Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20101014 Minutes Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 1 of 14 20101014 City Council Minutes DRAFT Mayor Jason Buelterman called the Consent Agenda meeting to order at 6:30pm on Thursday, October 14, 2010. Council Members present were Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions, Wanda Doyle, Bill Garbett, Frank Schuman, Sr., Kathryn Williams and Paul Wolff. Also present were City Attorney Bubba Hughes, City Manager Diane Schleicher and Zoning Director Jonathan Lynn. Mayor Buelterman listed the following items on the Consent Agenda: August 26, 2010 Minutes(with corrections from Kathryn Williams) Agreement between the City and Tybee Arts Association with the addition of “in consideration of the city providing certain services” added Mayor Buelterman adjourned the Consent Agenda. Mayor Buelterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00pm. Those present at the Consent Agenda were also in attendance for the regular meeting. Shirley Sessions gave the invocation and everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mayor’s Announcements Mayor Buelterman announced that Halloween on Lewis Avenue would be held on Saturday, October 30th. Mayor Buelterman expressed gratitude for everyone involved in Pirates Fest last weekend. He said it was a great event. Mayor Buelterman thanked everyone that attended the charter school meeting last week. Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions requested candy donations be brought by City Hall for the Police Department and staff to distribute to the residents of Lewis Avenue. Recognitions and Proclamations Employee of the 3rd Quarter -Dianne Otto Mayor Buelterman presented a certificate and a check for $50 from American Express to Ms. Otto for her dedication and service to Tybee Island. Mayor pro tem Sessions thanked Larry and Dianne Otto for their volunteer efforts at the various events on Tybee. Vicky Buck and Lindsey Fruchtl gave the Tybee Tourism Council’s Quarterly report. Noted in the report was that Hotel Motel Tax on Tybee is up 25% from the same time last year. Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 2 of 14 Wanda Doyle expressed her gratitude to Vicky and Lindsey for their hard work. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular meetings of the Tybee Island City Council. September 9, 2010 Minutes-approval postponed. Consideration Local Requests & Applications-Funding, Special Events, Alcohol License Catamount Constructors – Request to place a temporary sign for the Energy Efficiency Project in progress on the buildings of Memorial Park. Mayor Buelterman asked if there was an inconspicuous place for this sign to be posted. Mr. Lynn proposed placing it on one of the side streets of Memorial Park. Mayor Buelterman asked what the sign was required to have on it. Mr. Lynn said if you advertise the project at all the sign has to include some sort of publicity saying this project has been funded with ARRA Funds. Mayor Buelterman asked if there could be a small sign placed in the window of City Hall saying this project is funded by ARRA funds. Mr. Lynn said yes. Mayor pro tem Sessions said she doesn’t have an issue with a sign being put up saying who the contractor is and where the funds came from but there was no work going on and that is the reason it drew so much attention. Mr. Lynn said the sign preceded the work by four or five days. Mr. Wolff said the reason he likes the sign is the contractors contact number is on it for the public to get in touch with them if there are issues or questions. He kind of liked the idea of them personalizing the sign with the city logo and the ARRA statement so that people will know what we are doing. He noted the new lights in the auditorium are saving 43% in energy over the previous lights. A Motion by Paul Wolff to approve allowing the Community Development Director to find a place for the Catamount sign and ask the company to modify it and add the city logo and the required ARRA statement regarding our energy efficiency project was seconded by Bill Garbett. The vote was Wolff, Garbett, Schuman, Sessions and Williams in favor and Doyle opposed. Consideration of Bids, Contracts, Agreements and Expenditures Change Order-#2 GEFA ECBG -to install energy saving/reducing overhead fan and delete middle row of lights in city hall auditorium. Cost $4,318 Budget Line #100-6210-54-1450 Mr. Lynn said we are having weekly progress meetings with the contractor and were talking about the ways we could have additional energy savings. He said they had Ga. Power give the city a free energy audit about a month ago and one of their recommendations to decrease the Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 3 of 14 overall energy by 4 or 5% was to install a big fan located in the middle of the auditorium where the lights were removed. He said this would require a change order for $4,318 to have that installed. The city would cover the additional $750 for a Structural Engineer to certify how it needs to be installed. Wolff said he recently found where non-profits are eligible for a 20% Ga. Power rebate on lighting efficiency projects. He said he has confirmed that since the YMCA uses the Gym, their building and a percentage of the old school, those buildings will qualify. He said Tybee should end up getting back between $9,000 and $10,000 for the lighting projects in those three buildings and we can use that money for the change orders that will be coming. Mayor Buelterman asked Mr. Wolff to explain where the money is coming from. Mr. Wolff said the grant is federal stimulus money redirected through the State of Georgia Environmental Financing Authority and is roughly $300,000 for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. He said our project incorporates every building in the park and we are starting with City Hall. He said the other buildings include the Gym, YMCA, Old School, Fire House and Cafeteria He said the total award was $299,677 for Tybee. Mayor Buelterman asked if it looked as if the city will be able to do everything that we want. Wolff said the way the grant is structured; we are rolling over the energy savings of around $65,000 annually into a revolving loan fund. He said for up to 10 years we can maintain rolling the money back to the city until we get all of these buildings to be carbon neutral. When we have achieved carbon neutrality, our intent is to open this fund up to residents and businesses so that they can do the same kind of retrofits to their homes and pay the city back out of their energy cost savings. Mayor pro tem Sessions said it would be nice if council could have an expense worksheet showing the initial amount of the grant and the project expenses as well as the change orders in order to track how the project is proceeding. Ms. Doyle asked why the $750 is being paid by Tybee and not the grant. Mr. Lynn said in order to avoid an additional change order he was able to find that amount in his departmental budget under engineering. Doyle asked what if we need that money before the end of the year. Lynn said council could increase the change order for the $750 making the change order for $5,068 total. Mayor Buelterman verified that the name of the fan will not be listed on anything. Ms. Williams asked if the city had any knowledge of, if the ceiling would support the fan without entailing engineering costs. Mr. Lynn said no, they assume it will support it but they want the structural engineer to tell them it will. Ms. Sessions asked if the $5,000 could be spent somewhere else in order to make a greater impact on energy efficiency. Mr. Lynn said there may be another place it could be used but for right now City Hall is the best option because it continually circulates air. Mr. Wolff said according to the energy auditor it will reduce the cost for heating and cooling this room by a minimum of 4% and according to the manufacturer it could go as high as 16%. He said they could put the money into solar panels but he believes the return on the fan will be much quicker. Ms. Doyle asked why this wasn’t a part of the RFP from the beginning as well as the Ecobee Thermostats. Mr. Wolff said the first energy audit done by Ga. Power was not as thorough as the second one we Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 4 of 14 received through a grant from DNR and the recommendations came after the contract was written. Mr. Garbett said he is also concerned with this being the best use for that money as Sessions mentioned and he doesn’t know if it is. He asked who could answer that question. Mr. Wolff explained that the rule of thumb for return on investment for solar panels is 20 to 22 years. He said if they save 5% on energy cost with the fan that would be a 20 year return on the investment. Mayor Buelterman thanked Mr. Wolff for all of the work he is doing on this grant. Mayor pro tem Sessions said Ga. Power came out to her place of work and conducted an energy audit because they are a part of the sustainable partnership. She said they were given suggestions on how to be more efficient energy wise. She said they have had to look closely in order to determine the short term and long term energy efficient impacts and the money they have to spend. Mr. Garbett asked if this decision had to be made tonight. Mr. Lynn said the decision has to be made soon because foam insulation is going to be installed within the next 7 to 10 days and it would need to be installed before the insulation is done. Ms. Williams asked if the contractors agree with the recommendation by Jason Perry who was the research engineer from UGA. Mr. Wolff said he doesn’t know how familiar the contractor is with the product but they said the reasoning is sound on the energy savings. A Motion by Paul Wolff to approve the change order for $5,068 to acquire a BA Fan for City Hall was seconded by Frank Schuman. Mr. Lynn said there is no other product on the market to compare this fan to; making the manufacturer like a sole source provider. Ms. Sessions said her concern would be that this manufacturer is the only one that can fix the product and there would be no other resources for parts. The vote was Wolff, Schuman, Garbett and Williams voting in favor and Doyle and Sessions opposed. Agreement between the City and Tybee Island Tourism Bureau, Inc Taken off of the agenda Consideration of Approval of Consent Agenda A Motion to approve by Bill Garbett was seconded by Kathryn Williams. The vote was unanimous. Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 5 of 14 Public Hearings 1. Request for Setback variance, #411B Butler Avenue (4-0004-21-0010). LDC Section 3-090, Applicant/Owner: Colin Stewart Mr. Lynn explained that Mr. Stewart is requesting to encroach on the Southern side of the property in order to build a porch coming out from his second story. He has submitted a revised narrative received today. Even though it will take up almost the entire setback, it will not encroach on the city’s right of way. Paul Wolff said it seems his primary argument is to provide a second ingress and egress to his property for emergencies but he doesn’t see new doors or a new set of stairs. He said Mr. Stewart would have to jump off of the deck or go down the existing stairs so Mr. Wolff doesn’t see it serving that purpose. Ms. Williams said in reading the minutes from the Planning Commission Mr. Lynn stated that the code required 4,500 sq. ft. and this property is 1,860 feet so would this be a substandard lot of record. Mr. Lynn said yes by definition in our ordinance. Mr. Garbett read from the Planning Commission minutes and he asked Lynn if this qualified under section 5-90 for a hardship. Mr. Lynn replied this would allow Stewart to go for a variance because of the physical characteristics of the lot. He asked how a lot that was created willfully and is a substandard lot creates a hardship. Mr. Hughes said he doesn’t know if this is a substandard lot of record or when it was created which could impact the hardship claim. He said assuming it is a uniquely sized lot as compared to the required lot size in a neighborhood and has been held by at least one of our Superior Court Judges to create circumstances adequate to justify granting a variance; In particular a setback variance. Mr. Garbett asked even if the owner created the situation. Mr. Hughes said very few sub standard lots of record were created by the owner. Most of them relate back to 192? when the island was platted into individual lots. Mr. Garbett said this house was built in 1985 according to the tax information. Mr. Hughes said he is not familiar with the tax information on this house. Ms. Williams said under our current code which is under review tonight in Article 3, given the lot size and what is required by code this would be considered a non conforming structure? Mr. Hughes said consistent with the zoning yes if it is a substandard lot of record it would be a nonconforming structure. Ms. Williams said in code section 3-020, continuance of non conforming structures, we have gone over this article repeatedly. It says it cannot be extended or expanded if it’s a non conforming structure. Mr. Hughes said this is a unique piece of property and he is not sure it is nonconforming given the timing of when the structure was built and its location. He said if it was in fact built in the 1980’s it would not be a substandard lot of record because it had to have been created prior to 1972. he said it is obviously a unique lot having a duplex there in what was the park property. He asked how this this property is shown on the zoning map. Mr. Lynn said it is shown as R-2. Mr. Hughes said if our zoning map says it’s R-2 then it is R-2, it would be a nonconforming structure. Ms. Williams said which we are Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 6 of 14 prevented by our current code to allow any expansion or extension. Mr. Hughes said of the footprint that is correct. He said that same provision does allow for the expansion of nonconforming residences as long as it does not exceed 50% of the footprint in connection with the rebuilding and variances as to that prohibition on expanding have been granted as well. Mr. Hughes said Mr. Lynn’s point is the deck is not an extension of the footprint because it is not habitable space. He said setbacks apply to decks so without a variance as to the setback, whether or not it’s nonconforming, it couldn’t be approved. Ms. Sessions said in the interest of being consistent there have been decks in the past in similar situations and she hasn’t heard this type of argument from the city and she is trying to determine how this is different. Mr. Lynn said he thinks the reason this one is different is because it is a substandard lot of record. Mr. Lynn said R-2 requires 4500 sq ft for a standard lot and this lot is a little over 1800. So pending if it was done before the date he believes is 1971 or sometime around there, it would be a substandard lot based upon that and it’s also not 4500 sq ft. He said all of the other decks they have had recently have dealt with setbacks without this potential caveat being in there. Mr. Hughes said it is no doubt a substandard lot but it may not be a substandard lot of record which has a particular meaning in the code. Mr. Wolff said every lot that has a duplex on it and is subdivided is pretty much going to be a substandard lot. He said it doesn’t make a lot of sense to apply the same standards for substandard lots to a duplex as we do a single family home because you are essentially building one structure and cutting it down the middle and the lot with it. Mr. Lynn said staff would not allow that to be created right now. They would have to meet the minimum requirements before they subdivided it. Mr. Wolff said the duplex lot would require 6750 sq ft and cutting it in half would still result in a substandard lot. Mr. Hughes said half of a subdivided duplex lot is not a nonconforming lot. It conforms. Mr. Collin Stewart explained that egress wasn’t the primary reason they wanted the deck but it was one of the added reasons. He said adding the deck you would have a second egress by coming out of one of the windows and you would drop to the deck instead of from the second story down to the ground. He said it wouldn’t be ideal but would be a second point of egress. He said they want to add curb appeal and have an additional place to gather. He said they plan to move the power lines away from the deck to improve the esthetics. A Motion by Frank Schuman to approve was seconded by Wanda Doyle. Mr. Garbett said he couldn’t vote to approve this because if Mr. Stewart wanted egress all he would need is a balcony. He said this is a precedence that doesn’t need to be passed. The vote tied with Schuman, Doyle and Sessions in favor and Garbett, Williams and Wolff opposed. Mayor Buelterman broke the tie in favor of the motion for Approval. Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 7 of 14 2. Text Amendment, Land Development Code, Article 9 in its entirety. Mr. Lynn said this request is from staff. This article deals with building regulations because while reviewing the code they discovered some serious discrepancies that need to be corrected as quickly as possible. He said they do not have code enforcement in their department any longer and wanted to change the ordinance to reflect that. He said it will reference the building official where the City Marshal used to handle those issues. Mr. Lynn said this ordinance is also where we address the two means of egress under 9-050(c). Mayor Buelterman asked if this change would increase the number of people applying for variances to create the second egress point. Mr. Lynn said it shouldn’t because they cannot retroactively make people do that. If they want it done they have to do it on their own. He said the possibility is always there. Mr. Lynn said we added the life safety and hurricane resistance residential construction code, being we are in the highest velocity wind zone that you can possibly be in. Mr. Wolff said in section 9-030 it says a permit must be secured for all new construction, all interior and exterior alterations and all interior and exterior property repairs which could be interpreted to mean if you want to change a light bulb or paint a room you have to have a permit. He said he doesn’t think that is the intent. Mr. Lynn said normally the only thing they tell people they don’t need a permit for is painting. He said if you’re changing out a light bulb we understand but if you’re changing out a toilet, you might have to redo piping or other access points and we would like to know about that. Mr. Wolff said he understands and would like to add: with the verbal approval from the community development department. He said Mr. Lynn’s explanation made more sense but he would be violating the code if he gave authorization without a permit. Mr. Hughes said he would work on the verbiage for the 2nd reading. reading. Ms. Williams asked if they could add something referencing cosmetic improvements such as painting, carpet, tile, etc. Ms. Doyle said she has had several people tell her they had to get a permit to remove and install new carpet. Mr. Lynn said a lot of old residences on Tybee have wooden floors and when you pull the old carpet up to access the wood floor there could be damage and you have to start replacing them and could actually interfere with the floor joist; which is where the permit comes in to make sure the floor joist are in tack when you are redoing the floor. He said it isn’t for the carpet itself but what it affects. Ms. Doyle said what if I had a new home and wanted to pull up the carpet, would I need a permit? Mr. Lynn said yes. Ms. Doyle said after the last election, council was standing out in front of city hall waving and someone drove by in a pickup truck and said I voted for you but I had to get a permit to put carpet in my house. She said she has problems with that. Ms. Doyle said she had a citizen come up to her this week and tell her he was putting a wooden flower bed in on Jones in front of his house and was approached by the building inspector and was told he had to have a permit to put the flowerbed around the tree. Mr. Lynn said if he was installing a garden pathway of brick pavers he would need a permit. If the work is valued at under $500 the permit is free. Mr. Frank Schuman said he Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 8 of 14 agreed with Ms. Doyle and said sometimes he thinks we are permit happy. He said if you want to do something to your house and you’re not messing with the structure, he doesn’t see the need to get a permit to replace the carpet in your house or put a flowerbed around your tree or any kind of landscaping around your house. He feels sometimes we go overboard on the permit thing. Mayor Buelterman asked what article permit requirements would be in. Mr. Lynn said article 5. Ms. Doyle asked what article the permit costs are in. Mr. Hughes said article 9. He said we adopted a fee schedule a while back. Mr. Lynn said we were using another fee code when he came to work here and so the old fee schedule presently contained in the code is non applicable. He said that is one of the main reasons for changing the code. Mr. Hughes said code revisions have been going on a long time and we are trying to catch up with the practice. Ms. Williams said we can’t negate the value of having certain certain improvements regulated because its not only for the safety of the property owner but it is for the adjacent neighbors as well. Mr. Wolff said his only concern over this article is adding exclusion for cosmetic repairs to include but not limited to carpet, etc. Ms. Sessions said she can remember back in 1999 there were committees reviewing these ordinances because this is a living document and will always be changing. She said understanding the intent of the changes would be helpful. Mr. Lynn said he can address article 9 real quickly; it is outdated; codes are listed that we don’t enforce and there are codes mandated by the state that are not listed in here and it has wrong personnel listed in the wrong department. A Motion by Kathryn Williams to approve with the understanding that staff will amend the last sentence on the 2nd page regarding cosmetic improvements was seconded by Shirley Sessions. Ms. Doyle asked if Article 5 contained the meat of the permitting process, etc. Mr. Lynn said yes but it it hasn’t gone through Planning Commission yet. Mayor Buelterman asked if Chief Sasser had been consulted since this article contained fire safety concerns. Mr. Lynn said Chief Sasser had reviewed the ordinance and was in favor of the changes, especially providing the two means of egress to structures for public safety. Ms. Doyle asked if everyone agreed that the while under construction the owners of the house… needed to be in the ordinance. Ms. Williams said that would not prevent a person doing construction on their property from working out an agreement with their neighbors. It would prevent them from parking a dump truck in front of your house everyday while they are working on a project down the street. Mr. Lynn said correct, if you can work it out with your neighbor that would not apply. The vote was unanimous. 3. Text Amendment, Land Development Code, Article 3 in its entirety Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 9 of 14 Section 3-190: Mayor Buelterman opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Lynn said this would add additional requirements that are not in place at this time such as a drainage plan and this is not just for pools because we have a lot of spas and saunas and that language has been added as well. Mayor Buelterman asked if this would include the decking for the pool. Mr. Lynn said yes. Mayor Buelterman asked if the decking could go up to the property line as long as the pool was five feet back. Mr. Lynn said yes and it would have to be pervious and could not be concrete. Mr. Wolff said he is concerned that this ordinance has no reference to marsh buffers. Mr. Lynn said DNR would regulate that. Mr. Wolff said they do not preclude putting swimming pools in marsh buffers. Mr. Wolff said he would like to have some local control over that risk. Mr. Garbett suggested approving as written and then going back and revisiting the buffer part. Mr. Lynn suggested if council wants to add within five five feet of the marsh buffer they could add it under section (e) no swimming pools, saunas or spas shall be placed on or across any utility easements nor within five feet of any marsh buffer. Mr. Wolff suggested the addition of, as delineated by the DNR in order to define the word buffer in sections 3-190 and 3-200. Mayor Buelterman closed the Public Hearing. A Motion by Paul Wolff to approve with addition of Swimming Pools, Saunas and Spas cannot be located within 5 feet of the Marsh Buffer as delineated by DNR was seconded by Kathryn Williams. The vote was unanimous. Section 3-200 Mayor Buelterman opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Wolff said he would be okay with just the addition of no more than 100 square feet of impervious surface located in the Marsh Buffer as delineated by the DNR. Mr. Garbett said sometimes he thinks we misunderstand the purpose of a buffer. What we are prohibiting construction in is the marsh and we then have an adjacent area we limit construction in. A deck made of pervious materials according to the DNR standards is 100 sq ft. and in his opinion that is a reasonable activity. Mayor Buelterman asked why not just leave it up to the DNR. Mr. Wolff said because they do not always enforce it consistently. Mr. Wolff said the functionality of the marsh buffer is not just the fact that it is a permeable area but that it has native vegetation and Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 10 of 14 those plants in the buffer perform ecosystem services in terms of filtering out pollutants that would otherwise go into the water. He would not have a problem with allowing 100 square feet of permeable patio or deck in the buffer. Any more than that and you would be eliminating the vegetation performing those services that make the buffer the system that it is. Mr. Schuman asked if you build a swimming pool in your back yard and you are not near a marsh line, would DNR still need to get involved in the permit. Mr. Lynn said no they would not have jurisdiction at that point. Mayor Buelterman closed the Public Hearing. A Motion by Paul Wolff to approve with additional language that no more than 100 sq feet of decks or patios can be located within the marsh buffer as delineated by the DNR was seconded by Kathryn Williams. Ms Williams said the DNR has gotten very strict about dock construction and she is sure everyone has read the articles about marsh shading. She thinks this this goes hand in hand with trying to protect the environment and it certainly will help with erosion. Mr. Garbett said he hates to put us in a position where we can’t do something someone on Wilmington Island would be permitted to do. He thinks the rules ought to be the same for everybody in the same situation. Ms. Williams said Tybee is the only place in Georgia that has a Marine Construction ordinance which requires a marine contractor to be licensed and insured and that’s because of the accidents that happened, there was no insurance and the tax payers were left to pick up the tab. She likes consistency in laws but just because other governmental agencies have not been proactive, she doesn’t think they should use it as an excuse. Mr. Wolff said the unified code that Chatham County is reviewing and will probably adopt has extended the marsh buffer to 35 feet. Mr. Wolff said we can’t go wrong by being smarter than they are and having local ordinances that do a better job with protecting our eco systems. Ms. Sessions asked if we have what we need in order for staff to enforce this. Mr. Lynn said it would be tough to enforce but we do require as built drawings at the end of a project and we do have authority to enforce that , if we thought they had more than 100 sq ft in that area. The vote tied with Wolff, Williams, and Schuman in favor and Doyle, Garbett and Sessions opposed. Mayor Buelterman broke the tie in opposition to the motion. A Motion by Bill Garbett to approve section 3-200 as written was seconded by Wanda Doyle. Ms. Williams asked for an explanation on exactly what the council was opposed to in the last motion. Ms. Sessions explained that she didn’t feel that Mr. Lynn felt that his staff could Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 11 of 14 enforce this. She said we already have ordinances that staff cannot enforce and she believes council should consider enforceability of an ordinance before adopting it. Mr. Garbett said he prefers to have a uniform procedure throughout the county. He would like to see DNR enforce this and evaluate these things on a case by case basis. The vote was Garbett, Doyle, Schuman and Sessions in favor and Williams and Wolff opposed. Section 3-050 Mr. Garbett said he has done a lot of background work on this because of the proposal to establish the clear vision triangle based on the center line of the right of way. He spoke with Jonathan this afternoon and gave several illustrations of how that would be foolish. He said we would end up with a low triangle on the Street with no protection. He proposed replacing 3-050 with the following: The first paragraph would remain as written which would be intersection requirements are intended to provide better vehicle safety on the public roads of the city. A clear sight triangle gives motorist a view of other on coming motorist when approaching a road intersection. He would change the second paragraph to read: On corner lots within all zoning districts, no fence, shrubbery, wall or other obstruction to the traffic sight vision except utility poles, light poles or sign standards shall exceed the height of three feet above the level of the adjacent driving surface to ten feet above the level of the adjacent driving surface. Within a triangular area formed by the intersection of the right of way lines of two Streets and the diagonal line which intersects the right of way lines at two points, each twenty five feet from the intersection of the right of way lines or in the case of a rounded corner from the point of intersection of their tangents except where sight conditions require greater or lesser setbacks as determined by a traffic engineer. He said this basically keeps the setback as it is but allows traffic signs, poles, etc. It is a public safety issue and we do need to maintain these clear vision triangles wherever we can. Mr. Lynn said staff agrees with this because it does give that ability for a traffic engineer or engineer to certify that this is not an obstruction. Ms. Doyle said she has been reading and studying all of these ordinances all week and she is not prepared to vote on an ordinance that she received when she got to the council table tonight. Mayor Buelterman asked for this ordinance to come back for the next meeting with the information included in the council packets. Ms. Williams asked who would be responsible for the traffic engineer’s fees. Mr. Lynn said we use our contracted engineer with our department but if our engineer does not feel comfortable doing that, then we would leave it up to the property owner to be responsible for those fees. Mr. Carter said the wording on this ordinance is a really standard thing. He said it is almost word for word what Savannah’s is. Mayor Buelterman asked since Hwy 80 is under the state, if their ordinance would trump Tybee’s. Mr. Lynn said the state allows us to enforce our own ordinances unless they are called in to do a review. Mr. Hughes said the only time he Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 12 of 14 can recall the DOT being called in recently is for a curb cut and that would trigger sight requirements. Ms. Sessions asked Mr. Lynn if he could give an example of a location on Tybee where this situation would be a safer occurrence to have in place instead of what we currently have. Mr. Lynn said what we currently have would say if you have anything within twenty five feet of the property line and the right of way lines, it has to be under three feet. However, not long ago we had a request along Butler Ave. and this is where the traffic engineer would probably have been triggered to come out and look to see if it was a hazard; Given the fact that there was a parking lane and other extenuating circumstances there. He said this is the exception and not normally the rule. Mr. Lynn said he will make sure he has an illustration when this ordinance comes back. Mayor Buelterman closed the Public Hearing. Section 3-250 Mayor Buelterman opened the Public Hearing Mr. Hughes said this ordinance is not changed from what Tybee currently has. Mr. Wolff said it states there will be an annual review of compliance but it doesn’t include specific language in which to say that at anytime the license can be revoked for failure to comply with their agreement with the city. Mr. Lynn said they agreed not to put that language in because it is in their normal business license section. Ms. Schleicher said council may want to consider having the private parking lots go through Columbus Day. Ms. Doyle said in her opinion there is no one out here after school starts and the change would hurt city parking. Ms. Schleicher said the only reason was to allow private parking lots for Pirates Fest or to add Pirates Fest as a festival where we would allow it to be open because Pirates Fest takes up one of our biggest parking lots. Ms. Doyle said the ordinance already has times shall be with special events or holiday weekends and she thought that included all special events. Ms. Schleicher said staff interpreted it that you could not have a private parking lot after Labor Day. Mr. Hughes said it was intended that you could do special events and he wasn’t aware that staff interpreted it that way. He said in general it would be in connection with special events or holiday weekends or holidays and the heavy tourist season and shall include all dates. He said that is conjunctive, it adds. Mr. Lynn said in terms of what Mr. Hughes said, staff is good. Ms. Doyle said she thought it did include special events. Mayor Buelterman closed the Public Hearing. Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 13 of 14 A Motion by Paul Wolff to approve as written was seconded by Kathryn Williams. The vote was unanimous. Section 3-010 Mr. Hughes said it doesn’t need a motion if you aren’t changing anything. Section 3-030 Mayor Buelterman opened the Public Hearing Mr. Lynn said this only has language clarification. Mayor Buelterman asked if it had substantial impact on the property owner. Mr. Lynn said none whatsoever. Mr. Garbett asked if it would be wise to set a minimum lot width so that we don’t have people coming in, asking for variances because of irregular lot sizes. Mr. Lynn said he felt the width would not be effective given they have to meet the minimum lot size in addition to the required setbacks. He said you would not be able to have a 30 foot lot; it actually by nature would be bigger than that. Mr. Hughes said this ordinance has not been the major source of any problems compared to the variance standard itself and the setback issues. Mayor Buelterman closed the Public Hearing. A Motion by Kathryn Williams to approve as written was seconded by Paul Wolff. The vote was unanimous. Consideration of Ordinances, Resolutions 2nd Reading for an ordinance to create section 66-185 regarding use of parking decals and limitations thereon and to provide a new effective date. Mayor Buelterman asked if the 1st reading was approved at the last meeting. Mr. Hughes said not at the last meeting but at the meeting before that. He said there were some language problems with the draft previously that was in the packet for 2nd reading and so 2nd reading did not occur. He said he hopes one of the two versions in the packet tonight gets the language correct. Ms. Sessions asked which of the two versions was on the website. Mr. Hughes said both versions should be on the website. Ms. Schleicher said both versions were in her packet. Prepared 10/15/2010vw Page 14 of 14 A Motion by Kathryn Williams to adopt on 2nd reading the 2nd version on pages 86 and 87 and the changes from the first document would be: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Code, decals applied to trailers, recreational vehicles, and boat trailers may not be used to authorize parking for more than 24 hours in one parking space from Memorial Day weekend beginning at 12:00 a.m. on Friday of the Memorial Day weekend through the Labor Day weekend ending at 12:00 p.m. on Labor Day. Commercial trucks and commercial vans with parking decals may not occupy a parking space for more than 24 hours on weekends and holidays from Memorial Day to Labor Day. She feels this will address the concerns of staff and considers some of the concerns expressed by business owner’s. She thinks this is a good compromise. The motion was seconded by Paul Wolff. Ms. Doyle asked other members of the parking committee and staff why they decided on 24 hours in the beginning. Ms. Schleicher said because they would be forced to move it and could not use it as storage space during the busy season. Mr. Wolff said they were trying to give the folks that are actually using their trailers and vans, the option to be able to park them for 24 hours at a time as long as they are moving them every day, they could come back to the same space or a different space. Ms. Doyle said if they park there and go someplace for the weekend, there would be no one to move it. Ms. Williams said if they are out of town they can put it in their own driveway. The vote was Williams, Wolff, Doyle, Garbett and Sessions in favor and Schuman opposed. Executive Session A Motion by Paul Wolff to go into Executive Session to discuss Personnel and Litigation was seconded by Kathryn Williams. The vote was unanimous. A Motion by Paul Wolff to end Executive Session was seconded by Wanda Doyle. The vote was unanimous. Adjournment A Motion to adjourn by Paul Wolff was seconded by Shirley Sessions. The vote was unanimous.