Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20131015_PC_Minutes.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Tom Borkowski Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Rob Callahan Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion, Vice Chair David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the October 15, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, and Tom Borkowski. Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the September 17, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Ms. Bramble made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Marion seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Mr. Parks – Do we have any recusals or disclosures? Ms. Bramble disclosed that she lives across from item 7, 300 -302 Second Avenue. Text Amendment – Section 3-080 – Off-street Parking Requirements Ms. Otto – This item was on the agenda last month but we did not get to it due to the length of the meeting. What is before you is a proposed ordinance that would change the current ordinance which allows materials that are able to retain the first one inch of storm water. The ordinance before you amends that to anything other than concrete or asphalt. Council is looking for your input on this. There have been large and lengthy discussions occurring at almost every Council meeting about this topic. The City’s consulting engineer, Downer Davis, is here this evening to offer some assistance as you consider this. Mr. Parks – I believe the Commission has probably used the last month to do some research and dig into this. Is there anybody that would like to speak? Mr. Davis – There have not been many questions regarding the use of gravel or other kinds of driveways. Most of the discussion has come up about one particular product and unless you plan to get into material properties this evening, it is up to the Commission what they would like to do. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody on the Commission that would like to speak? Mr. Bishop – Obviously this has been a continuing saga in discussions. Subsequent to the last meeting, I have had an opportunity to do a good bit of research and I will direct it mainly to staff and Downer [Davis]. When you read the proposed Land Development Code modification where it refers to “shall be constructed of materials other than concrete or asphalt,” how is that defined? Mr. Davis – I have some questions about that too. If someone came in and didn’t use 100% concrete or asphalt and used a grate to intercept the water before it left the property and put it into a drain; that is a composite pavement. I have a concern about how it can be skirted. When you say anything other than asphalt or concrete, it is a lengthy list of things you can use. Dianne started a list but there are other things that can be added. 2 Mr. Bishop – When you start looking at permeable paving and products, there are many types of pervious concrete, porous asphalt, different types of concrete aggregate, permeable concrete pavers, bound recycled glass porous concrete, and numerous other items and products that have been manufactured for the purpose to meet different standards. I have a concern going forward with a decision on changing our Land Development Code to restrict 50% of existing driveways serving residential uses shall be constructed of materials other than concrete or asphalt when I don’t find a definition of what that is. Mr. Davis – As you are doing your research it can get confusing. We previously had an ordinance that addressed taking the 24-hour 25-year storm which drops eight inches. As it starts you get very little of the rainfall but after about ten hours then it peaks during the 11th, 12th, and 13th hours and goes back down. You probably get 75 to 80% of the rain either side of the peak. We changed that a while back because it was discussed that maybe the focus shouldn’t be large storm water volumes since our water doesn’t travel a long time before it gets to a tidal river. We decided to look at water quality which is what we are all concerned with. With water quality, you look at the first 1.2 inches being detained through extended detention or we do retention of the first one inch. Currently the ordinance reads one inch. If that first one inch is retained for the 25-year storm, over a 24-hour period, you should be capturing 80% of the pollutants. That is a target the State came up with for much larger projects. I think that is what we are voluntarily complying with. We have no mandate; we are outside that ruling on most of our driveways unless it is in a planned subdivision. We are not bound to the 80% rule. You don’t need permeable pavers to address just the first one inch, it is almost overkill, but there are benefits. Some people have been trying to use standard bricks with the sanded joints. When you are looking at the first one inch being absorbed and controlling pollutants, they definitely can get over that 80%. How much has not been determined yet? Asphalt and concrete sheets most of that off. I don’t think we have had any controversy about material other than just standard brick with sand. I think one of the reasons we dropped the eight inch storm to the first one inch was because we were concerned with water quality and doing it in a cost effective manner. That is what I think the City Council and Planning Commission is grappling with is how to do this in an effective manner. There have been some concerns about quantifying precisely how we are doing that and there are some real challenges in quantifying it exactly. Mr. Bishop – Quantifying has been discussed extensively. There is a tremendous amount of documentation and apparently that is what the current trends are in quantifying the amount of run off in order to be ecologically protected. When you start reading background information on concrete thinking new ideas for age old materials, being green, ecological, and preventing certain pollutants from going into your runoff, that is where you get into what actually qualifies as a concrete or asphalt product. Some are concrete products with different mixtures that give that porous capability and I think by taking an ordinance and simply saying you can’t use concrete or asphalt is erroneous. I think that is why our proposed ordinance is certainly too far reaching and has so many loopholes that anyone could work around that. Mr. Parks – During the discussion with Council, is there a method in place now that we can use? Ms. Otto – At the Council meeting last Thursday, the vote was that any driveway permitted from that night forward would be required to be tested through the ASTM C1701 water test administered by staff. It is very technical but doable testing that typically you would hire a laboratory or testing company to perform but they are asking staff to take on that task. Mr. Parks – Do we have any homeowners that are awaiting our decision or formulation of an ordinance? Ms. Otto – At this time, no. The motion and vote that they took was specific that anything already permitted would not be held to this testing standard. Any new applications for driveways would be subject to the water testing after installation and if it failed the test it would have to be removed. 3 Mr. Parks – I agree with what Demery is saying. I also think there is a tremendous amount of homeowner investment in this and it is an important part of your landscaping and house. Mr. Borkowski – What is the significance of the 50%? Ms. Otto – The 50% was in the prior ordinance as well as the 25-year 24-hour storm. If you removed 50% or more of your driveway you had to bring it up to the current code of a driveway that can retain water. Mr. Parks – We wanted to allow for repairs. Mr. Borkowski – I wasn’t reading it correctly then. This is if more than 50% of the driveway is being replaced. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – We didn’t want to put people in the position that if they wanted to fix a pothole, they had to tear up the driveway. Mr. Marion – Did Council put a time limit on this for an answer back to them? Ms. Otto – No. Their vote last Thursday night was a standard by which we could continue under the current ordinance but have a testing method that would be done post installation. Mr. Marion – Mr. Davis, you said there was no mandate when it comes to the State and their standards. Can you elaborate on that? Mr. Davis – The 80% rule I quoted came out of State documents published since 2009. Quite simply, it is a State document that governs larger projects. What we are doing is voluntary, we are not bound to that. We know that we are doing the positive thing for the environment by capturing the pollutants. With that, we could just attempt not to quantify it. It is whatever the City wants to do. This is the City’s ordinance. I know of no other one like it. We are very proactive environmentally. I assume the reason it was sent back to the Planning Commission is to help simplify it. Mr. Parks – Does this affect our CRS in any way? I went through the manual and I couldn’t see where it would. Ms. Otto – We are required to provide an annual stormwater management report but since this is not part of the stormwater ordinance, I don’t believe it has an impact. Mr. Borkowski – What is wrong with the one right now? Ms. Otto – The challenge for staff is that one inch number in there. How to calculate a submittal and whether a submittal will or will not meet that. It has come down to the applicants engineering their residential driveway and having our engineer review their engineer’s calculations based on a proposed installation that may not even match what is in the field. It has been challenging because you have a standard with a one-inch requirement. How do we determine that the driveway that was installed did or did not satisfy the ordinance? Mr. Borkowski – Couldn’t that be in accordance with ASTM standards? Ms. Otto – That was the thought pattern of the last vote by Council. We would test post installation and if it doesn’t pass we would know that the particular installation doesn’t work. The first one that has to tear out their driveway is not going to be very responsive to doing that. 4 Mr. Callahan – I guess this should be a relatively simple thing to come up with wording for but obviously not. It would seem that since City Council is going one way and maybe the Planning Commission another, we ought to have a workshop of some kind to review this and see if we could get some wording that might be agreeable to everyone. Mr. Bishop – We spent so much time in this municipality on developing a drainage plan for purposes of construction to ensure that we were providing the best for our residents. There was a lot of time and effort put into that and we are one of very few communities that necessarily impose that by code. If I was a homeowner and put in a driveway and staff comes to me and says it doesn’t meet and you have to tear it out, to me that is a fallacy with our system and one that puts undue burden on the citizens of this community that we represent. If there is an issue between the Council and the Planning Commission’s directive, I think the suggestion by Rob has a tremendous amount of merit so we can all get on the same sheet in discussion before we make a recommendation that is going to bind the citizens of this community. I’m uncomfortable with any type of resolution tonight. Mr. Callahan – I move we table this for tonight and have a workshop as soon as Dianne can schedule it so we can discuss this and try to get both members of the City Council and Planning Commission together to get all the input we can before we make a recommendation on what kind of wording we use. Mr. Parks – Dianne, do you think you can set that up? Ms. Otto – Yes. I will work with the Clerk of Council to coordinate that. Mr. Bishop – I second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Minor Subdivision – 5 & 9 Moore Ave. – Sandra Carroll & Aletha Dean Carter Ms. Otto – This minor subdivision is located on Moore Avenue. In your packet is a guide of what is being requested. 5 Moore Avenue is the property of Sandra Carroll and 9 Moore Avenue is the property of Aletha Dean Carter. The request is to transfer ownership of ten feet of land from Ms. Carter to Ms. Carroll. The plat in your packet shows the existing lot line and if this is granted, the new recording would move that property boundary over and add 10 feet to lot C-1 and subtract 10 feet from lot D-1. Mr. McNaughton – The C-1 lot, is this the same one we recommended approval for a residential bed and breakfast some time ago? Ms. Otto – It is. That bed and breakfast unit is located in the framed building on piers shown here on C-1 [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. McNaughton – According to the survey, neither of these houses meet the required setback, is that relevant in this discussion? Ms. Otto – That they don’t meet current setback requirements is not relevant. What would be relevant is if the moving of this property line created a noncompliance. The side setback for both, where this line is moving, is already sufficient on the 10-foot that is required. It already exists on lot C-1 for this side of the house and there is adequate room on the side of the house on D-1, so it is not creating a setback problem. That the homes don’t conform to the front setbacks is based on the years they were built and doesn’t affect this action. Mr. Callahan – Both lots currently meet the minimum lot size and they will still meet the minimum lot size if the change is approved, correct? Ms. Otto – That is correct. 5 Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this? Sandra Carroll came forward and introduced herself. Mr. Borkowski – Why are you doing this? Ms. Carroll – For a little more green space on my property. Mr. Marion – In this small strip, is there any concern for drainage issues or anything? Ms. Otto – I don’t have any concerns. Given the large expanse of land on this side yard, this home is not going to create drainage problems over here [referring to PowerPoint]. She is increasing her side setback, which if she did have one, it would improve her situation as well from allowing that water to transfer over. No, I don’t have drainage concerns. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion on this item? Mr. McNaughton – I move that the application for minor subdivision be approved. Ms. Bramble – Second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion and a second. Those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Variance – 168 Lewis Ave. – Janice & Gordon Insley Ms. Otto – The property at 168 Lewis is zoned R-1-B. The setbacks require 20 on the front, 10 on the back, and 10 on the sides. What is before you is a request to rebuild a set of stairs. In your packet is the survey which is shown here on the left [referring to PowerPoint] and a blowup of that is also in your packet where it shows the rebuilt stairs larger than the existing stairs. It is for that reason a Variance is needed. The new stairs would be built a foot wider than the current three feet. The additional one-foot would expand the building footprint toward the south and toward the west. Currently this line here is going to stay the same [referring to PowerPoint], but the one foot toward the house is going to come in over here. Here at the street, there would be an additional one foot moving that forward toward the front property line. The pictures in your packet show some issues. The pictures you have are not the same as what I have on the screen but they do show the stairs are in need of repair. Some of the poor support posts are shifting from the concrete pads they are sitting on. Overall, the stairs do need a rebuild. The question before you is whether to grant a Variance for them to be a foot wider than what they currently are. Mr. Marion – In the request for the additional foot, did they cite specifically the reason why they wanted to make them larger? Ms. Otto – The applicant is here. I would like him to share that information with you. Mr. Bishop – If changed, the resulting side setback would be unchanged but the front setback would reduce to approximately 6-1/2 feet? Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Bishop – We are only looking at an encroachment into the front setback. Ms. Otto – Yes, by one foot. 6 Mr. Bishop – If not approved, if built back as they are now, that would put them in compliance with the International Residential Code as far as width and that would be the 36 inches that would be minimum? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – So they could be built back as they currently are without any additional need for action. Is that correct? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – Even though there is still an encroachment, the fact that they were pre-existing at the time would not create a problem for us. Ms. Otto – Yes. That could have been done without a Variance. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] At this time is there an applicant that would like to speak to this issue? Mr. Gordon Insley came forward and introduced himself. As you can see, the steps are a mess. The treads are three feet wide and the way they have done the railing you have a 28-1/2 inch clearance on them. The reason I want to go to 4 feet is because I’ve got a 10-year old knee replacement that is going bad and over the past year I have been undergoing treatment for spinal stenosis where the arthritis in my lower back pinches the nerve and when it flairs up I basically lose control from here down. When this flairs up, it is almost necessary for somebody to assist me up the stairs, and at three feet, it just doesn’t work. That is why we are asking for the Variance. Mr. Callahan – Did you look at any other alternatives on how to build the stairs that would accommodate both the width you need and possibly avoid the need for a Variance? Mr. Insley – Yes, we have. One of your commissioners was over last weekend doing some measuring and originally suggested we double it back towards the house. In order to do that it would extend about 9 inches into the driveway. If we go the other way, we are out of room on that side. The only thing we could do was totally wreck the flow to the doors because the door at the top of the steps is the door that we use as our common door and it would severely inhibit going from that door to the front. We have been talking with contractors and trying to figure out a way to get around this for almost a year. Mr. Callahan – With what you are proposing to build, will it accommodate a lift, if necessary, in the future? Mr. Insley – Yes. We’re taking it to the point of putting the stringers on 12-inch centers as opposed to 16-inch centers and structurally using heavier timbers for the upright support so at some time it could support a chairlift. That would be where the extra width would be a necessity. Mr. Marion – Are you a year-round resident of Tybee? Mr. Insley – Yes. Mr. Borkowski – On this photo [referring to PowerPoint], you are going to move it over this way, correct? Mr. Insley – Yes. Mr. Borkowski – What would be the problem with making the landing turn one step higher? 7 Mr. Insley – We would be in the driveway. If you look at the other photo, if you went another step higher where the landing is and then have the steps flow down, it is in the driveway like it is now. Mr. Parks – Does it block access to the garage? Mr. Insley – It blocks where my wife parks. Mr. Borkowski – The bush on the left seems to be out further and she drives in there without any problem. She doesn’t drive over that bush and it would seem like one other step would not be a factor. Mr. Insley – According to several different contractors I have spoken with that is not a desirable situation to get into. I’m not exactly sure why. I don’t know if it is because in order to meet the footer requirements they would have to bust out driveway but it does not seem to be a route that anybody wanted to go. Ms. Bramble – I understand your disabilities and to me this is a hardship for you. Have you questioned your stair lift people because a seated stair lift has to sit on the ground and a portion of the bottom stairs will have to be removed for the seat to sit on the ground? Mr. Insley – The ones we have been looking at are railed systems that attach and would possibly require some structural steel but it does not sit on the ground. Ms. Bramble – So you would have to go up two steps to get into your seat? Mr. Insley – No. It would come around down to the side which is part of the reason for the four feet. It doesn’t sit on the ground and the track is mounted on a base that doesn’t go to the ground. Ms. Bramble – I understand but there is a box underneath the chair. Mr. Insley – Right. It would come down to the bottom step. Mr. Parks – Are there other questions? [There were none.] Is there anybody else that would like to address this? [There were none.] I will close the public hearing at this time. Do I have discussion or a motion? Ms. Bramble – I move to approve as submitted since this is a hardship. Mr. Callahan – Second. I don’t like approving Variances but in this particular case Mr. Insley has explored other options and there are none that are good. He is obviously having physical difficulty with the situation he has now. The stairs are in need of repair and in this case it seems to me that a Variance is warranted. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify. [Motion passed 4-2 – Bramble, McNaughton, Callahan, and Marion were in favor / Bishop and Borkowski were opposed.] Variance – Lot 16 Ninth Terrace – Gary Sanders Ms. Otto – Lot 16 Ninth Terrace is proposed for construction of a new single-family home. The lot is eligible for the 200- foot rule which is a code section under which the averages of the adjacent homes within 200 feet each direction are calculated and staff can grant up to a 10-foot variance if the averages of the other fronts allowed. In this situation, staff did their calculations for this property based on the survey that was provided by the applicant’s surveyor, which is shown at the top of the screen. For Lot 16, going 200 feet each way, you pick up the two lots to the west until you get to Butler Avenue. Going the other direction, wholly or partially within 200 feet, it picks up the next four lots to include in the calculation. The handwriting in blue is my calculations of what the average setback is of those lots to determine what lot 16 is eligible for. My calculation was a 15.1 front setback which staff, again because it is less than 10 feet, could 8 have granted. The applicant for this variance did not consult with staff and misinterpreted the ordinance. Rather than going 200 feet each direction from lot 16, he interpreted it to mean 200 feet total and only went 100 feet one way and 100 feet the other way. Not all of the setbacks were used for each of the existing structures where the ordinance requires that two for each lot be used as shown in the illustration from the code. You pick up two so that if a property has two different front setbacks, perhaps for the face of the building, set of stairs, or a bay window, you end up with different calculations for a particular lot. When the applicant did his calculations, he only picked up one setback for each of the lots and not enough lots were used to do the calculation because only 100 feet was used for each direction. We came up with a difference between staff’s determination and their determination of what the front setback would be. Unfortunately the building plans were submitted for permitting already designed based on their calculation of the front setback. What is before you tonight is a request to use their calculation as the front setback rather than staff’s. For lot 16, staff came up with a 15.1 and the applicant’s calculation was 12.1, we are talking a difference of a 3-foot setback, theirs being more forward, more into the 20-foot required front setback. The footprint is in your package of the proposed building that shows the proposed 12.1 that they came up with. The proposed house does not have a straight front wall. The most projecting would be at that 12.1 but there are interesting architectural lines to it. Only the very center of that would be at the 12.1. This portion on the left [referring to PowerPoint] would be set back. The lot is currently vacant and there has been a tree removal permit issued for them to begin getting this lot ready for construction. Mr. Borkowski – The way the ordinance is written, your calculation says that it should be 15.1 based on the averages of the 200-foot rule? Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Parks – With the additional three feet and the house is 36 feet wide, that is almost 1,000 square feet. It is 100 square feet per floor that we would be permitting at $100 per square foot at current sale value; you are talking almost $10,000. I’m just trying to get a feel for the economic impact of the Variance. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – Dianne, under our Variance standard, what is the unique physical circumstance or hardship posed here? In looking at the property as you progress eastward, those homes have been built and there doesn’t appear to be a very unique physical circumstance that would prohibit building. I have concerns and I don’t know if this was addressed with fire and police regarding ingress and egress. Ms. Otto – The 200-foot rule doesn’t require a hardship. It is in the code to help alleviate the saw tooth design of a street. The older homes that were built prior to setback requirements are the more forward teeth and anything built with a 20-foot required setback is set back and you end up with old homes up front and new homes in back. It’s an offering that residents can take advantage of, up to 10 feet, to avoid a saw tooth streetscape. It’s not required to have a hardship in order to take advantage of that. Mr. Parks – This is a Variance. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – You are saying the Variance application to the Land Development Code is not applicable. Ms. Otto – No. I’m saying the Variance is not applicable to the staff’s determination of a 15.1 front. They are asking for more than what staff can approve. It is a Variance and those hardship standards do apply to this request. Mr. Parks – We are basing this on hardship. 9 Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – Do we have any more of the design than what we see here? Ms. Otto – I have a complete set of building plans. Mr. Callahan – Do you know if any other alternatives were looked at after the conflict arose between your calculations and theirs? Ms. Otto – The applicant could better answer that. I did not get a good look at the building plans when they came in. Our building official began his review and completely processed these plans for permitting. That is generally what happens and then they get turned over to me for my review. That is when I saw the page where he had his front setback calculation and realized that the whole house was designed based on that erroneous calculation. I immediately contacted them to advise that I disagreed with their calculation. After they digested that information, their determination was to ask for a Variance rather than immediately redesign the house. Mr. Parks – How do we want to deal with the email that was received? Ms. Otto – This was handed to us this evening; it will need to be read aloud. I think it would be appropriate and the representative can respond if there is something here he would want to speak to. Let’s note that this letter is speaking to both lot 16 and our next item which is lot 17. Mr. Parks – [Read the email from Brian Dubuc] “Hi Monty and Demere. My mother – Viviane Dubuc, called me and told me that the owners of lots 16 and 17 Ninth Terrace have submitted a variance application to build in the ten foot setback on the northern portion of those lots. My wife and my mom are the owners of lot 15 Ninth Terrace which adjoins lot 16 on the east. We have two concerns with the variance application. The first is a safety issue. Emergency vehicles must be able to transit Ninth Terrace which is basically a 20 foot easement to access lot 15. Second, the legal description of our deed grants us an easement over the northern ten feet of lots 16 and 17. If the setback is coextensive with the easement area, then no construction can be permitted since the owners of lot 15 have a right to the full use and enjoyment of the easement area. I can sympathize with the desire to build in the setback area – these lots are pretty small and it can be difficult to fit a structure that satisfies all of the wants and desires of the owner onto those lots within the parameters of the zoning requirements. However, the zoning requirements are primarily based on perceptions of safety and what is in the best interest of the public and the adjoining property owners. When we built the dwelling on lot 15, we were very careful to utilize the services of a builder familiar with Tybee’s existing zoning requirements. We engaged an architect to design the improvements so that they would fit within the setbacks applicable to our lot. We believe that to recommend approval of the applicant’s variance request would be detrimental public safety and the interest of the adjoining landowners. In addition, if the setback is co-extensive with our easement rights, construction within ten feet of the northern lot line of lots 16 and 17 would encroach on our easement rights as granted in our warranty deed. I have attached copies of the survey we had prepared at the time we purchased lot 15 and the legal description attached to our deed. I appreciate very much your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions concerning my mother and wife’s interest in the variance application, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition to my office number, my cell phone number is 404-313-7911. Thank you very much. Brian M. Dubuc, Attorney at Law.” Ms. Otto – That referenced lot 15, the first lot adjacent to lot 16, which we are discussing, and it commented about an easement. Off the property line, it is indicated by the surveyor there is a 20-foot right-of-way for Ninth Terrace. That their setback is 10, but this request is actually 12 would put this proposed house further back than the house that they are speaking to next door by 2 feet. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Do we have a representative that would like to speak to this? 10 Gary Sanders came forward and introduced himself. I am the architect for the project. Dianne and I did come up with different calculations and one of the reasons that mine did vary is the fact that we were doing both projects at the same time, 16 and 17. I didn’t calculate a 20-foot setback on the adjacent lot because I negated that one and went to the other side because I want my two houses to line up. Secondly, if we were pulled back, my neighbor on Butler which is lot 18, would have a 5 foot 9 inch setback. From the people that wrote the letter, they have a 10-foot setback. My houses are totally behind both of the houses that are adjacent. I didn’t ask for a Variance initially because I thought my calculations were correct. If it is in question, my hardship is that these are shallow lots. This is a 70-foot deep lot and a Tybee lot is normally 90 feet. We meet the rear setback by 10, other than the stair. The building itself is somewhere around 20 feet from the rear setback. We are 14 feet from the neighbor at lot 18. We have been generous with our other setbacks. We are only asking for this because architecturally it would line up on the street because if we were pushed to 15 it would create the saw tooth effect; it architecturally doesn’t work. As far as the 10-foot easement, I wasn’t aware of it and it wasn’t recorded on any of my surveys but certainly we’re not going to be within 10 feet of the front setback. Mr. McNaughton – Dianne, lots 18 and 15, were they built before the 20-foot setback? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – In your calculations, you have 3 sets of 20 for lots 17, 14, and 13. Ms. Otto – Yes, those are vacant lots. Mr. Callahan – You are assuming a 20-foot setback to be in compliance. Ms. Otto – Yes, the code states that when you have a vacant lot it is considered to be 20 or whatever the applicable front setback is. Mr. Sanders – The reason I didn’t use the 20-foot setback is we were building both of these projects at the same time. If that was required, I could use my averages on 16, 20 feet on 17, but 16 is now improved so on 17 I would be able to use the average calculation that came up with 16 and in this case would be 15.1. By doing it that way, I would end up using 20 for one vacant lot and 15.1 for the other and depending on which one went first, one of them would be allowed to be ahead of the other one. Aesthetically they should line up and I thought it was more responsible to do it that way. If I did it the other way, I would have one of my houses in front of the other which we don’t want. I have side driveways on both that go underneath the house. The 12.1 we are asking for is simply an entry. The main house is back within the 15.1. Mr. Callahan – You were talking about creating a saw tooth effect if you go by Dianne’s calculation. Mr. Sanders – Yes. You have to understand we want to build both of these at the same time. If we had decided to build 16 and later build 17, we would end up as Dianne calculated at 15.1 on lot 16 but when I built 17, I would have 15.1 in my calculations instead of a 20. Mr. Callahan – Nothing would prevent you from putting the 15.1 back to 15.3 so they would line up. Mr. Sanders – I understand but it wouldn’t end up being 15.3. It would be more in line with the 13 if I use the 15.1 instead of the 20. If you look at every house on the street, if they are not within the 10 feet, they are right on 10 feet. Ours will be the furthest setback on the whole street. These are not mansions, they are not overbuilt, they are simply two stories over parking. We are not building out to the whole allowable buildable area because I have a lot of architectural details and I need the room to put them in. We have shrunk the house to make this happen and felt like we were architecturally responsible trying to line the street up. My calculation perhaps was done incorrectly but I think 11 even if it had not been I probably would be standing here anyway asking for a Variance so I could make it line up with what is currently there. Mr. Callahan – Everything you say may be true. My more important question is did you look at any other design alternatives based on the numbers that Dianne had calculated? Mr. Sanders – I already had four months into the design and have done lots of things on Tybee Island before. I’ve done this the same way but maybe it changed in the interim. I’ve been working out here for 10 years and done maybe 30 buildings. My mistake for not doing it the same way I always have. Mr. Callahan – Does that mean the answer is ‘no’ to my question? Mr. Sanders – I haven’t started a redesign. Mr. Parks – I hear what you are saying but it was done incorrectly. The rule states 200 feet either direction. Mr. Sanders – If we can get away from that for a second, let’s just forget I did this calculation. I still would ask for a Variance based on the shallowness of the lot and to come into compliance with everything that is built. Mr. Parks – I agree. Mr. Callahan – The thing is, Variances set precedence. In this particular case, we are talking about several other empty lots any one of which someone else, if you get approved for a Variance, could come back and ask for a Variance with a precedence already been set. That is the situation we are in as the Planning Commission. Looking at it from our point of view, it makes it that much more difficult to approve the first Variance if there is the possibility that other Variances will be requested in the future. Mr. Sanders – Mr. Callahan, I think that the precedence has already been set. Everything that is built is already at the 10-foot line. Mr. Callahan – That was done before we had the setback requirements. Mr. Sanders – I feel like it would be more architecturally correct in keeping the houses up as they would have been built had Tybee not blanketed a 20-foot. Mr. Callahan – You would recommend that the other buildable lots that are currently empty be built up to 10 feet from the road. Mr. Sanders – If mine were built at the 12.1, those two lots would also come up and start being at the face. My lots at that point would contribute where they likely wouldn’t even need a Variance because they could go through the 200- foot rule. Mr. Bishop – Can you summarize for me, using Dianne’s numbers, what is your detriment? Mr. Sanders – I will lose my front porches. I could still do it but we kept the footprint very small because that was our goal. I would have to hack the front porches off. Mr. Bishop – Would you really have to take the front porches off? There are architectural aspects that can change based on dimensions. 12 Mr. Sanders – It is 3 feet and our front porches are 4. When you see this bump out, that is the setback in question. This is a porch here [referring to PowerPoint] and the main body of the house is here and this is an entry foyer. When you come from the garage and go up the stairs, you go into the building. This house is square and it will mess up my entire symmetry. I cannot push it back as we are on the setback. In the back, the 10-foot required setback is 14 to 15. If this were Butler, lot 18, the one with the 5.9 setback, their house is also right on the side property line. As a gesture to that neighbor, we made it 14 feet instead of the required 10. We are at the required ten on this side. They are very shallow lots. This is a textbook lot for a Variance because they are small. They are 60 by 70 lots which are substandard. Mr. Parks – Understand you are already 5 feet into the setback with Dianne’s calculation. Mr. Sanders – She and I only have a difference of 3 feet. Mr. Parks – Substandard lot of record, yes, I can understand not going the full 20 feet, but even using Dianne’s calculation on the 200, you are already 5 feet into the setback. Mr. Sanders – That calculation doesn’t have anything to do with lot size. Mr. Bishop – Simultaneously, as far as strict conformity at 15.1, with some degree of architectural changes the house could be built on the lot. Mr. Sanders – What I would probably do is reconfigure the rear stairs; I’m not sure. Mr. Bishop – I’m just asking the question. We have an obligation for Variances and we have a tremendous desire to conform to the Land Development Code when it comes to setbacks and things of that nature. That is the purpose of this Commission and the Land Development Code as you know. My point, being strict with conformity aspects, I don’t necessarily agree with the shallowness of the lot size with regards to being able to constitute a physical circumstance that would prohibit you from building the house. It can be altered and it can be changed without a Variance, can it not? Mr. Sanders – I would ask for this on any lot, even if it was just a 20 by 20 lot. Mr. Bishop – I’m speaking in regards to this lot. Mr. Sanders – You can always scale something down but does it become usable? Does it go along with the other things that are actually built on the street? Over here on Second Terrace, I had a house that was on a 30 by 40 lot. Obviously we can’t meet the ordinances when you have something that small. That is why the Variance process is here so we could build on substandard lots. It is architecturally responsible to line things up on the street and a lot of communities don’t have these strict numbers. Mr. Parks – Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? [There were none.] Is there anybody else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Robert Tompkins came forward and introduced himself. I live at the far end of Ninth Terrace. We have 20-foot setbacks front and back and 15 feet on the sides. Our neighbors also have appropriate setbacks. I have a problem with what is proposed primarily for safety. The lane to Butler Avenue is very narrow and when a car is parked in the middle of the street there is no way to get around it as happened when they were doing some work on these two lots. It took 5 to 10 minutes before the person who was doing the work recognized the fact that I wasn’t going away. There was no way out of the road; I was blocked. If this was an emergency, fire or ambulance would be up the creek. My second point, with a narrow setback in this narrow part of the lane, if there is a car blocking the lane, a fire truck couldn’t get around it without bashing into this house. I would like to say there is a solution to these tiny lots. When we bought our place there was a large lot and a tiny lot, which we deemed not to be buildable, and we put them together. It is not a 13 hardship, it is an opportunity. There are other ways of looking at it. It is not the business of the permitting agency to foster money making operations by letting people skate by regulations. People should follow the regulations. Ms. Bramble – Isn’t this one of the lanes that the fire department wouldn’t go down if there was a fire? They would remain on Butler because of the size of the lane. Ms. Otto – I have been told by the Fire Chief that on these dead end, narrow streets, they don’t put their apparatus in there. There is no way to turn around once they are in there. They generally park and service from the main street. Mr. Tompkins – When we were building we were requested to make our driveway large enough to allow turnarounds for these big trucks. During construction we had some very big trucks up that lane. If you keep squeezing it, that may not be possible. Mr. Parks – Any other questions? [There were none.] Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Vivian Dubuc came forward and introduced herself. I am the neighbor directly to the east of lot 16. My son does have an interest in the lot because his mother and wife are co-owners. We built on a substandard lot and we built within the setback lines and we are very happy with it. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else that would like to address the Commission? [There were none.] At this time, I will close the public hearing. Is there discussion or a motion? Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to deny. Mr. McNaughton – Second. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion and a second. Those in favor of the motion for denial, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Variance – Lot 17 Ninth Terrace – Gary Sanders Ms. Otto – The reason these are brought separate is because the lots are adjacent to one another but the setback calculations differ between the two based on the 200-foot rule. For myself and the applicant, we came up with numbers different than lot 16 because you are taking into account different lots. For lot 17, which is the second lot in from Butler Avenue, you are only counting the one lot toward Butler and then go 200 feet the other way for lots 16, 15, 14, and 13. Unlike the calculation on the prior one, the setbacks on the existing house on lot 12 do not get calculated because they are beyond 200 feet. You have one lot on the Butler side and four lots on the ocean side and the calculation by staff is 15.3 front setback. The calculation the applicant submitted was 9.4, but because of the 200-foot rule, having the maximum allowance at 10 feet, he did use 10-foot for this home. The design is similar to what you saw in the previous lot 16 but the house is now, rather than at the 12.1 that he had on the lot 16 house, this one is at 10. Mr. Borkowski – This setback, under the 200-foot rule, is 2 tenths of a foot greater. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – Is there an applicant that would like to address this? Gary Sanders came forward and introduced himself. My argument is the same as you heard a few minutes ago. I think that by using 20 feet on each one of these when they are both getting built at the same time, if we just wanted to turn things in at different times, it would be much different. I don’t understand why it would be beneficial for anybody to do that. We are using the 20-foot of our own lot, the one that is going to be built at the same time, it is absolutely hurting us. It would be simple enough to get my approval for one of them and then come back and get the approval for the 14 other one and I’ll get more favorable setbacks for my design. I don’t see who benefits from that system of me turning them in at different times to get a more favorable result. I’m not trying to push anything down anybody’s throat, I’m not doing anything wrong, and there is no safety issue. This lot here [referring to PowerPoint], she is at 10 feet and she is not within the setback. I know she said she was but she is not; none of them are. If I have to turn them in separately just to get a more favorable setback on one of them, I don’t want to have to do that, but I wish you would take that into consideration because I would like for them to line up straight. These are very beautiful houses and they are not overbuilt. Mr. Parks – Dianne, did you do a calculation based on if they were built at separate times? Ms. Otto – I did not. I have a very comparable circumstance that just occurred about a month prior to these two coming in. On Chatham Avenue were side by side lots, two different owners, but each wanted their 200-foot calculations based on the other. Based on the ordinance, I could only deal with existing conditions. They are required to provide a survey of what is there. If the one wanted to wait until the other finished building and then get their calculation based on the actual setback of that home existing, I would have been glad to do it but they both chose to proceed with their construction project simultaneously so each was calculated based on a vacant lot adjacent to it. Mr. Callahan – You keep stressing your desire to line up everything on a street but you’ve got one of these with a setback of about 10 and one with a setback of about 12. That contradicts your argument, doesn’t it? Mr. Sanders – Not particularly. If you see here [referring to PowerPoint], this house is 5.9, this house is 10, this one at 12.1, that opened the street to where the main body of their house is. It does line up but it brings it more into unity, all the buildings. That was the idea opening up the sides. These are cottages, not large houses. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Is there anybody that would like to address the Commission at this time? Robert Tompkins came forward and introduced himself again. The same comments apply as to what I said before. Not all houses are built in the setback on Ninth Terrace. Down on my end of Ninth Terrace, we have got several houses that have appropriate setbacks. We know that for our house because we built it. All the owners of the lots on Ninth Terrace own collectively the right-of-way and I’m concerned that because of the symmetry of the road which is situated so that most of the right-of-way is on the side that Vivian is and this lot is on. Most of the right-of-way that doesn’t have the road on it is in the front part of the property, I’m concerned about parking issues. Are people likely to park in that region? The reason I ask is can anyone get past on that narrow road. That may not be an appropriate question. Mr. Parks – It is a fair question. Ms. Otto – Each new single-family home is required to have two spaces on their property; not in the right-of-way. It has to be on the property. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. I’m open to discussion or a motion at this time? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to deny. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second to deny. All those in favor of denial, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] 15 Minor Subdivision – 1213 Solomon Avenue – Tony Petrea Ms. Otto – This is a lot on Solomon Avenue. For reference, the lot just to the south of it is Huc-A-Poo’s and the other little shops in Tybee Oaks. In your packet is the current plat for the property which shows that there are 2 lots, C-1 and C-2. C-2 is the entire remainder with the property line here [referring to PowerPoint]. The request before you is focused on lot C-2 and the request is to insert a property line at this area which would separate the part of the lot that has the swimming pool and the house from the end lot that is used for parking for other properties in the vicinity. The applicant is Tony Petrea. This lot is zoned R-1. One request by staff was that it be recorded onto the proposed plat that the lot would never be suitable for construction and that was accomplished. Mr. Parks – I understand the plat layout now. Is there any historical plat layout that would have shown this little tail piece not being a part of C-2? Is it possible that at some point this was added to C-2? Ms. Otto – The applicant can help you with that. At one time this whole vicinity was owned by Walter Crawford. These lots [referring to PowerPoint] were subdivided and these were access easements to get to these back lots. When that occurred, I believe that also created lots C-1 and C-2 as we see them on the current plat. Mr. Borkowski – Could you point out where the old line was and were the new line is? Ms. Otto – Currently lot C-1, which is over to the right, has a property line dividing it from C-2. This is wholly lot C-2 including the parking. What is before you this evening is the request to insert a property boundary here [referring to PowerPoint] to separate this left end from the remainder of lot C-2. Mr. Bishop – If approved, in creating the second substandard lot of record, what is the detriment in creating this? Ms. Otto – None with the stipulation that it could never be buildable. It does not meet the lot size required. Mr. Bishop – It is not buildable. I guess the question why are we doing this would be more appropriate. Ms. Otto – He is going to explain the reason. This is no detriment to creating this very small lot because of the stipulation that it could never be built on. Mr. Callahan – This is R-1 zoning, correct? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – Is it allowed in the code by right in an R-1? Ms. Otto – The use is allowed. Certainly parking lots would be allowed in R-1 but the small size of the lot is not allowed. In a different zone, we had an issue with an area that had been set aside as a green space in the vicinity of townhomes but it was never recorded that it wasn’t a buildable area. When the City was approached for potential construction on what was supposed to be green space but was never properly recorded as not being buildable, it resulted in a lot of legal issues. The comfort level, by having it stated on what would be the recorded plat if this is approved, that this is not suitable for construction will prevent that from occurring in the future. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody that would like to speak to this issue? Tony Petrea came forward and introduced himself. I do not own this property but I did sell it to the lady that owns it now. These lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, [referring to PowerPoint] are in an R-1 district. The lots on the hill are 4,500 square feet. At the time I purchased this property it ran from the easternmost property here and encompassed Daniels Street. When I purchased it, I also purchased lots 11 and 12 that had homes on them. At the time, these easements were not in place. There are easement here, here, and here [referring to PowerPoint]. Basically the people that lived on the hill 16 didn’t have any legal right to cross this property. Since one family owned all of it, it wasn’t a problem. As sometimes happens with families, there were some problems and I ended up purchasing the property. When I created the C-1 and C-2 lots, I made both of these lots around 8 or 9 thousand square feet which is less than the 12,000 rule. When I sold the property, what I did in trying to help the people that lived on the hill, I set aside these 7 spots on this end of C-2. You can see this area here, the City of Tybee owned Estill Avenue right-of-way but they didn’t have access to it. When I cut these easements through, we donated this to the City in case they ever wanted to have a green space or a walkway they would have an easement to it. I assigned two of these parking spaces to one of the houses on the hill and another two of the parking spaces for the hill and I left two of the parking spaces to go with this C-2 lot. Everything was fine until a couple of months ago when the owner decided she wanted to sell. The people that wanted to buy it and their lawyer came to the conclusion that I still owned several of these parking spaces that were tied in with her property. She has been paying property taxes since I sold it to her on these spaces. The people that wanted to buy it didn’t want these parking spaces; they didn’t want the liability. I think that deal may have fell through and another deal came about but we still had the same problem. My solution, after talking to my attorney, was to take this C-2 lot, cut off this little lip of land and I would retain ownership of those parking spaces and that would put the new property line here. She still would have about 8,500 square feet. The reason I’m here is so she can sell her property without any problems or encumbrances of those parking spaces. Her real estate agent and lawyer are saying that something has to be done in order for her to sell that property. I would own that property where the parking spaces are. There would be a deed restriction where there could never be a building. I think it is a good idea for us to keep these spaces. I’ve taken it at my expense to have the subdivision and legal work redrawn so that my friends that own the property on the hill will retain their parking spaces. That is the only reason I’m here tonight is to ensure that there is adequate parking and if you have seen that area, it is small. I would like you to take that into consideration as I think this is the only way the people can keep their parking spaces. Mr. Callahan – Who owns C-2 as it currently exists? Mr. Petrea – Ms. Inventanado owns from here all the way across to this point [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Callahan – You are going to buy that little piece of lot from her? Mr. Petrea – Thanks to our legal system, I still own those parking spaces. Mr. Callahan – You just said she owned them. Mr. Petrea – I still own the spaces. Mr. Callahan – But she has been paying the taxes. Mr. Petrea – That’s right. If she can get the county to figure out what she owes on that, I would pay her back. It’s a small space but that is how it worked out. Mr. Callahan – Does she have a space or two? Mr. Petrea – She does have spaces 6 and 7 which she can retain or not retain. I thought there was an easement there and for some reason I ended up owning 7 parking spaces. Mr. Callahan – You are saying the line could shift to between 5 and 6? Mr. Petrea – No. The property line will be here which is to the left of the easement to the upper lots. I can grant her access to those lots with an easement to those two parking spaces. Mr. Parks – Do those two spaces satisfy the requirement for the C-2 residents having 2 parking spots? 17 Mr. Petrea – They have plenty of parking here. Ms. Otto – Yes, there is space for 2 cars on her lot. Mr. Petrea – She has indicated she might not want it. It doesn’t matter to me, we just need more parking. Half the time we have to fight Huc-A-Poo’s clients from parking there. I am a builder that doesn’t ask for Variances which is a rarity on Tybee. It has to be something special, a real hardship. This is a hardship; she is a single mom and needs to sell the property. Mr. Parks – I don’t think it is a Variance? Ms. Otto – No. This is a subdivision. Mr. Bishop – Looking at this from just east of the C-2, if you go west all the way down to number 1, that is the current C- 2 lot. Mr. Petrea – That is correct. Mr. Bishop – That is currently owned by one individual. Mr. Petrea – Yes. Mr. Bishop – If this minor subdivision is approved, would she be required to deed that to you? Mr. Petrea – That is a question we will have to depend on the lawyers for but I assume so. Mr. Bishop – The entire C-2 is currently in her name. Mr. Petrea – That is correct. Mr. Bishop – Inclusive of the seven parking spaces. Mr. Petrea – Correct. Mr. Bishop – If approved, she would then deed it to you and there would be a legal description of that, and subsequently you would maintain care, custody, and control? Mr. Petrea – Exactly. Mr. Bishop – You would give her ingress/egress to two of those parking spaces. Mr. Petrea – If she so desires. Mr. Bishop – But it would no longer be within the legal description of her property. Mr. Petrea – Correct. Her property does encompass the easements to get to these lots on the western side of that property. 18 Mr. Parks – Are there other questions for the applicant at this time? [There were none.] Is there anybody else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. I am open to discussion or a motion. Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve the minor subdivision as referenced in the petition. Mr. Parks – Do we need to include the deed restriction? Ms. Otto – No. You are just considering this subdivision plat. Mr. Parks – I have a motion for approval. Do I have a second? Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion to approve, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Variance – 300 & 302 Second Ave. – Cory Scoville Ms. Otto – This is a duplex. The owner that recently acquired it is proposing a renovation and a permit has been issued for that project. During the tearout portion, the owner removed a set of stairs that are located on the north of the building. Those stairs accessed the second floor unit of the duplex; this is an over/under duplex, not side by side. Here is a photograph of where there had been a landing coming out of the second story door and the stairs that went down. As you can see from the survey, the landing and stairs were at the property line on Third Street. They were metal, very rusted, and did need to be replaced as part of this renovation project. The owner has requested that he be allowed to construct the landing larger than what had been there. Rather than being to the property line, it would be over the property line into the City’s right-of-way. The stair portion would be rebuilt as it had been along that property line and the building. The applicant is Cory Scoville, the general contractor for the owner, and he is here. Mr. Parks – It is an over/under duplex? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – Are there questions for staff? [There were none.] Do we have a representative that would like to speak to this? Cory Scoville came forward and introduced himself. I am the contractor for this project. Our concerns are that it is hard to get appliances, furniture, and injured people in and out of this building. You have a 3-foot by 3-foot landing at the top and two people and one appliance will not fit; it is hard to get in and out. They would like to make the landing at the top of the steps bigger. It is in the City right-of-way. I understand you don’t grant Variances very often. Mr. Parks – There is another stairway in the back, correct? Mr. Scoville – There is. That stairwell is operational the way it is so we don’t want to tear it out now. The stairs that we want to rebuild are already torn down and we just want to reconstruct it larger. To make the other stairwell larger, we would have to tear down the existing steps. Mr. Parks – There is no way to make the platform bigger for the existing ones? Mr. Scoville – On the other side. Mr. Parks – The landing. 19 Mr. Scoville – It is a metal set of stairs and landing. It would probably be better to tear them down and rebuild it with a larger platform. You could definitely build a larger set of steps and landing on the other side if they wanted to go through the expense of rebuilding it. We already have to go through the expense of rebuilding this set of steps because they fell off the building. It is easier to build a new set of steps with a bigger landing and if we do rebuild the other one, we would like for the landing to be larger as well. You would then have two means of egress. You could get injured people out on both sides. I don’t think two firefighters and a stretcher could navigate the 3-foot landing and the 90- degree turn, on either side, safely. Mr. McNaughton – What is the footage on the right side of the house between the house and the property line? Also, what is the setback? Mr. Scoville – Three-foot six to the property line. Mr. McNaughton – I’m trying to figure out if you could build the stairs on this side rather than going into the right-of- way on Third Street. Is it possible to do that? Mr. Scoville – You are talking about the eastern side? Mr. McNaughton – Putting the stairs there. If you’ve got enough space why not do it that way? I don’t know if you have enough. Mr. Scoville – We don’t. You are in the eaves of the building and with the slope of the roof it wouldn’t work. Ms. Otto – David, are you talking about on the back of the house? Mr. McNaughton – I’m talking about right here [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Scoville – It would be very expensive. Mr. Parks – That is where the roof slopes. Mr. Scoville – Where the two landings are now is the best place for the steps and the landing. It used to be in the center of the building. The way the gable roof comes down you would lose header quickly. Ms. Bramble – They are going to keep this as two separate apartments? Mr. Scoville – Correct. Ms. Bramble – Is there a stairwell inside that goes up to the second floor? Mr. Scoville – They are going to take those out completely and put a fire separation between the two units as required. This will be a multi-family use. The owners are from Atlanta and they want to retire to this house and live in the downstairs. They want to rent out the upstairs eventually but for now they want their kids to have that. Ms. Bramble – If you are keeping the steps in the same configuration as they were, the same size, it still would be extremely difficult to get anything up the stairs even if the landing was expanded. Mr. Scoville – That is correct. Three-foot six inches is the size of the stairs. You can walk up and down the steps, one person in front of the other. You could have an appliance in the middle, or a human on a stretcher, but when you get to the top of the landing you cannot make the 90-degree turn on a 3-foot landing. 20 Ms. Bramble – The south side stairwell that is remaining, is it the same size as the one that was pulled down? Mr. Scoville – Yes, it is the same size. If they decide to tear it down and rebuild those steps, they would build it larger but they don’t want to undergo the expense at this time. The steps on the Third Street side are already down and we need to rebuild them. They would also like for us to build the landing larger. Ms. Bramble – Wooden or metal? Mr. Scoville – Wooden. Ms. Bramble – On the south side, would there be enough room to expand it where you could bring in the appliances and stretchers and not ask for a Variance on the north side? Mr. Scoville – Absolutely if you wanted to go into the expense of building them. That’s really the issue. Mr. Marion – This is your one and only option you are throwing out there that you want to go with and yet there are other viable options that you are acknowledging could possibly play out just fine. It comes down to potentially the question of how much the owner wants to spend on this project. Mr. Scoville – That is correct. They could build a larger set of steps and a landing on the other side. For them, you’ve got two means of egress but a firefighter will take whatever exit is closer to him. It would be nicer to have a larger set of steps and landing on both sides. It is a big building; it is 3,500 square feet. The reason we had two means of egress was so you could go out the other side in case of fire. By all means they could build a bigger set of stairs and a landing on the other side. Mr. Marion – What I don’t see as viable is expanding out into the City right-of-way. Mr. Scoville – What about in the other direction if we don’t go out into the City right-of-way? We also asked to go three feet longer. Mr. Parks – Longer in what way? Mr. Scoville – Parallel to the house. Mr. Parks – Dianne, does that encroach onto anything? Ms. Otto – It’s a further extension into the required setback but it is still on their property. What he is describing is this little square in the former landing that was torn off. He is asking if they can double that lengthwise and have it be a rectangle rather than the square out into the right-of-way. Mr. Parks – It keeps it out of the right-of-way, correct? Ms. Otto – It does. There are 3 feet and 6 or 7 inches there. Mr. Parks – Would that eliminate the need for a Variance request? Ms. Otto – It would still need a Variance request because it is a further encroachment into a setback. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else from the public that would like to address this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion? 21 Mr. Marion – I make a motion to deny. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion to deny and a second. Those in favor of denial, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Special Review & Variance – 20 Taylor Street – Kyle Nikola Ms. Otto – There are two aspects to what we are doing tonight. One is Special Review and the other is a Variance. The Special Review portion is the removal of trees within the Shore Protection Area. As Section 3-100 states, you need Special Review approval to remove vegetation within the State’s Shore Protection Area. In your packet is a diagram of the tree plan which I have on the screen. The Shore Protection lines run along here [referring to PowerPoint] and then it follows the battery foundation and on out here. In this area, marked with x’s, are trees that are proposed for removal. Before they can apply to the Coastal Resources Commission and DNR to get a permit for those trees, the City of Tybee Island is required to take action on them. Code Section 3-100 includes Tybee’s requirement of there being a 10-foot setback from the toe of the landward most dune. Because that dune runs along the same place I just showed you, the Shore Protection line and the dune line are also along this battery wall. There is proposed construction within that 10- foot area as shown here with the hatched out areas. This requires Variance approval. All of these areas that the designer has x’ed out are all within 10-foot of the toe of the dune which is right along that battery wall. In addition, there is a section labeled C where they are proposing to square off because currently there is no structure there to support construction. They want to put some square footage, I think it is 33 or 35 square feet, in that area to square off that corner. There is a tiny area here on the tip that is also protruding into the 10-foot setback area. Some of this was considered at a prior meeting. The installation of the veneer was approved previously but it is anticipated that the Variance that was granted is going to expire because they still need to get the DNR permit before they can apply to Tybee for the building permit. The request is to renew the Variance because of the timeframe they are under. An approved Variance only lasts for 12 months. Mr. Parks – We will start with the Special Review for the trees. Questions for staff at this time? [There were none.] Ms. Otto – There is public input. I have a letter that needs to be read into the record and possibly some audience participation. Mr. Parks – Is there a representative that would like to address the tree section of this. Kyle Nikola came forward and introduced himself. With regards to the trees, a few of those trees are already dead. The other trees in that area are in the building site. To add the stone veneer, it would require removal of them. Mr. Parks – Against the wall by the driveway, the entrance, there is a tree graveyard where there are already several trees that have been cut and stacked against that wall. Were they permitted? Ms. Otto – No. We are working with them. Besides this Special Review for the trees that are in the DNR Shore Protection Area, there is another group of trees that are not subject to DNR jurisdiction and we are working with them on a tree plan and mitigation for those. The trees that were removed will be addressed when that permit is issued. Mr. Parks – None of those trees lying by the wall are in this area? Ms. Otto – They were not in the Shore Protection Area. Ms. Bramble – Did you not know that the palms were a protected tree on Tybee? Mr. Nikola – Are you talking about the ones in the DNR? 22 Ms. Bramble – All of them. Mr. Nikola – Yes, we do understand. We hired an environmental protection person, part of our group that you will see in the packet. We try to be proactive as possible. I have two gentlemen with me as well, architectural, survey, engineering, and environmental protection. We’ve tried to make sure that we are covering everything. We have a registered landscape architect that is working with the City with regards to tree mitigation. Ms. Bramble – Have you considered replanting the palm trees in another place? Mr. Nikola – Are you talking about the Shore Protection Area? Ms. Bramble – On your property. Mr. Nikola – There are going to be palms and different trees as well. Aesthetically we’re going to try and make it as beautiful as we possibly can. I’m very aware of the area and we’re making sure everything fits in with the surrounding area. Mr. Parks – Other questions? [There were none.] I’m going to close the public hearing on the Special Review for the trees. Do I have a motion or discussion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve the tree mitigation plan in conjunction with input from the City of Tybee staff to ensure it meets code and DNR requirements. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Moving on to the Variance request. Ms. Otto – In your packet is a narrative from the applicant that lists A, B, C, and D and those correspond to the plan that shows where these requests are. All of these do require approval under the Variance. Mr. Parks – A is already approved, we’re just re-approving. Ms. Otto – Yes. The request is that it be approved again and then it would have 12 months from when Council reconsiders it; if they re-approve, then the 12-month longevity would begin again. Instead of expiring in December it would expire a year from then. Mr. Callahan – What is A? Ms. Otto – A is the application of 2-3 inches of veneer on the exterior of the battery. It runs, as shown on your plan, all along the outside foundation of the battery which is within 10 feet of the toe of the dune. It is running along where you see the A’s on the map. Mr. Parks – Do we want to break this into four sections? Ms. Otto – That would probably be the simplest. I can go ahead and read this into the record. This is an email that was received today from Chris Sotus. “Dear Dianne. I am Chris Sotus the President of Seascape Condominium Association representing the owners of 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 32 Taylor Street. We are the immediate next door neighbors to 20 Taylor Street. We are vehemently opposed to a variance on the City of Tybee Island ordinance regarding building within the 10 foot setback from the toe of the landward most dune. Over the years variance requests have been brought to the commission regarding 20 Taylor Street by previous owners. The City has denied these requests. We believe that building the structure under the terms requested will negatively impact our property values as well as establish a poor precedence 23 of ignoring ordinances in place. These ordinances are there to protect property owners and our natural resources. We are prepared to take further action if need be, but hope that is not necessary. Please read this letter into the record at the upcoming commission meeting as I am unable to attend due to a previous business commitment out of town. Sincerely, Chris P. Sotus, Seascape Condominium Association.” Mr. Parks – Questions for staff on item A? Mr. Bishop – That is identical to the same that has been previously approved. There have been no additions, deletions, or modifications, is that correct? Ms. Otto – To my knowledge, that is correct. What is at the battery now are these walls. What I understand the project to be is in the areas of river and oceanfront because that is within 10 feet of the toe of the dune. It does require a Variance from Tybee but it would put the stone veneer on these battery walls. Their intent is to protect them. Here are a couple of renderings that were in your packet of what the veneer would look like once it is installed [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Bishop – If I recall correctly, that’s exactly the purpose for it previously when it was approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Ms. Otto – To prevent further degradation. Mr. Bishop – None of that has changed as far as our knowledge. A is indicated on this site development plan and I am assuming it is the same. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Nikola – It is an existing structure and adding stone veneer to it. Mr. Bishop – It is a preservation item? Mr. Nikola – Yes. Mr. Parks – Let’s move to item B. Ms. Otto – B states it’s a vertical building within 10-foot of the Tybee building setback line to the toe of the dune. What is proposed is all of these B shaded areas, where they would go up with vertical construction, the toe of the dune is at the battery wall and that area is within 10 feet of the toe of the dune and requires a Variance from the City of Tybee Island. In your packet are the renderings. For example, on the bottom one which is the view from the beach, you see columns, railings, and roof structure that would create a porch area. Because the sand dunes are right against this wall, that is within 10-foot of the toe of the dune and needs to be granted a Variance in order for this to occur. The same is true as you go around the building. There is more construction that is straight up from the battery foundation and the 10-foot toe of the dune line is running along there. That would need a Variance in order to be allowed. Mr. Borkowski – The walls that are already there, is that where the cross hatched area is all the way around? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Borkowski – They are not being extended? Ms. Otto – No, except for this small triangle [referring to PowerPoint] because it is not there now. It is cut out and doesn’t have a straight line. For all of the B’s, it is along the foundation and straight up. 24 Mr. Parks – I understand the need for a Variance request but the building is already there. Ms. Otto – We went through this on another project at the south end for Wistar Lewis. Because the way the toe of the dune is, even though it is vertical construction, it was within 10 feet. Mr. Parks – We approved, correct? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – Because it wasn’t going into the dunes. Ms. Otto – Because of Section 3-100, it doesn’t allow work within 10 feet of the toe of the dune. Mr. Marion – What is the height of this building? Ms. Otto – It is 49. Mr. Nikola – It is 35 feet from the 14. Ms. Otto – They have an average grade of 14, so 35 feet above that is 49 above sea level. It is a 35-foot structure. Mr. Nikola – We averaged it out about two years ago. Mr. Parks – Where did you draw the grade line from? Ms. Otto – Downer Davis and I used a topographic survey that was provided. We took an average, which is easy to do with a flat lot, but because of the topography there it was an average of the grades and 14 was the average. Their 35 feet height limit is measured from 14 feet above sea level which is why you see a 49-foot tall building. Mr. Callahan – Are there chimneys or other architectural features extending above 49 feet? Ms. Otto – Yes. The code section about height restrictions does not include elevator shafts, chimneys, or mechanical units on roofs; those are excluded. The equipment servicing the structure is not considered part of the structure. Mr. Callahan – What exactly are those features? Ms. Otto – Chimneys, elevator shafts, and mechanical units on top of buildings are not considered with the height restriction. You can have mechanical units in the setback as they are considered equipment serving the structure. Mr. Parks – Other questions? [There were none.] Moving onto C. Ms. Otto – That is the 33-square foot triangle that I mentioned earlier. Currently there is not a battery foundation in that triangle to build on. They are requesting to construct 33 feet to fill in the foundation upon which the vertical construction will occur. Again, because it is within 10 feet of the toe of the dune it would require a Variance to construct that. Mr. Parks – Questions for staff? [There were none.] That brings us to item D. Ms. Otto – That is the little point down at the other corner. It says it is 2.31 square feet. It already encroaches into the building setback line and they need to add the veneer in that area which is going to make it about 4 square feet. It is 25 labeled D. The building setback line is running there, just the tip of the battery that does not conform to the required setbacks for this lot. It already exists but they do need a Variance to further encroach with the stone veneer. Just to clarify, this was included in the previous Variance that was approved when the stone veneer was to be installed. It is understood that the building setback corner will be encroached another 2 or 3 inches with the application of the veneer. Mr. Parks – To remove that corner would require considerable sand and dune disturbance. Ms. Otto – Yes. It is also destroying part of the historic battery at that point. Mr. Parks – Discussion on item D? Mr. Bishop – Was item D previously approved? Ms. Otto – Yes. Ms. Otto – I think it was December when the Planning Commission heard that Variance request and Council approved it January 10th. After they go through City Council in November, they are going to need to get onto the schedule with DNR to get their permit. By the time they could apply back to Tybee for a building permit, that would be February and the previous approval of the Variance will have expired. Mr. Parks – Any discussion on items A through D for applicant or staff? Mr. Callahan – Are we voting on all four items? Mr. Parks – Or any combination that you prefer. Mr. Callahan – A and D have been previously approved and they are going to expire. Ms. Otto – Another 12-month period because of the anticipated time to get through DNR and get back to Tybee with a permit application. Mr. Bishop – This is in regards to the item you read into the record from Mr. Sotus. He makes a statement that Variance requests have been brought to the Commission by previous owners and the City has denied these requests. Are you familiar with these and are these the same we are reviewing tonight? Are they of the same type that have been previously submitted and denied? Ms. Otto – I recall when a prior owner had requested something on this property but I believe it was related to setbacks, I could be mistaken. Mr. Bishop – Nothing with regards to the current applicant. Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Nikola – This is the first time I’ve heard that email. Up to this point, I have been proactive with the neighbors in regards to the palm trees because we were talking that if there were any that we were not going to be using, we would offer the trees to them. I haven’t heard anything about this. We are not going any further out; we are going vertical from where the existing is. If there is an issue with that, we are more than willing to talk with them about it. I don’t foresee that being a problem. We’ve tried to be proactive in our conversations as much as we can. Obviously you can’t cross everything off. I want to be a good neighbor. Ms. Otto – For reference, on this map, the townhomes he is president of are these six units. 26 Mr. Nikola – Our property line goes up further but the toe of the dune is actually much further back than where it appears to be. Half of that property is the dunes. Mr. Bishop – Mr. [Mark]Boswell, in our packet was a letter to the fact that this structure is designed to meet or exceed hurricane requirements. Because of the elevation, do we have any issues? Also, Tybee requires drainage plans and those types of things. Mr. Boswell – What we are designing for is uplift and lateral movement on the building. We haven’t completed the design but we are working on it. Mr. Bishop – Dianne, drainage plans and those types of things, even though it is elevated, they will be submitted and that will have to be approved as well. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Boswell – We have already submitted the drainage plans and they have been approved except for two things. Downer [Davis] wanted us to straighten the drive out which we have already done. The other item was he wanted us to show a section through here and when it is designed we will include it. Those are the only two outstanding items. The rest of the drainage plan has been approved by him. Mr. Parks – Any other questions? [There were none.] I am going to close the public hearing on items A through D. I am open to any motion or discussion at this time. Mr. McNaughton – Move that A and D be approved. Mr. Parks – Do I have a second? Ms. Bramble – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second for approval of sections A and D, those in favor please signify. [Vote was 2-4 (McNaughton and Bramble for approval / Callahan, Bishop, Marion, and Borkowski denied)]. The motion as presented fails. Do I have another motion or discussion? Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to approve all four of them. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second to approve all four. All those in favor, please signify. [Vote was 5-1 (Bramble, McNaughton, Bishop, Marion, and Borkowski were in favor / Callahan was opposed)] Text Amendment – Section 3-220 – Amusement Parks Ms. Otto – Article 3, Section 220 reads simply that, “The sale of alcoholic beverages is not permitted on the property of any amusement park. Also, as required by Article V, Chapter 58, of the City Code, eating and drinking establishments must be housed in a fixed structure and certified by Chatham County Health Department.” It is believed that the ordinance dates back to long ago when there was an amusement park year-round on Tybee. We refer to this when there have been amusement park rides for special events such as this past weekend’s Pirate Fest that had a carousel and a Ferris wheel. The way the City has been attempting to meet the intent of this is by fencing the area of the rides and at the gate entry posting that no alcohol is allowed beyond this point. That seems to be working but it does not meet what it specifically states in this code in that the sale of alcoholic beverages is not permitted. On the grounds at Ocean Plaza there is a bar / restaurant that sells alcohol. By the City’s decision to go with the no alcohol beyond this point, we did 27 not fully meet the ordinance because there was alcohol for sale on the property. The same was true at Pirate Fest with us fencing the ride area and saying no alcohol beyond this point because there was still alcohol for sale on the property. It has been requested by the City Manager, because this is a Land Development Code, that this be brought to your attention. We do not like having codes on the books that we are obviously not following. We are bringing it to your attention to ask if you have any direction, or would it be appropriate to reword it as we are enforcing it, or would your preference be that we not be concerned about no alcohol beyond this point and rescind this entire section. What would be the will of this body, as a recommendation to Council, on how to go forward with amusement rides? Mr. Marion – If we totally rescind or delete, and put nothing else in place, what implications come about from that? Would it be free-for-all booze events or what does the City anticipate they may see if that is completely removed? Ms. Otto – If it was rescinded it would be in line with the other recently adopted ordinance that allows open containers of less than, however many ounces, to be in the area of amusement rides. It would still allow the sale and they could be in the same vicinity as the rides. If the preference would be that we kept the area of the rides posted as no alcohol beyond this point, then it would be a rewording of this text to get that into the code rather than the prohibition of the sale of alcohol. Mr. Marion – If we delete it, it would create a scenario that would be consistent with what the standard already is? Ms. Otto – For everywhere. Mr. Callahan – Are amusement parks fenced when these events occur? Ms. Otto – They have been because of this code. We have been requiring them to be fenced so we can put that perimeter of no alcohol beyond this point. I don’t know if they would have been otherwise. I think it would have been an open area with no gateway into them. It would have been part of the overall festival. Mr. Callahan – It should be fenced, in my opinion, for safety reasons. It looks like we could change a little bit of wording and make it work with what you are doing. You seem to be okay with the way you are doing it. Ms. Otto – I’m okay with the way we are doing it but it doesn’t comply with the ordinance. Mr. Callahan – If we were to say the sale and use of alcoholic beverages is not permitted within the fenced area around an amusement ride, wouldn’t that come close to what you are doing? Ms. Otto – It would still allow it to be sold on the property but not to be sold or used within the designated amusement ride area. Mr. Borkowski – I would like to say you could put the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages is not permitted on the property of any amusement park. My thought is, from a standpoint of safety, people drinking around those rides could get hurt. I don’t think you should get rid of it. Mr. Parks – I was just as concerned about eating and drinking establishments housed in a fixed structure. What is fixed? Are we saying no mobile trailers or hot dog stands? Ms. Otto – If you went to Pirate’s Fest, there was only one that was a cooking tent. It was a temporary structure. Mr. Parks – I would say they have to be certified by the Chatham County Health Department but that is redundant because if you are serving food you have to be certified anyway. 28 Ms. Otto – Yes. Again, I think this code is so old it dates back to when there was an amusement park, not dealing with festivals like we use it now. Ms. Bramble – Would it just be the area where the rides are and so many feet in front of the rides? Mr. Parks – I think it would be delineated by a fence. Ms. Otto – Yes. The last several times have been delineated by a fence with a posting that no alcohol allowed beyond this point. Mr. Bishop – If you read the history of this specific ordinance, the sale of alcoholic beverage is not permitted on the property of any amusement park. It goes back to when the property, at the time the amusement park was here, was owned by Tybee. Technically today, on the property means it is owned by the amusement park or the other entities. Legally to make this correct, it should be on the owned, leased, or rented property, in order to cover yourself. Most amusement parks and amusement rides do not own the property but they either lease or rent it by agreement. If we keep this, I would recommend that it be clarified. The sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages is not permitted on the property whether owned, leased, or rented, of any amusement park. Otherwise, on the property denotes ownership and that is not correct. Mr. McNaughton – If we take Rob’s suggestion, he didn’t talk about property, just not permitted within the fenced area around amusement rides and that way you don’t have to mention property. Mr. Bishop – If you are striking this current ordinance as it is written, it is true. I thought we had a recommendation of sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages is not permitted on the property of any amusement park. Mr. Callahan – That is what I said originally was in the fenced area. Mr. Borkowski – You could say the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages is not permitted within the confines of any amusement park. Mr. Marion – I recommend that we get rid of it. Let everybody who wants to have beer apply or petition the Council. We have no amusement park on the island. We only have minimal events that offer an amusement. It’s a bounce house with the exception of a Ferris wheel or our seafood festival that had trucked in rides on private property. We are not an amusement island anymore. My take is to completely get rid of it. Let Council handle it on a case-by-case scenario. Mr. Borkowski – My only thought about that is the consumption. People aren’t going to come and ask for a request to consume alcohol before they go to an amusement area. Mr. Marion – The individuals that patronize that area don’t care but the people putting on the event would care. Whether it is machinery, a movie set, or whatever, people are going to show up and if they don’t get a beer here they are going to go over there and get a beer. Mr. Parks – You are saying something like the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages may be limited at the time of special event review by City Council. Mr. Marion – I will gladly make that motion. Mr. Bishop – In that case you need to go back and look at the definitions. Amusement parks are defined as being a commercially operated park with booths for sale of food, drink, devices, and entertainment to include water slides and other things. I think if we’re going to do that you are going to have to take care of the amusement park definition. 29 Mr. Marion – When is a park a park? If I’m going here and they have a bounce house, does that constitute a park? Mr. Bishop – That is not defined. We only define amusement park. Mr. Marion – Tybee has not been known as an amusement destination that people can come and ride amusements. I think this should be deleted one hundred percent. Mr. Borkowski – It’s going more that way all the time by having more events. Ms. Otto – Obviously we just had an event where it came up and that is why it has been put on this agenda but there is no immediate plan for a Ferris wheel. Mr. Parks – You’re looking for a recommendation to go on to Council on how to word this. Ms. Otto – Yes. You don’t have to do that this evening. If you want to wait until the next agenda to think about it, that is fine. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion to delete on the table; do I have a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Ms. Bramble – I move that we table this. Ms. Otto – Continue is the word. Mr. Borkowski – I second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of a continuance, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Text Amendment – Section 4-050(C) – District Use Regulations; R-2, One- and Two-family Residential District Ms. Otto – Section 4-050 of our Land Development Code lists the various zoning districts and the uses that are permitted by right and uses permitted by Special Review. In some districts you have to have Site Plan and in some you have to have Special Review and Site Plan. For uses permitted by right in R-2, it says to go back to everything that is uses by right in R-1 plus you can have two-family dwellings or a duplex. When you get to the Uses Permitted After Special Review, of the items listed under R-1, only one of those, which is Home Occupations, is allowed in R-2. What staff is proposing, at a minimum, two of the other items under zone R-1 as Uses Permitted After Special Review be added to the R-2 zone as Uses Permitted After Special Review. The two uses are bed and breakfast, residential, and guest cottages. It is likely that already in the R-2 zone are these two types of things. There is a resident interested in asking for a bed and breakfast in an R-2 zone, but based on the current code section the applicant could not come forward. A Text Amendment needs to occur first. Staff is open to any suggestions you may have. Mr. Callahan – Personally I’m okay with adding those two items but why not the other five items as well? Ms. Otto – That is completely up to you. It is the two that staff is proposing that are known to already exist. I don’t know that R-2 has any schools; actually I think the St. Michael’s facility is in an R-2. I’m open to any or all of those. Mr. Parks – Why wouldn’t this have been added when the ordinance was originally written? Ms. Otto – I do not know. There was confusion when this was read and it said under Uses Permitted by Right, uses permitted in R-1, it was mistakenly interpreted that meant everything that was in R-1. My interpretation is that it is more specific to that. Under Permitted after Special Review they have only moved one of those items down there. 30 Mr. Bishop – It says Uses Permitted in R-1 Residence District under R-1 Residence includes that paragraph and sub 1 and 2. Ms. Otto – Two different interpretations; we definitely need to clarify it. Mr. Bishop – It is there. R-1 Residence District, you could say it is included in everything. Ms. Otto – Which is simply adding the statement Uses Permitted in R-1. Mr. Bishop – Correct. If that is the intent. Ms. Otto – If that is your intent that is fine with me. Mr. Parks – Did you want to make a motion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion Uses Permitted in R-1, Residence District is also included in Uses Permitted after Special Review. Ms. Otto – The way I would translate what the motion is, instead of having what is in red now, there would just be A, and it would read Uses Permitted in R-1 Residential. Mr. Bishop – That is the intent. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Meeting ended at 10:20 PM Minutes by Jerris Bryant