission line tower, or anything is destroyed, it’s allowed to be rebuilt above the 35 feet? Ms. Otto – Under the continuation of a non-conforming structure, the answer would be yes, that it could be replaced if it existed. What this sentence here is intended to say is as of the date this ordinance is adopted anything existing is grandfathered, for lack of a better word, but any new flagpoles, aerials, water towers, tanks, cell towers, would have to have special granting to be higher than 35 feet. 16 Mr. Bishop – So Georgia Power, in the event they needed an electrical transmission line within the city limits of Tybee as a result of storm damage, and it was over 35 feet, before they could replace it and provide service to the community again, they would have to follow protocol? Ms. Otto – Not to replace but to install a new item. In Article 3, it talks about nonconforming structures and if they are damaged their right to be restored. The code section is 3-020. In part it says, “Any nonconforming structure or use which is damaged by fire, flood, hurricane, explosion, or earthquake, war, or riot or any act of God, may be restored, reconstructed, and continued as the same nonconforming use and structure as existed before such damage provided however that a building permit to initiate restoration must be obtained within six months of the occurrence of the damage, and if no such permit is obtained then only a conforming use or structure will be allowed upon the property”. Mr. Bishop – Okay. In section E, “Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Code of Ordinances, the designated city official may approve applications for variances without the need of public hearings and without the need of review by the Planning Commission or the Mayor and Council as follows”. However in C, it says under Variance Longevity, it refers back after a variance has been granted by the Mayor and Council, is that not in opposition? Ms. Otto – This Section E is circumstances where staff, given an approval of it, can be allowed if the footprint would not expand the existing structure, no additional encroachments. If somebody wants to come in and build on their house, for example an addition, and they’ve got a really large backyard that there are no problems with them building out, but it is too far forward on their lot, it doesn’t conform to the front setback requirement, staff can approve that expansion of that footprint without them having to go ask for a variance because of this section. The proposed improvement will not result in an expansion of the existing footprint of the existing structure or no additional encroachment into any setbacks shall be created. The part in C is those that have been before Planning Commission and been approved by City Council for a variance; they have 12 months to act on that approval or it expires. Mr. Bishop – Okay. Mr. Parks – Any suggested rewording on A 1, 2, and 3? Mr. Bishop - I did suggest on 2 and 3. Mr. Parks – I liked how you reworded 1 and got rid of 2 when you said “peculiar to the particular property that warrants the granting of a variance” and take legitimate considerations out of there which then took out the need to put four other conditions on the tail end of this paragraph. Mr. Bishop – That reads better to me. Mr. Parks – Yes. Ms. Bryan – Would anyone else consider maybe add to health and safety so we can take care of the elevator situation should it arrive? Mr. Parks – I think that was the intent of safety. Ms. Bryan – It says “shall not be based upon consideration of personal or financial hardships” that contradicts the other one. Mr. Parks – Health falls under personal. 17 Mr. Bishop – Personal health and safety. Example, you need to build an exit into your setback in an emergency you have a fire escape. Mr. Parks – An example would be an elderly person not able to traverse stairs which is more of a personal rather than a safety or a handicap access which would be more. I hesitate at the word personal… Ms. Bryan – It does say financial and we do have it separated. Why don’t we tie it to health and safety? Or you could put ‘personal’ in parenthesis and put health or safety concerns. Mr. Bishop – Or you could say leave it at “A request for a variance and granting of a variance shall not be based on consideration of personal (excluding health and safety)”. Mr. Parks – What we’re trying to cover is handicap or age infirmed. Ms. Bryan – How about disability? “…environment, or to safety, disability, or historical significance.” Mr. Parks – Environment, disability, safety, or historical significance. Ms. Otto – In Item #1? Mr. Bishop – Yes. The way we reworded that was to reword paragraph 1 to include “that warrant the granting of a variance related to the environment, property, safety, disability, historical significance, peculiar to the particular property”. This eliminates two. Ms. Otto – I will also be going back to paragraph 1, the last sentence where it had referred to “Item 1 or 2, and Item 3” would now be Item 1 and Item 2. Mr. Parks – Is it appropriate to have Jerris read back line 1? Ms. Bryant – What Demery stated was reword paragraph 1 to include, “environment, property, safety, disability, historical significance, peculiar to the particular property”. Mr. Bishop – Correct. Mr. Parks – Elimination of 2; 3 becomes 2. Ms. Bryan – We’ve got to add 2 back because by adding the word ‘or’ in there, we can add that to it. The legitimate consideration - leave the legitimate out and put “there are considerations that warrant the granting of a variance related to the environment, such as historical significance, personal disability, safety”. Mr. Parks – Do we modify disabilities saying ‘personal’ or ‘owner disability’. Ms. Bryan – But because of the way the property is, we have to allow a variance so that the property can be expanded to allow for that. So it is particular to the property. Mr. Parks – But it is because of the individual’s disability not the property’s disability. Mr. McNaughton – What I suggested was include from 2 what we wanted in 1 and at the end of that paragraph after “peculiar to the particular property” add personal disability. 18 Mr. Parks – So it would read, “unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding properties including substandard...that warrant the granting of a variance related to the environment or to safety, or to historical significance, peculiar to the particular property or personal disability”. Ms. Otto, can we charge you with the exact wording of this to include the disability on the owner. Ms. Otto – Yes and I will bring it back to you at the December meeting for further consideration. Text Amendment – Article 18, Lighting Ms. Otto – This has been here twice before as an ordinance but was lacking some input from others. On this visit to you it has had legal review and input from DNR and from the Marine Science Center here on Tybee Island. With those changes provided, the legal is in the document that you were emailed. The DNR and Marine Science Center input has not yet been incorporated into the document. I’m not trying to fast track this by any means so if we need to bring back another version that is fine or if you can direct staff on things to change or shift we can send it on with your approval, whatever you desire. Mr. Parks – We have got recommendations for change from two sources and that is what is in front of us tonight. Ms. Otto – Yes, you should be considering the version dated 11/6/12. That version includes the feedback from the City Attorney’s office. It does not include the input from DNR or the Marine Science Center. I also sent this to Georgia Power for their review as well. My contact left Georgia to go up and work on the damage from hurricane Sandy so I’ve not heard from him and certainly haven’t pushed to get his review yet. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Maria Procopio came forward and introduced herself. I’m the Executive Director for the Tybee Island Marine Science Center. Mark Dodd with DNR was supposed to come this afternoon so we could meet and take a look at the ordinance together and he was going to come tonight and give his suggestions but couldn’t make it. There are things that are really good in here for the animals, wildlife, and wildlife protection with this revision. Some things haven’t been considered like wavelength or color of light and those kinds of things. My question is what would be the process for working together; DNR, the Science Center, and the Planning Commission on the document? Would he put together his recommendations, which will be our recommendations, and send them to you and then talk about it before the December meeting? Mr. Parks – First we would have to agree that we keep this open for review because we were at the point of possibly pushing this on to Council as it’s been at least six months. I would certainly like to hear from the Commission about seeking another source of input and DNR would be a good source of input. Mr. Callahan – I have a problem with delaying it another month but if that is what she needs we can do that. Ms. Otto – Would you prefer staff work with DNR to incorporate the language they would desire? Mr. Parks – I’d like to volunteer to meet if we can do it. Is there another volunteer from Commission that would like to get in on this? Mr. Callahan – I’ll volunteer. Mr. McNaughton - If something like this is approved by Council, is there a plan to educate property owners about the new requirements and the size of the fine? Ms. Otto – That aspect has not been discussed, there is not a plan in place for that. 19 Mr. McNaughton – It would require a substantial investment by property owners and hefty fine and I’m not sure how many people would be aware of it if approved. Ms. Otto – I believe you may be referring to the existing lighting if it didn’t conform in five years. Mr. McNaughton – Yes. Ms. Otto – Yes, that would require investment. In this environment, the fixtures rust out and certainly there would be some that had not succumbed. We would be working with applicants for permits as they came in but there would need to be a large outreach and we can do that through inserts into water billings and similar things to make them aware of this pending date if this is adopted as proposed. Mr. Parks – Within this proposed ordinance, most of the required changes were because of sodium; types of lights that are going out and are no longer being used. In five years we felt they would be done anyway. It wasn’t so much geared to residential. Ms. Otto – Those lighting options are not going to be offered to consumers anymore. Mr. McNaughton – My concern is the residential issue. Most houses on Tybee with outdoor lights have the bulb exposed. Would that be prohibited? Would they have to replace that fixture within five years? Ms. Otto – Or shield it. Mr. McNaughton – Would Christmas lights and those rope lights that people put around their palm trees be prohibited under this ordinance if approved? Ms. Otto – I don’t believe they generate the footcandle that would exceed the threshold that is proposed here. Mr. Parks – Other questions? Mr. Bishop – When this becomes an ordinance, there is going to be a requirement at the time you submit a building plan, drainage plan, that you’re going to have to have a lighting plan as well. Following along with David, would that put an additional burden on the owner of a cost? In a set of plans, you have where lighting would be in the plans but this would be much more extensive, is that right? Ms. Otto – Yes, the photometric plan would be more extensive and the time the City’s engineer spends reviewing it would also be an additional fee to the applicant for that permit. Mr. Bishop – In reviewing 18-008 submission requirements, it states that for any residential and/or commercial development as defined in Article 2, in essence in the definitions in the LDC, we don’t define residential or commercial development, it’s strictly development. Ms. Otto – Let me cross-check that. Are those definitions in this ordinance? Mr. Bishop – As defined in Article 2 it refers to. Ms. Otto – It doesn’t look like they are defined in this article either. We have a great number through this update of the Land Development Code of definitions that need to be added. Mr. Parks – Other questions? So we will hear from you about the meeting and this will be tabled until the next meeting. 20 Text Amendment – Section 3-090(B), Schedule of Commercial District Requirements Ms. Otto – This is an open for discussion item; no proposed language changes are incorporated here. What you have is existing Sections 3-090(A) and (B). A applies to residential; in the residential zones, we are quite specific about minimum lot size requirements and the type of structures that can be built on them to allow single family or two family or multi- family. It recently came up where you considered a variance for the Farmer family and this is the one that changed the address of the house and they were asking what was comparable to a front setback encroachment. That property was zoned C-1 and one of the Council members, prior to the Council meeting when they considered it, asked me what the minimum lot sizes are in C-1. The only minimum lot size requirement is that you take the square footage of a C-1 property, divide it by 1,125 and that tells you how many units maximum that can be built there. As far as subdividing a property, there are no guidelines on what size lots can be created should there be a large enough parcel to divide it up. The questions before you this evening is if you have any input for staff on whether you would or would not want to consider minimum lot sizes for the zones that are listed in section B of Section 3-090. Mr. Parks – How did we arrive with the size of an R-1 and R-2? Was that an engineering study? Ms. Otto – It long predates my role here; I do not know how those came to be. Mr. Callahan – Probably came from other cities ordinances. Mr. Parks – That’s what I’m thinking. I wonder if there is a commercial equivalent in other cities. Ms. Otto – I can certainly see where there probably needs to be some type of guideline here. There are some sizeable lots in the Maritime district, in C-2, and C-1. With no guidelines to go by, I don’t know how we would proceed with subdivisions of those properties. Mr. Callahan – Wouldn’t it be reasonable to look at other cities’ ordinances that address this particular thing? We did that with trees and lighting not that long ago. Ms. Otto – If you share the concern that I have that we don’t have these narrowed down, then I would be glad to do that research. Mr. Parks – Thank you. Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion for adjournment at this point? Mr. Callahan – So move. Mr. Tyler – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor, please signify; unanimous. Thank you. Meeting ended at 21:35 Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant