Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout120_030_ Special Review 1518 5th Ave 1of2 MAYOR CITY MANAGER Jason Buelterman r 44, Diane Schleicher CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK Wanda Doyle,Mayor Pro Tern 1 Janet LeViner Barry Brown Rob Callahan . CITY ATTORNEY Bill Garbett t, Edward M.Hughes Monty Parks 0` Paul Wolff CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND City Council Agenda Item Request Agenda Item Requests and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Clerk of Council by 4:00PM on the Thursday prior to the next scheduled Council meeting. If this form is received after the deadline, the item will be listed on the next scheduled agenda. Council Meeting Date for Request: January 9, 2014 Item: Public Hearing Explanation: Special Review— 1518 Fifth Ave.; zone R-2; Leuveda & Ron Garner, petitioners; consideration of residential bed & breakfast Budget Line Item Number (if applicable): N/A Paper Work: Ai Attached* Ai Audio/Video Presentation** Electronic submissions are requested but not required. Please email to jleviner@cityoftybee.org. ** Audio/video presentations must be submitted to the IT department at City Hall by 4:00PM on the Thursday prior to the scheduled meeting. Submitted by: Dianne Otto Phone /Email: (912) 472-5031 / dotto@cityoftybee.org cityoftybee.org Comments: Date given to Clerk of Council: January 2, 2014 * * * P.O. Box 2749—403 Butler Avenue,Tybee Island, Georgia 31328-2749 *Certified (866) 786-4573—FAX(866) 786-5737 , City of Ethics f www.cityoftybee.org ����� PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Meeting date: December 17, 2013 Petitioner: Leuveda & Ron Garner Project Name/Description: 1518 Fifth Avenue Action Requested: Special Review Special Review X Subdivision: Site Plan Approval - Sketch Plan Approval Conceptual Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Approval Amendment to Zoning Map Final Plat Approval Text Amendment to Land Development Code Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Petitioner has met all documentation requirements, all external approval requirements, and all code requirements, except for the following: VOTE FOR AGAINST COMMENTS Bishop X Borkowski X - Bramble X Motion to approve Callahan Recused Marion X Vice Chair McNaughton _ X Second Parks Chair Absent The Planning Commission recommends: ® Approval d Denial n Continued Planning Commission Date: t 2 -t 4 - i - Planning & Zoning Manager: ,,,,„...) c..) Q Date: «-( R-(3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: December 17, 2013 zrd CITY COUNCIL MEETING: January 9, 2014 OCT �,i rY 41_0008- (1-o LOCATION: 1518 Fifth Ave. PIN: .44(444-818-064 APPLICANT: Leuveda&Ron Garner OWNER: same EXISTING USE: single-family with guest cottage PROPOSED USE: single-family with bed &breakfast ZONING: R-2 USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT: No. (Special Review) CHARACTER AREA: Inland Cottage Neighborhood APPLICATION: Special Review PROPOSAL: The applicants are seeking approval for a 1-unit residential bed and breakfast. ANALYSIS: At the October 19, 2010, Planning Commission meeting the vote was 4-0 to approve a Special Review request from the Garners to legally convert a shed to a cottage. At the City Council meeting on November 18, 2010, the request was approved with a 4-2 vote. Building permit 11-0513 was issued September 4, 2011. The cottage was completed and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued February 6, 2012. Attached to this report are the Minutes of the two meetings listed above, and the Minutes of a subsequent request by the Garners at the January 13, 2011, City Council meeting. The Minutes include discussions that the cottage could not be rented. Earlier this year, the Garners applied to the City for a short-term vacation rental business license. The application was denied by Staff based on the 2010 City Council decision. It is that structure that is now being proposed as a 1-unit bed and breakfast. A Section 4-050(C)(2) Text Amendment was approved by Planning Commission on October 15, 2013, to add residential bed and breakfast to the Uses Permitted after Special Review in the R-2 district. City Council concurred on November 14. If Second Reading is approved by Council on December 12, a residential bed and breakfast will be a use allowed in R-2 after approval of Special Review. This Staff Report will proceed as if that has occurred. The Garners are proposing a residential bed and breakfast under Section 3-060(A), Bed and Breakfast Regulations. They reside in the primary structure on the property. The proposed rental unit is located in a separate dwelling unit on the property. Attached to this Staff Report are the applicants' responses to the regulations of Section 3-060(A). It includes a description of parking, existing buffering, and future signage. LDC Section 4-050(C)outlines the R-2 District as: The purpose of this district is to provide for affordable development of single-family and duplex style development. This district is intended for medium density residential neighborhoods which are quiet and livable. This district includes a mixture of one- and two-family homes with compatible educational, religious, and public institutions as well as limited home occupations. The Comprehensive Plan describes the Inland Cottage Neighborhood as follows: This character area describes the traditional neighborhood along the west side of Butler, which contains narrow, tree-lined streets laid out in a grid pattern. The area is varied in land use as it contains permanent residential properties, multi family homes, rental properties,parks, low-impact commercial establishments, and public buildings. Residential development within this area contains both traditional and historic 1 cottage homes, large new residential houses and multi family units. This area provides for alternative transportation routes by providing an alternative automotive travel route to Butler Avenue, a bike path, and stop signs to slow the movement of vehicular traffic creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. [Section 1.2.6] The following table correlates the residential bed and breakfast request with the Recommended Development Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Inland Cottage Neighborhood Character Area. Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2.6 Meets Strategy Inland Cottage Neighborhood • Recommended Development Strategies YIN or N/A 1 New development, redevelopment and restoration should be consistent with existing N/A character of the area in terms of mass, scale, use and density. 2 Permit only compatible uses including low density residential,public/institutional, and low impact commercial. 3. Develo. and implement deli,n and architectural standards. N/A 4 Implement streetscape improvements to improve the pedestrian/bicycle environment and N/A encourage safety and mobility. 5. Historic structures in this area should be restored and/or preserved whenever possible. N/A 6. The City should provide appropriate incentives for historic restoration projects. N/A The required off-street parking for the primary dwelling and the existing cottage are two spaces per unit [Section 3- 080(A)(13)(1)1, for a total of 4. The required off-street parking spaces for a 1-unit residential bed and breakfast are two for the owners and one for the rental unit [Section 3-060(A)(5)], for a total of 3. The parking plan provided with this Special Review request meets both parking requirements. STAFF FINDING Staff finds the 2010 approval of the Garner's cottage by City Council does not permit the structure to be rented. If this Special Review request is granted, the loft inside the cottage may not be used as occupied space at any time. It is for storage only. This critical life safety standard was communicated to the Garners prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. This Staff Report was prepared by Dianne Otto. ATTACHMENTS A. Application(2 pages) B. Narrative from property owners (1 page) C. Minutes: PC 10/19/2010; CC 11/18/2010; CC 01/13/2010(4 pages) D. Survey, 10/8/1996 (1 page) E. SAGIS map(1 page) F. Photographs of existing conditions (3 pages) G. Site Plan (1 page) 2 CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Fee 000 Applicant's Name L * : 4 4 Address and location of subject property 15 f V B PIN \-\- pool - I l - dd 9 Applicant's Telephone Number Cili I a . 11 g [l f. 6 Applicant's Mailing Address -ri- V 1 r t ----_____4=5___G_____5_13_2._. Brief description of the land development activity and use of the land thereafter to take place on the property: ,s += A-rt 14C-14 rnU- ti Property Owner's Name rv-11 _ Telephone Number Property Owner's Address 5 Pm-)T___ Is Applicant the Property Owner? Yes No If Applicant is the Property Owner, Proof of Ownership is attached: Yes If Applicant is other than the Property Owner, a signed affidavit from the Property Owner granting the Applicant permission to conduct such land development is attached hereto. Yes Current Zoning of Property T Current Use CA-Was i w `iZ l_©TT 1A-C-,t Names and addresses of all adjacent property owners are attached: es If within two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the Applicant's application for a zoning action, the Applicant has made campaign contributions aggregating to more than $250 to the Mayor and any member of Council or any member of the Planning Commission, the Applicant and the Attorney representing the Applicant must disclose the following: a. The name of the local government official to whom the campaign contribution or gift was made; b. The dollar amount of each campaign contribution made by the applicant to the local government official during the two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for this zoning action, and the date of each contribution; c. An enumeration and description of each gift having a value of$250 or more made by the Applicant to the local government official during the two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the lication for this zoning action. trr A taiLue-A--___ r1v-r-v,�\-e-t ci j-- o Signature of Applicant Date NOTE: Other specific data is required for each type of Special Review. Fee Amount$ ,5'p o . Check Number 2-3 co Date , City Official cA ti n^t,4 �,,0 NOTE: This application must be accompanied by following information: A detailed description of the proposed activities, hours of operation, or number of units. 13 copies, no smaller than 11 x 17, of the proposed site plan and architectural renderings. r✓ Disclosure of Campaign Contributions form The Applicant certifies that he/she has read the requirements for Site Plan Approval and has provided the required i ermation to the best of his/her ability in a truthful and honest manner. } prw ti G--cn o l 3 Signature of Applicant Date Attachment to City of Tybee Special Review Application Leuveda and Ron Gamer Description of land development activity: We request approval for a one-unit residential bed and breakfast as follows: 1. There will be one rental unit consisting of sleeping and sanitary accommodations, and one owner-occupied dwelling unit which has been our full time residence for over 17 years. 2. Breakfast and snacks will be served daily. 3. One off-street guest parking space and two off-street owner parking spaces are provided. 4. Six-foot-plus landscape buffers of ligustrum and azaleas offer privacy in both side and rear yards. 5. A sign discerningly smaller than 12 square feet will be posted. 6. No special events will be held. We feel that we meet all property use requirements as provided in the Tybee Island Land Development Code for residential bed and breakfast as discussed in Section 3- 060 and in its R-2 district use regulations as set forth in Section 4-050. There are no requests for variances, exceptions or exemptions. Names and addresses of all adjacent property owners: Ronald Harry George, 9425 Toucan Ave, Fountain Valley, CA 92709 (undeveloped) Carolyn and Dennis Pierce, 1517 Miller Ave Beth Sheffield, 1603 Chatham Ave Thomas J. Pierce, 1513 5th Ave Peter Hand, 1604 Chatham Ave MINUTES - Planning Commission— October 19, 2010 Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Special Review at 1518 Fifth Avenue, PIN 4-0008-11-007,Zone R-2. The petitioners and property owners were Leuveda and Ron Garner. The request was a guest cottage. Jonathan Lynn said that the use for the structure was intended to be a storage/accessory building. He said the Community Character Area was Inland Cottage Neighborhood. Lynn said that the Garners would like to convert the accessory structure into a caretaker's cottage. He said that use was permitted in an R-2 district after Special Review. He provided the definition of a caretaker's cottage. He said that the applicant would raise the building to conform to the required FEMA regulations. Lynn said that Staff has worked with the applicant for quite some time. He said that Staff found out about it when it was advertised as a vacation rental; it had already been converted. He said that they have since ceased the operation as a rental property. Rob Callahan said that it would be raised by 3-feet. He asked if that was sufficient to meet the FEMA regulations. Lynn said that the City would require an Elevation Certificate for the bottom floor to ensure that it does meet the FEMA regulations. Demery Bishop asked if you modify an existing structure in any way does it have to be elevated. Lynn said that if you repair or improve at greater than 50% of the value of that structure it is required to come into compliance with FEMA regulations, however, this was going from an accessory structure to a habitable building so it was changing its entire use so it would be required to meet the FEMA regulations at that point. Bishop asked if it had been inhabited previously. Lynn said that the City found it being advertised as a vacation rental and notified the applicant that it was not allowed and provided the options. Monty Parks asked if it could be a rental. Lynn said that it would not be allowed to be a rental property; the Garners could have people staying there but it could not be a rental property. Parks and Lynn discussed. Bishop asked if the footprint would be identical. Leuveda Garner said absolutely; the only change would be for the steps but they would still meet the setback requirements. Bishop asked if her intention was strictly a caretaker's cottage,not rental property. Garner said that they had rented it in the past but are not planning to get into that business anymore. She said that it was just a whim of hers to put it on the vacation rental by owner and that was a big mistake on her part. Gamer said that her husband had advised her not to do that because they would find themselves where they are today. She said that she has looked at the code and there was a big difference in the definitions between a guest cottage and a caretaker's cottage, and a guest cottage says that you could not rent it but a caretaker's cottage does not address that at all, but they are not planning to rent it. Marianne Bramble verified with Garner the step locations. Burke asked for public input. There was none. He closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Bishop made a motion to approve. Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed with a 4-0 vote. The request would be considered by City Council on November 18. MINUTES — City Council—November 18, 2010 4. Special Review Approval-Section 4-050(C)at 1518 5th Avenue,Zoned R-2 (#4-0008-11-007) Owner/Applicant: Ron and Leuveda Garner Mayor opened public hearing. Mr. Lynn explained that the petition was for a Special Review. The applicants are owners Ron and Leuveda Garner;the property is zoned R-2 and the master plan shows this area as an Inland Cottage Neighborhood.The current existing use of this property is intended to be a storage/accessory building. The proposed use is to make it a caretaker's cottage, guest cottage,mother-in-law suite; any of those terms you want to put on it. What they are seeking is permitted in the R-2 zoning district after special review. He said there is kind of a convoluted reason we got here; it was originally constructed as the packet you were handed tonight states with the building permit in 2001,as an accessory structure. Somehow over time it became a rental and we found that out through the vacation rental by owner website found on May 26, 2010. They immediately contacted the Garners to try and to work out a scenario with them to either get it back to an accessory structure or keep it as some sort of unit where they could have people live. This is the best scenario they can have is to have it occupied as a mother-in- law suite,where they can't rent it out; they can't charge rent for anything but they can have family stay there,however,it cannot be a rental property. They are aware that if they do not receive special review it will have to be converted back to an accessory structure; meaning anything done without the permits would be required to be removed. He said just to clarify; this is not a variance but a special review.Mayor Buelterman asked if Planning Commission approved it unanimously, Mr.Lynn said yes.Mr. Garbett asked if this was fully plumbed. Mr.Lynn said everything. He said if council approves it; all the work that required a permit will be required to obtain a permit,brought to FEMA standards and will receive required inspections at that time.Mr.Wolff asked if this was all moonlight construction and if no 1 impact fees were paid or no permit fees while this was being converted from a shed. Mr. Lynn said that is correct;their fees for the accessory structure were $95.00 back in April of 2001.Ms. Williams asked if they had a permit when they built it as an accessory structure.Mr.Lynn said they did have a permit just to build it as an accessory structure.Ms. Sessions said once again she is a little confused because she is familiar with the property; it's a cute little structure. She said she is having a problem and asked how many years ago this was done.Mr. Lynn said 9. Ms. Sessions said 9 years ago this was started as a structure and all that time the city never noticed the structure turn into a house. She said it is putting us in a bad position. She said she has to put this on record and she knows Mr. Lynn was not here but these are the types of things; again zoning, enforcement, and here we are.Mr. Lynn said it was constructed to look like the house and the exterior never changed and apparently no one ever caught the work taking place and luckily we were able to stumble across the website advertising it as a rental,which immediately triggered our enforcement action in the zoning department. Ms. Sessions asked if someone sent something to make them aware of this; it is her understanding a citizen made ya'll aware of this.Mr. Lynn said he doesn't remember if someone sent it but Dianne Otto is very good about checking these websites,just to make sure these locations have business licenses.Ms. Sessions said she remembers specifically because they all received a copy from the person.Mr. Lynn said whether or not it came in as a complaint or not,as soon as they became aware of it,they acted on it. Mr. Garbett asked for the criteria required for special review approval. He asked if they were looking at the design of the building because this requires no variances and he assumes everything fits the setbacks. Mr. Lynn said everything fits the setbacks; that is correct.Mr.Wolff asked if a guest cottage required the same setbacks as a residence. He said he knows a shed doesn't but a guest cottage does and this is the site plan and it doesn't meet either the front or meet the side; it meets the rear but not the front.He said the front door faces 16th Street.He said it is 18.473 feet.Mr. Lynn said technically that is the side yard.Mr. Wolff said that is the way the front door faces.Mr.Lynn said it goes with the house. Mr. Wolff said,so your saying the front yard is the same as the house even though the front door faces the other way.He said that can't be right.Mr. Garbett said so you've got one front yard for the house. Mr. Lynn said yes.He said this is the lot of record and is not two different lots. Mr.Hughes explained that even if it is a caretakers cottage it would be an accessory to the main structure, so, you would only need the side yard setback there.He said 5-070 is the standard for special review and is significantly more city friendly than a site plan review.He said there is a list of factors to take into account but It won't be contrary to the purpose of the Land Development Code or detrimental to the use and development of the adjacent properties of the general neighborhood or adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers;will not constitute a nuisance or hazard because of the number of persons who will attend or use it; will not be adversely affected by the existing uses of adjacent properties; it will be placed on a lot which is sufficient in size to satisfy the space requirements of the use; parking and all development standards set forth for each particular use for which permit may be granted will be met. He said some of these won't apply to a caretaker cottage but overall that is what it is. He said you have a right to impose additional restrictions and standards including setbacks, buffer strips, screens,etc., as may be necessary to protect the health and safety of residents of the community and to protect the value and use of the property in the general neighborhood.Mr. Garbett asked if this would require additional parking.Mr. Lynn said he doesn't believe we currently have it but it is in the proposed part of Article 3, where a caretaker's/guest cottage would require 2 parking spaces.Ms. Sessions said she doesn't have a problem with little guest cottages and mother-in-law suites, especially when it seems those are the ones that actually have two people in them. she said when you look at every usage in this city: C-1,R-1,R-2,R-1-B; all have rental properties. It can be a little house or a big house but there is no control and people can put as many people as they want in them. Mr.Lynn said in 3-080(b)says: A caretaker's cottage is a separate dwelling unit and shall be provided two off street parking spaces. Mr. Lynn said that is one of the recommended changes and is not currently part of the ordinance.Ms. Sessions said as she understands it,what they are asking for is special review with the understanding that they would have to have it raised according to FEMA standards. Mr. Lynn said he believes it will require 3 feet 9 inches to bring it up to FEMA level. Leuveda Garner said she and her husband are requesting a caretaker's cottage status for an accessory building that already exist. She said the footprint wouldn't change;the exterior wouldn't change and it does meet all the setback requirements. She said she has a letter from Chuck Bargeron, dated October 5,2001, stating that it does meet all the requirements. She said when they built the cottage,not cottage but structure.They call it the cottage now because it looks like a cottage.They traveled all over the coastal regions like the Ford Plantation,Habersham Plantation,looking for structures that improved the appearance of the property rather than degrade the appearance of the property.They wanted something they thought was attractive. So they built that and as she said Chuck Bargeron came out and he has sent this letter that is not part of your packet but I can make it available and pass it around. She said they did over time, as their family grew, their house is only 1400 square feet; it looks bigger than it is,but anyway when their grandchildren started coming along, it was just sort of a natural transition for them to convert that to sleeping space for their family. She said they did have people ask them from time to time if they could rent it and they did rent it occasionally, but,just in the last several years. She said this spring she did put it on the vacation rental by owner,just fishing to see how that would do,but, she was the one that got caught with her fishing expedition. She said it 2 hasn't been a rental other than occasionally,until this spring when she was just trying to see how that would fly. She said obviously it got them into a lot of trouble here but, they plan to elevate it 3 1/2 feet to meet FEMA and the city's requirements. She said they would love to salvage it and they are asking for council's approval for a caretaker's cottage. Peter Hand said he is a neighbor across the street from Ron and Leuveda's little cottage.He has been practicing architecture for a little over 35 years and he can only hope sometime in his future that he will do a building as lovely as that little cottage is; it's just a great addition to the community and he hopes council will consider that in their considerations because it's a gem; it's just superbly done. It has not been a problem for them to live across from them whatsoever. Mayor closed public hearing. A Motion to approve by Wanda Doyle was seconded by Bill Garbett. Ms. Williams clarified that the permit fees would be retroactive to the time the building was converted and inspections will be done. Mr.Lynn explained that the permit fees will be charged according to our current fee schedule and all inspections will be required.Mr. Schuman asked if Mr.Bargeron had approved this being converted from a shed to a cottage.Mr. Lynn said no, it was always maintained as a shed. The vote was Doyle,Garbett, Sessions and Williams in favor and Wolff and Schuman opposed. MINUTES— City Council--January 13, 2011 Leuveda Gamer said I have a simple request to have the minutes for the November 18th council meeting be corrected to reflect what was actually said, In September, 2010 we paid$550 for a special review to appear before the planning commission and city council to request approval of a caretaker's cottage.Now the city wants to take away our caretakers cottage approval by changing the language to guest cottage. There are significant differences in the code between caretaker's cottage and a guest cottage and we intentionally requested a caretaker's cottage. Our application for special review was submitted and approved as follows.We request permission to elevate an existing building with improvements to conform to the caretaker's cottage provision which is allowed in zone R-2 and to comply with the City and FEMA's height regulations. • Leuveda and Ron Garner requesting November 18,2010 minutes be correct and factual regarding council's approval of caretaker's cottage status. Bubba Hughes said there is obviously a history with this structure and they disagree with me that it doesn't make any difference to me if you call it a guest cottage or a caretaker's cottage apparently. They applied for a caretaker's cottage which is permissible in R-2, so is a guest cottage.Neither of them in his opinion can be rented out to other people. A caretaker's cottage is what it means it's for the care of the residents and the main structure. I recollect that at the time we heard this Paul Wolff specifically stated"you understand that you can't rent it"or words to that affect but he doesn't see that in the minutes.They say they don't intend to rent it and all we can do is record what the minutes were and if the minutes have been approved then they are deemed approved.The status of it could be reflected as a caretaker's cottage but the ultimate use of the structure shouldn't change even if it is. Mayor Buelterman said in other words you're arguing that we could go ahead and change it as they are requesting their claim that the caretaker's cottage is what they applied for but ultimately it doesn't make any difference.Bubba Hughes said in his opinion it doesn't make any difference. Shirley Sessions said the minutes before us that are highlighted are verbatim.Is that correct? Vivian Woods said yes. Sessions said I think it is important that the minutes reflect what was actually said in the meeting but are they asking us to change that. Bubba Hughes said he thinks what they are asking to get approved for what they asked for,a caretaker's cottage and apparently the motion interchanges caretaker's cottage with guest cottage. Sessions said she doesn't have a problem making that change if that is what they asked for then I am certainly in favor of doing that,I believe the intent was that we voted to that intent. Hughes said he doesn't think she is wrong and he understood it from the context it was taken that it was clear it wasn't going to be rented whichever it was. Sessions said I understood that too. Hughes said this was a special review which is different from a site plan and you can impose conditions.I am troubled because of the way we got here and I don't want to mislead the Garner's or anybody else. Sessions said clearly they have 3 been mislead in 2001 when they said they were given permission to build this. Hughes said no. Wanda Doyle said they were given permission for a storage building that looked like it.Jonathan Lynn said it was permitted in 2001 as an accessory/storage building. Sessions said she keeps referring to a letter from the City Marshal referring to FEMA standards. Hughes said that letter contained a stop work order because they were building beyond what was permitted in 2001.it specifically says that the uses are limited to a storage structure and that if electricity is put in it's got to be above base flood level,that hydro vents need to be installed and that the building not to be used as livable or habitable space but storage. Sessions said that just reiterates the whole point of how they got here and if we approved the guest or caretaker's cottage;my second point is I understand the issue of not renting out short term rental or whatever.I guess that is what we are talking about,guest cottage, caretaker's cottage but once again when you look at the code and it clearly states that residential areas are to be residential areas for single families that stay long term.We've violated that code for years and continue to do so. So I don't have a problem personally with a caretaker's guest cottage in that concept.What's the difference in renting a house to twenty five people and you are not supposed to rent it in a residential section.Doyle said she pulled their paperwork and they applied for a caretaker's cottage and she is in favor of changing the minutes to reflect that. Hughes said the minutes are verbatim and he is not in favor of changing verbatim minutes.What you're doing is making a motion to correct an error that was done in the meeting as reflected in the minutes to truly correct what your intention was if it was to grant a caretaker's cottage.Paul Wolff said I heard her at one point say she wanted verbatim minutes and we have them now so would there be a problem with just replacing the minutes pertaining to this petition with verbatim minutes because they say everything very clearly including the fact that Jonathan said they can't rent it out but they can have family stay there but it cannot be a rental property period.It clears up all the grey areas that everyone seems to be fuzzy on.They can call it whatever they want but that's in the minutes. Hughes said that is in the discussion but not in the motion and if it is called a caretaker's cottage as the Garner's interpret the code,it can be rented Wanda Doyle moved to approve what was placed on the original application,which is a caretaker's application,which is a caretaker's cottage.Bill Garbett seconded. Bill Garbett said their request included having the minutes most accurately reflect their discussion.I think that would be beneficial if we included them also. Mayor Buelterman asked Vivian Woods if what was given to us tonight were verbatim. Vivian Woods said yes.Bill Garbett said and that is what we are substituting in the minute's right? Mayor Buelterman said we are not substituting anything in the minutes but we are changing what was originally approved to state it's what the applicants originally requested.Which was a caretaker's cottage?Kathryn Williams said she voted for that motion under the impression it would not be rented and so if we change it to say this is what we really meant to vote on,that's not what I voted on.I think it's going to open up a can of worms if the city attorney is saying that you can't rent either one and they are under the opinion that you can,that's going to create a situation and I don't know how it will be resolved. Shirley Sessions said if the motion states that we acknowledge their application was for a caretaker's cottage and we stand by the minutes as written verbatim and we understand as part of that there is no rental of the caretaker's cottage or guest cottage as stated in the minutes. Mayor Buelterman asked Wanda Doyle to withdraw her motion if she wants to.Doyle said the only part I guess you're adding is about the renting of it which is a part of our code anyway,which I think Bubba has explained to them anyway. They may not agree but we don't agree with a lot of things. If it's against the law and they get caught breaking it... Mayor Buelterman said I think that Shirley is suggesting by voting that we publicly acknowledge that they asked for a caretaker's cottage and leave it at that. Mayor Buelterman asked Wanda Doyle will you withdraw your motion.Wanda Doyle said yes. Bubba Hughes said if you clarify that the application was for a caretaker's cottage and in the minutes of November the 18th it was referred to as a guest cottage but in order to correct the record.Don't change the earlier minutes. The motion should have been its approved as a caretaker's cottage under special review and if you want to impose a condition that reminds them that it is not available for rent,that should be recited in there as well. Mayor Buelterman said Wanda if you will withdraw your motion.Wand Doyle said I withdraw my motion.Mayor Buelterman said Shirley will you Withdraw your second. Shirley said I withdraw my second. Bubba Hughes said what we are doing is correcting the record for the meeting of November 18 2010.The motion was to approve and what had been applied for was a caretaker's cottage but in the discussion immediately leading up to the motion there was a reference to a guest cottage.What was approved was a caretaker's cottage however there had been discussion as well that the structure could not be rented as a caretaker's cottage and that needs to be a part of the record. Paul Wolff said so moved and Shirley Sessions seconded. The vote was unanimous. 4 „IAH 61.Uk IHHT CO.f-600-872-7260 ' - /5.M . TOia DF F.H. ACa055 ./`1” 5TP,E2T, EL. 9.74' M.5.I . 5 r, AVE N U E fo"a ` 7Z.j1 VAC1' r: . 1 II. 5Cp,E i.14 E p el. 16.1.3 i p°a.GU fr- o F FLA ME ' k9 OM PtElZ4 2 3C 144 It• • - i,- 2 40 :4L f. : ---E r-- 1'`- - V) 0 P : LI. ti " 54.5. -=.52rii• 00'44 . - I" i PF N ___._(=,CI S T A T E OF GEORGIA NOrE ; 'F IR 1 4 I3 116 4 d 00 2 G. IN{?ic.d T" 5 THIS L.oF CHATHAM COUNTY -- 15 IN AN A B e. EL, 13) PL O O D z O u E . , PL. A T OF 24 o. L07"' , �ti'�lT � , TYB RONALD GAR E2.. u LE UVED4 GARNER. CATO `0era ER. 8 5 I 1 CI (a It°i ,:'. :.1-i'31`AN 1-! "r1.It1 IS A „r-. f. �y ; r_F F '�IoN (r TIT== LAND PLh!I .1 ' `ST �F c SCALE:--I."=.. D — E O.c CVO ' � - a CI ` __________ _____3A1 .__-- -- A' GO' . tppERRat/POfl . _ M. 12 71T ADJ. M t 1400 . • . E.ac. Put 1/ 1 AF. 1 t. 2t1 TiIAN�It _ r fi ,� �o G SETT LAND SURVEYING,INC. , TAPE .�'� � SAVANNAH ,OEORGIA E.&M. sakXh4 4Er3 tP BgRRti genie /V... .. ' . r i ( . ri I.I1. 4 .c.-'7 1518 Fifth Ave. __ . .. -- . ./ / 1,--_ i , '• V 1.-^-- P / ---:;4----- ___ / r____... ..4---- •--,: / i ., ,• ------___, ? 1-•-•,,,ti '' 7 , . ..„ ( -,, ,. , , , : ., e. ,.. ,..... ..,_..-■•-•■ .1 s / . \ \ t1 h', \.,.1...-..-. i.i / f iI t i i t 7/-- —''-'-'----,.,„--A-? -—/ 1-ey/-? L.–_-' , . ... ,,.., ..,..„..,.. ..„ -----J — i ____ ..._____ „, 1 / i ,t ------4 -------.1 i I ,,, e e ...• ...--"\, \ ----\-- .... --4—... I . 4% \ %, ----_, —\ —— — —4—_,• gi--- ,','1 .,•• , , — ...- •,, 1,, '% 4.63 I / --7 -\ \ .-,” ',• \ \ -, .i!ps-,, - e ___,.. ,,- ..„, A \ \ ,....A 7----- _ -9 sj. ------.,J. / . ,-'s., ,. .7' -------1 i r --..._, ---,---_/ ----'-/ lt-*- -..jr- r—_,_.,7 : \'''' \ Y \ \\... ---"' \ 7 \ ,-----...4 r , -,., i i tTh-y 1 — ..„, ...- ..- _... .... . ., ..' / .....- 1, "... .../ ,••-' ..,/ .., ...c. ...r" ----__ i -.7 i it ,./. . --ni e-- - . 1 , •Ve7?; \ 5 -\----1------- .... ..., ,,,••i • ,4. r 3 .,. err • r , ,,a • Al# may` t R i l• i �` . ' •• • }y, 44Id4t -'. ..X;-.0. , __L mss # #*�fir '#° f — \. _ . i' _. 4 -_--.-_ , .. , . . Alb. .... fri,„ 40,21#r a. , '. 't_., _ la t -� ► '‘ ,... 4 ,...... _,._,.._ .,... l .∎i 1 • b r ID yam . 0 IlIyy y b • 3 X1 ' ` " \ z lor,... f ' .4%.%. g Loll 1 .i. !1 `, III 'III III iiiiiiiiiiiime. • 4 y g . 4 . ,„rcv • 1 r r • .» ; \#1110 .• ,-- 3. F• f. . . /ax� •ta —- :r ■ • p ;w r r.." i riir _ 114 ... ■ rir: , iiei 4c #16 '11 ei ' ■ ' ' . . iii m.4,16,„,: it, ,e.: : ■ or- -,: MIIII°1111411\'. . . 11.1. . .411.4 ,e RIME OEM WWII MEM IIII 1.1 r;■.' ' I. ' #.- lir . i . -...- - i .1 .I . ■,'N --- ... • . 1.4!#..... : . ' r, 4 I ti •■ .01 . i Ak. ;- p 4 .. .1 1 1 .I., *.. p■ ,Pr ' ' ... 4..,14 7: .;*:',.i H €.1b, ‘) m . ' .0t'; '. 40 --r • I . ., . 4.... ‘ 140411,11144416." .+-1.4•67.... . ..,.._,. „ , • fPfr . . . . ..,-. . ... . . lir,- 111Pr' AllOr -,. -.........-. . i .■ . .• .-1444111111P- • h...a ' . • . -• . - I . . . ! it 1 , , , — . -1 . ... '• it-41 i'' , --.44, 'C. A 11111 11 . ti . . Il• "'-V` ,, a ... vi4, A. -- s,, `k, e - , _ • ---- ,•" . IP■-■," 1 , .. . . . • .. •• .., - k.e... joie.. , • . •■•• il'iriftivi 1,. a ..4.8188 ill Ai llitiffi I A