HomeMy Public PortalAbout20090813CityCouncilMinutes
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 1 of 17
20090813 City Council Minutes
Mayor Buelterman called the Consent Agenda meeting to order at 6:30pm on Thursday, August
13, 2009. Council Members present were Mayor pro tem Wanda Doyle, Charlie Brewer, Barry Brown,
Dick Smith and Paul Wolff. Councilman Eddie Crone was absent due to illness. Also present were City
Attorney Bubba Hughes, City Manager Diane Schleicher and Planning and Zoning Director Jonathan
Lynn.
Mayor Buelterman listed the following items on the Consent Agenda:
City Council Minutes for 7/23/09
Third Amendment to Ground Lease Agreement: Spectrasite Communications (American Tower)
including Memorandum of Understanding.
Alcohol Application for Sunday Sales-Petitioner: Bikinis Inc. D/B/A Rock House Café, Joshua
Navon 1518 Butler Ave.
One Day Alcohol License Application for Beer, Wine per Event: Eye Dawg Productions, Tybee
Lighthouse on September 26, 2009. Thomas Holland, Mike Modarelli.
Savannah Tree Foundation request for waiver of facilities fees postponed until August 27th.
Mikell Cates gave a presentation on a proposal to apply for a grant for water transportation between River
Street, Tybee and Dafuskie Island.
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. Father Thomas Peyton
gave the invocation and everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor’s Announcements
LNG Facilities Forum 5-8 Sept 3rd by the Citizens for Clean Air and Water at Desoto Hilton
The Department of Interior is looking to increase entrance fees at Fort Pulaski and is having a public
hearing on Wednesday, August 19th 5:00-7:00.
Latitutude 32 “First Year Latey the Turtle “celebration on Saturday, August 15th 2:00pm.
Donations are being taken tonight for Captain Matthew Freeman’s Memorial Scholarship Fund. He is a
Richmond Hill resident that was killed in Afghanistan.
The Mayor asked to keep comments short tonight due to the number of public hearings on the agenda
tonight.
Citizens to Be Heard
Tyler Marion gave an introduction of Forever Tybee, A Political Action Committee, on Tybee and gave a
power point presentation of what the groups’ philosophy and goals are.
Kathryn Williams, Tybee Beautification announced the Adopt a Hwy on Saturday, August 13th at 8:00. The
Beach Sweep T-shirt sponsorship forms have been mailed and she asked for citizens, as well as
businesses, support. The deadline is the 26th of August.
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 2 of 17
Consent Agenda:
A Motion by Councilman Brown to approve the Consent Agenda was seconded by Councilman Smith.
The vote was unanimous.
Mayor Buelterman opened the Public Hearing and welcomed Jonathan Lynn the new Zoning and
Planning Director to Tybee Island. The Zoning Map was present in the room.
Public Hearings:
1. Map Amendment(Section 5-110) Text Amendment(Section 5-110)
Site Plan (Section 5-080) Seeking conditional zoning for additional off street parking
Petitioner: Mike Hosti, Address: 1107 & 1111 Butler Ave PIN 4-0006-19-005, 4-0006-
19-013, 4-0006-19-014 & 4-0006-19-015 Zone R-2
Map Amendment: Planning Commission recommends approval to rezone all six lots to C-
2 conditional.
Text Amendment: Planning Commission recommends approval to allow the following
uses on six lots zoned C-2 Conditional: gift shop, grocery store, professional and
business office, retail store and parking lot.
Mr. Lynn explained the petitioner was requesting additional parking for the existing IGA Grocery store.
There is also a Map Amendment associated with this for the 4 parcels. The planning commission heard
the request on June 16th and the council has also previously heard the request on July 9th. The PC on
the Map Amendment did recommend on a 3-2 vote. The Text Amendment to allow the parking and
request the property to be rezoned to C2. The PC at this point did recommend all 6 lots be rezone to
conditional by a vote of 3-2. On the third request, the Site plan, in a 3-2 vote the PC recommended
approval.
City Attorney, Bubba Hughes, requested if it is agreeable, unless anyone present objects, we incorporate
the records of the previous public hearing of July 9th, into the record tonight, so the presentations do not
have to be re-presented. Anyone at interest can add to, make comments, or repeat if they wish. But this
would save time and would include the correspondence from Mr. Hartridge and that sort of thing. No one
objected.
Jim Stone, representing Mr. Hosti, using a PowerPoint presentation, gave new information on a website,
SupportTybeeMarket.com including a poll of the Tybee residents. He shared comments from the site.
Tom Mahoney, attorney for Mr. Hosti, spoke and reminded everyone the plan was not only for additional
parking but also the safety and well being of the residents of Tybee as well as reducing the truck traffic on
Lovell Ave. He also stated the conditions for the C2 will restrict future uses of the structure. He also
presented a new plan showing an electronic gate at the entrance/exit on Lovell Ave. From October to the
beginning of April the gate would be open only from 7:00am-12:00 noon. Memorial Day to Labor Day the
gate would be open 7:00am to 9:00 pm. The project would have lights pointing straight down. The lots
would be policed and kept clean. The dumpster is in the location the city of Tybee told Mr. Hosti he had
to put it, so it should not come into being. Mr. Hosti also will establish a 5 foot vegetation buffer with an 8
foot fence on the North side of the lot. Mr. Mahoney restated from the previous meeting the intent of the
previous council in changing the zoning to R2, according to Mr. Daniels, councilman at that time, was not
to penalize the businesses that were already existing but to keep new businesses from coming in. He
also commented on discussion in the previous public hearings that this would constituted spot zoning or
violate the city ordinance 3-070 allowing an extension or expansion of a non-conforming use. This
rezoning of all six lots would not constitute an extension or expansion but would establish a C2 zone with
conditions. Conditions established by the planning commission, council has authority to insert and is also
acceptable by the petitioner. We request the council to act favorability on the request tonight and grant
approval of the Map Amendment, Text Amendment and Site Plan and to rezone all six of the lots to C2
Conditional.
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 3 of 17
Mr. Hughes confirmed for the record that Mr. Mahoney did not have any objections to incorporating the
July 9th public hearing evidence into the record tonight. Mr. Mahoney stated on behalf of the petitioner that
is absolutely correct.
Jackie Register Brown spoke in favor of the petition and reminded council the parking if approved,
running between Butler and Lovell, and would be just like it originally was before the fire.
Mayor Buelterman asked the audience to hold the applause.
Henry Levy spoke in favor of the petition. It is an absolute essential use for all the citizens on Tybee
Island and also asked council not to add a lot of unnecessary conditions and pass it exactly as
recommended by planning commission.
Angela Romedio Byers spoke in favor of petition due to dangers in existing parking lots to citizens.
Herman Peavy spoke in favor of petition. A hometown business keeps money on the island. This is a
safe way to expand and grow.
Tim Dotson spoke in favor of the petition due to dangers of people crossing Butler Ave and having to park
down the block.
Leslie Fuller spoke in opposition to petition. Objecting to some of the plans does not mean we don’t want
a grocery story on the island. The opening on to Lovell creates a safety issue to pedestrians because of
increase of traffic.
Bruce Remler spoke in favor of petition without unnecessary conditions.
Jimmy Brown spoke in opposition of petition because it will rezone residential to commercial. This would
allow any type of business to come in there if property is sold or anything destroyed the present store. If
conditional zoning is approved for this location nothing prevents adjacent property owners from applying
for commercial zoning.
Slade Cole spoke in opposition of petition because of rezoning residential to commercial. He also
commented on the turning radius for the delivery trucks and the curb cut on Butler.
Mayor Buelterman asked Mr. Hughes if DOT had looked at the curb cuts. Hughes responded he had
anticipated this coming up and had an initial impression from DOT (Mr. McCall) that the location of the
current driveway on the residential lot being enlarged to become an additional entrance would probably
not present a problem. The parking places shown on the plan at the Northeast corner, #19, 20, 21 and
possibly 22 would not be approved in his (Mr.McCall) opinion. But they would not do anything until we
send it to them. The problem is if someone turns in off of Butler making a right hand turn and someone is
attempting to back out of space 20, both cannot happen at the same time. He did this so council & the
public would not have to go through the public hearing if DOT was going to reject the entrance being
changed, but this does not seem to be the case.
Gloria Leonard spoke in opposition of the petition. Everywhere on Tybee there is a parking problem.
Walter Hartridge agrees on the previous public hearings incorporated into this record. He represents Mrs.
Leonard, Deborah Brook and Mr. & Mrs. Brown, Russell & Martha Waters, and Mr. & Mrs. Wood, all are
people the law describes as aggrieved citizens withstanding. They are nearby. He stated what you are
being asked to do in this package deal is to take a prior non-conforming use which your own code
provides in sec 30-20 that no such non-conforming use shall be in any way expanded or extended absent
an act of God. . . . . . You are being asked to take a prior non-conforming use and rezone it to C2 and
take the adjacent lots and rezone from R2 to C2. I respectfully submit to you that you can’t do that sort of
thing. You’ve got here a prior non-conforming use and I have shown you your masterplan and zoning
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 4 of 17
map and this sits squarely in the middle of an R2 residential area. These maps and records are part of
the records. It is not in the Arts, Eco’s, Eats, and Business corridor. We’ve gone thru where that begins
and ends. We’ve obtained the maps from your Clerk of Council and it has been put in the record and
discussed with your attorney. No matter how you view the Arts, Eats, Eco District it will not reach to the
market’s footprint. That question is mute. What you have is an attempt not contemplated by your
ordinances and by your masterplan and you shouldn’t permit an expansion into an R2 zone. If you do so
you are permitting Mr. Hosti, a wonderful man with a wonderful business, but nevertheless, at the
expense of property owners, to have conferred on him, a privilege totally inconsistent with your master
plan. I have put that up before with all of its words, you have had it in your packets. This will constitute
what is illegal and unconstitutional spot zoning under the Georgia Law and constitution and the United
States Constitution. This is not a popularity contest and it is not an election. You sit here governed by
the constitution of Georgia and the United States, its applicable laws and statues, your own ordinances
and masterplan and the history of this land use plan. I submit to you you should not be swayed by any
sort of poll, applause, outburst or any sort of thing. You ought to govern by the law. That is your sworn
duty, you know it. What is spot zoning? That has been asked before. Again, it is the process of singling
out, and this is the supreme court of Georgia’s language, not mine, a single parcel of land and that is the
land they want to rezone, even if you include the footprint of these other lots, and you see fit to rezone a
prior non-conforming use to C2 you are still going to have a small parcel in a classification totally different
from surrounding areas, which is R2, for the benefit of the owner of such property, which is Mr. Hosti or
whatever entity he uses to hold the property, to the detriment of neighboring property owners, it is the
very antitheists of planned zoning. You solicited an opinion from a consultant in Oklahoma. In her letter
she discusses the factors. This flies in the face of your planned zoning, your ordinances, and everything.
No matter how unpopular your decision might be I respectfully suggest you are required to follow the law.
Keith Gay spoke supporting the petition and reminded the council of the unique opportunity and situation
this is. The term “conditional” keeps getting jumped over. If approved, this gives some protection to the
other people. Improvement very often makes poor conditions better. Take a look at the potential that
these changes and improvements might enhance on the uncomfortable situations or problems that might
currently exist.
Tom Mahoney readdressed the council for clarification purposes, one he respectfully disagreed with his
colleague to his left (referenced to Mr. Hartridge). This plan as he mentioned earlier, is an attempt to get
substantial traffic off Lovell Ave. The people who have come up and said they don’t want trucks on Lovell
Ave.; we are 100% in favor of what their position is. I submit to you if this driveway is approved and
allowed to be put in there, coming off Butler, as I said earlier, it will allow ingress from Butler and egress
out the parking lot back onto Butler. The whole parking is being reconfigured on the plan. I also dispute
the fact someone said that the house is going to be torn down. The house is not going to be torn down. It
is going to perfectly preserved and moved to another location. That is the plan. Finally, in closing, in my
opinion this does not constitute spot zoning. Spot zoning is taking a very small portion of property and
turning it into something that is different from what is around it. What we are asking you to do, and in
your discretion you have the full and free clear right to do under the ordinances and law, is to take these
six lots and bring this non-conforming use into a conforming use of C2 Conditional. I also emphasis to
you we understand these conditions. I respectfully thank you for allowing me to clarify these points. We
are trying to move traffic off Lovell.
Carly Fuller spoke against petition. Adding a driveway on to Lovell will not reduce traffic on Lovell. If
traffic is increased there should be a sidewalk on Lovell but I’m sure residents don’t want that either.
Properties will lose value.
Carol Brown spoke against petition due to amount of traffic already coming down Lovell. She does not
want another Butler Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tem Doyle asked Mr. Mahoney about the original plan showing trucks coming off Lovell into
the parking lot and out to Butler. Is this still part of this plan? Mr. Mahoney responded but Mr. Hosti
clarified some of the trucks would come in from 12th Street like they have been and go out thru the
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 5 of 17
parking lot and some would come in thru the parking lot and exit by the back of the store and that would
eliminate 90% of the truck traffic from Lovell towards 11th Street or going North. This would make it much
safer for the neighborhood. The opening on Lovell is pertinent in making this happen. In 1995 the city
widened the corner of 12th street an additional 12 or 15 foot to enable the trucks turning. Same would be
at this opening. The 35 foot radius is plenty enough for the trucks to make the turn. Trucks can come in
thru the parking lot and leave thru the parking lot. We’ve offered earlier limitations on the lot where the
gate would be open during the winter months and the summer time. Doyle asked for someone to go over
that again. Mr. Hosti stated most of the trucks come between 7am and 12 noon especially the larger
trucks that end up having to travel all the way down Lovell past the churches and catholic school to the
old Tybee School. The other trucks are in the late afternoon. Those are small enough to make the
corners. The traffic counts mentioned earlier are high due to cars circling the block to find parking.
Councilman Wolff suggested an alternative site plan because trucks coming thru the parking lot will
create additional problems and more traffic accidents. What he would propose, in the interest of lowering
traffic on Lovell, is to restrict the opening rather than a 24 foot driveway, make it 14 foot and one way
coming off Lovell into the parking lot, have either 90 degree or angled parking spaces facing Butler in the
new section, the two lots, and have signs up so people coming off Butler on the north end know they can’t
go in that section, they have to go left in front of the store, and the people coming out of the parking from
Lovell will know they have to turn right in front of the store to avoid anybody coming off Butler. From a
traffic safety standpoint that would be the most logical way and you could add ten feet to the buffer on the
north side and further buffer yourself from the residential side of the neighborhood. Mr. Hosti responded
he has no objection to people leaving the parking lot from that way but if you bring them in the back of the
parking lot you are going to increase traffic on Lovell Ave. Wolff stated not necessarily, if they are
circling, they can come in from Lovell and out to Butler Ave. Mr. Hosti responded if they don’t have to go
on to Lovell I would prefer them not to. If they are already going on to Lovell and come in that way that’s
one thing, but Mr. Hosti stated he does not want to force them to come in that way and the people coming
in from Butler have nowhere to go. Wolff stated one reason this will work is because most tourist will be
coming in from Butler and the residents coming from the back. That is going to be the best well kept
secret. The tourist will discover that eventually. From a common sense stand point if you are bringing
traffic off Lovell on that side and direct it towards Butler it will be the least impact on the neighbors and
give you the most benefit in the additional parking. Mr. Hosti responded if you angle the parking lots in a
Northwesterly direction, which is what you are talking about. Wolff stated you can still keep them
perpendicular because you still have room to back up and go forward on to Butler or you could keep them
at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Hosti asked if he was suggesting eliminating the double entrance on the front
as well, because if you do that you are defeating the purpose of people coming one way or the other.
Wolff agreed. The double entrance on the front doesn’t pose the same problem; he is just concerned
about people coming off Butler. With the traffic coming the fastest and turning left and people trying to
come out the same way that is going to t-bone. Hosti commented he had looked at this with people going
both ways at the same time in the front parking lot and I know it is going to be a congested area and is
going to force people into the side parking lot and that is why I wanted people to be able to go out the
back. The more I thought about the continued traffic on Lovell Ave I would prefer people to be able to go
both ways. Tourists will tend to go the same way they come. They don’t want to go into the
neighborhood because they won’t know where they are at. It’s the people who live on the island that will
be traveling in and out there mostly. Wolff stated he believed he would have more benefit doubling the
exit on the South end of the parking lot and leaving it pretty much like it is on the North end because that
way you can have people turning left or right coming onto Butler. Hosti stated he is eliminating the one
entrance already there that is just north of the property line. This double entrance would be using the part
that is there plus widening it. The current entrance is actually disappearing because that is going to be
landscaping. In response to the comment from Mr. Hughes on concerns of what DOT may think of the
three spaces to the right of the entrance. I can move the sign and landscape area to those spaces and
put those spaces where the grassed area was not to fight that issue. Wolff stated he was more concerned
with the traffic flow and Hosti agreed he is also very concerned with the traffic flow and that is why they
spent so much time coming up with this plan the best we could do working within the configuration we
had to work within. We changed the angles in different ways but this is the best use as far as not
overcrowding, making too many parking spaces or making them too close together, which is what I’m
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 6 of 17
dealing with now in front of the building. And make it easier for people to maneuver coming in and out.
Hosti stated he doesn’t argue with coming in the back is a good idea that’s the purpose, but allowing them
to come in the back and then forcing them out the front and not allowing them to go back out the back
defeats the purpose. Wolff stated he doesn’t think so. Hosti stated if we put the gate up and we do it at
the restricted times suggested, try it for a year or so and if there are issues that are a problem then
council can come back to me and we do what we need to do to fix the problem. At the present what time
we have spent in reviewing what is best for the community and invest in this parking has been well spent
time with this decision on how to do it.
Councilman Brown commented everyone agrees we need more parking spaces but the zoning change is
what bothers him. He asked Mr. Hosti how many spaces he could get across the back not interfering with
the ramp or loading dock? You suspect eight or maybe nine? Hosti responded the best you can possibly
get with a 60 foot lot and a 10 foot driveway that could go to 24 feet you might end up with three spaces
from the driveway edge to the northern corner of the property in the back. Across the back of the building,
so you can make the turn, and there is a fire exit there, you are going to lose the turning radius for a truck
if you park any cars south of that area. Brown stated for now let’s just forget about the turning radius of
the trucks. Brown suggested with the 60 foot lot and the compactor space there is potential for 9 – 11
parking spaces across the back. Brown asked about the lot across the street Hosti owns and is now
using for parking. Hosti stated his employees park in the right a way, he is the only one that parks in the
lot as he was told by the city only he can. Brown suggested spaces in front of Hosti’s lot on Lovell could
be designated decal parking only, and he could pick up 15 or 16 more spaces. Hosti asked where would
his employees park? Brown responded on the lot. Hosti responded that is where he would probably have
to put the house being moved as the request being moved to this meeting has created issues with the
original site he had planned to use. The longer the delay the more expense comes up in trying to salvage
the house. Brown asked about eliminating spaces 35, 36, 37 and having a 10 foot buffer with a 6 foot
fence you would have almost 30 feet to back out in and come back out, if the whole back side is blocked
off. Hosti stated drawn in the plan is a 5 foot buffer with an 8 foot fence and the vegetation there now is
so thick you can’t see the building on the other side of it and we are going to add more. If you start taking
away parking spaces then you are running up the cost on each remaining space considerably. Now cost
is about $41,000 a space if you take away those four it goes up to about $50,000. Cost is a factor. Hosti
stated he is trying to do something for the community as well as himself. Closing off that back entrance
and forcing people to come in and out of only the front is a problem. He needs that back entrance for the
trucks as well as people on the island that need to get in and out of there. As far as losing those parking
spaces basically he would lose the full use of them during the winter any way because the gate is going
to be closed from 12:00 noon until the end of the day. But during the winter those spaces aren’t needed
as badly. During the summer with all the extra tourists and residents we need them bad. I have studied
this and planned the best way with the least effect to everyone around. Hosti also stated other factors will
contribute to the drop in property values not the grocery store or the parking lot. Brown also clarified the
traffic count is higher because of the July 4th holiday.
Councilman Brewer confirmed with Mr. Hosti the number of trucks would not be increasing. Hosti
confirmed that is correct unless increased summer business and because he has a small receiving room,
demanded more supply deliveries. Brewer stated he supports the market he is just trying to come up with
his own way to satisfy this situation to secure a favorable vote from him. He understands Hosti is offering
bringing the trucks thru the lot as an advantage for the neighbors as this would bring the truck traffic off
the street as it is constantly there. But he feels this is going to create a safety issue for the people in the
parking lot. With parking space #19 if you have trucks trying to come out when cars are trying to come in
or out, trucks are going to pile up at the front and you are going to have a gridlock. Hosti stated he had
thought about that also with Councilman Wolff discussing it last time. He has offered to put up signs that
say right turn only which would help in getting traffic out quicker. Brewer said he is also concerned about
spaces 19 & 20. The geometry of the lot doesn’t allow enough turning. Hosti said he was considering
this and possible using that space for a buggy corral with maybe benches to help control buggies in the
lot. Brewer asked if there are a required number of spaces or if the planned number of spaces is for
convenience or is it mandated by the size of the business. Hosti responded time had been taken to make
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 7 of 17
the spaces wider to be more accessible for safety and loading rather then utilizing all space for most
numbers even though it meant fewer parking spaces. He is not trying to maximize space.
Mayor Buelterman asked Mr. Lynn what is the answer to Mr. Brewer’s question. Mr. Lynn responded he
has never gotten the actual square feet of the building so they have never calculated it. It has not been
requested so he is not sure if he is within those requirements right now. Mr. Hosti replied the building is
88050 square feet. Mayor replied Mr. Lynn would look at that for a few minutes. Brewer continued with
the question if trucks’ coming through the lot was a safety incentive for the neighbors and if they
continued going down the street would it harm Hosti’s business? Hosti responded no. It would not harm
his business. He is trying to offer this as a convenience for the neighbors. He has had issues with
neighbors and truck drivers’ unfriendly interactions with trucks getting on the right a ways. Brewer stated
he agreed with the citizen’s comment that being open to traffic would allow more vehicles to be flowing so
if it’s not an advantage for truck traffic coming through the lot that can be taken off the table and it’s not an
issue to Hosti. Hosti stated it is not just an advantage to him. Think about the other people affected by
the big trucks having to go on Lovell all the way to the old school. Why those people should be affected
by his business also. They did not buy a house in the immediate area of a grocery store. Hosti stated he
really does not want to offend his immediate neighbors. He is trying to please everyone.
Brewer commented this is a difficult situation and they are trying to balance neighbors and businesses
and struggling. Hosti concurred he is also struggling he doesn’t want to upset the neighbors anymore
than they already are. Brewer stated if you could have zero additional trucks coming down the street or
this parking lot going in and you have larger quantity of vehicles entering the street, you actually have got
more traffic on the street. He asked Mr. Hosti if having that back area egress and access critical to your
business or is that really put there for the geometry that you really can’t make that turn. Mr. Hosti said it is
critical for the people of Tybee not just critical for his business. Mr. Brewer asked if he has looked at the
geometry of the lot if the back was closed and cars could make a circular path and come in and go back
out Butler and not go onto Lovell. Hosti replied there is not enough room to make the turn around and
have enough parking spaces. He had even looked at putting the spaces in the center and travel flow
around them and it won’t work or fit. It only gives 12 spaces. The opening on Lovell gives alternate ways
out so it will help the back up on Butler.
Mr. Lynn stated if this property was being built new today it would require, with 88,000 square feet, 44
parking spaces. Right now the site plan shows 37 spaces. Mr. Hosti said when this building was built, if
it would have been zoned commercial, it would have required 1 space for every 100 square feet. Today it
is 1 space for every 200. Mr. Hosti commented he had submitted an alternate situation, you should all
have a copy of it, we would still like to keep the entrance and exit through the rear of the property, but this
is something you can look at if you really feel badly about it. If the city would agree to widen 11th Street
and Lovell like they did 12th street to allow trucks to clear the corner that would eliminate the trucks
having to continue going North on Lovell. Hosti reviewed the plans with council but stated this is an
alternate plan but he would prefer to keep the original plan and keep as much of the traffic at the store.
Mayor Pro Tem Doyle asked if Hosti was also saying to close the whole opening to Lovell. Hosti
responded no. Just eliminate trucks going through the parking lot and have a single lane for cars going in
and out. Moving the trucks the alternative way would resolve the issue with the neighbors further up
Lovell. Doyle asked if he was stating he is not willing to offer any compromise on the Lovell opening.
Hosti answered it is very necessary to have the opening there because without it we are still going to end
up with a congestion problem with people coming in and going out the double entrance on the North side
of the parking lots. A way to get out the back will alleviate some of the back up on Butler Ave. Mr. Hosti
thanked everyone for their support and wanted what is best for the community.
Councilman Brewer asked Mr. Hughes since the planning commission has made a recommendation for
conditional zoning including other uses, and this was brought in as a grocery store, with this conditional
zoning and adding the other uses, this grocery store which has a heritage and a reason for being here,
can be sold in the future and turned into a large office building or retail store. Please explain how this
could happen. We make a decision with this as a grocery store but the conditional zoning brings in these
other definitions of uses. Nothing is constant, it could change. What happens and protects us, if we do
approve a conditional zoning and it has multiple uses and it is sold. What is the process in protecting our
decision of protecting a grocery store? Hughes replied council can make the conditions whatever you
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 8 of 17
want as part of the rezoning. The uses suggested by the planning commission were suggestions made to
them that they adopted. You could, for example, condition this to be only a grocery store of the current
size and the adjoining property only be a parking lot to the extent of serving the existing grocery store,
and if it ever ceases being a grocery store market, the only uses permissible would be the same list of
uses that are permissible in a R2 zone now. Councilman Brewer asked if then it would convert back. Mr.
Hughes responded, it would not convert back. It would still be C2 Conditional but the only permissible
uses would be the same uses permissible in the R2 zone.
Mayor Buelterman asked if Mr. Hughes was saying the council could make it even more limited than what
the planning commission originally said. Mr. Hughes answered right, and another hard part of what we
are dealing with is the site plan issue. You have the ability to impose conditions on how the property is
going to be developed. It is significantly broader and stronger with the zoning issue then it would be with
the site plan. You have three things going on. You have the Zoning issue; Text Amendment, which
would contain the conditions and would require a 2nd Reading, and the site plan. It is impossible to
separate them. From what I am hearing, if there is a motion, for example, to approve C2 conditional, the
conditions would have to be listed very specifically. It is not a question of over burdening; its making sure
everyone understands what it is. You have another issue needing to be addressed and in the record.
That is Mr. Hosti does not currently own the lots to the north of the store. You would not want the zoning
changed, if that was to be the vote, until after he acquired that, if he does. If he didn’t the change would
not take place. Those are some of the considerations hopefully that answers some of the questions. The
conditions are up to council.
Mr. Hartridge addressed council again and stated in addition to your code sec 30-20, which doesn’t
permit the expansion of a prior non-conforming use, and your land use plan being violated that
established Inland Cottage Residential District, your Tybee Island Land Development Code Sec 5110
would militate strongly against any proposed rezoning because it would violate the existing land use
pattern, one of the criteria. It would create an isolated usage unrelated to nearby districts, mainly the R2.
And would adversely influence existing conditions in the neighborhood, which is R2. It would have a
potential impact on the environment including, but not limited, to drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation
when you start paving over parking lots. And the proposed project would be detrimental to the value or
improvement of the development of adjacent residential inland cottage property in accordance with the
existing zoning. Finally, and this mirrors spot zoning language of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and is in
your code, rather the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to the individual owner
as contrasting with the adjacent or nearby neighbors. Those are in your code.
Gail Hollingsworth spoke against the petition and consistent truck noise and asked for the full mitigation
rights to be protected.
Vivian Woods, Clerk of Council, notified the council on two letters of opposition received yesterday from
Thomas Ward and Camille Ward of 1203 Lovell Ave and would enter them into the record.
Slade Cole addressed council and made a recommendation to forward the plans to HGBD, the city’s
engineers to see what would be acceptable on the city streets for the truck turning radius, truck counts,
and what DOT requirements are. The site plan does not seem to have necessary DOT requirements and
he opposes the plan.
Downer Davis, city plan review engineer, stated the exhibit before council is for a tractor trailer rig with a
wheel base of 60 feet. He had prepared it in zoning with Mr. Lynn and Ms. Otto. A 60 foot tractor trailer
does not work in this driveway. It is challenging because Lovell Ave is only 16 foot wide. The turning
radius is what is available. It is based on the width of the road you are leaving, the width of the driveway
you are entering and the radius. He wanted to speak before the hearing was closed because he didn’t
want to say anything that could not be later questioned by the petitioner’s engineer, or Mr. Cole that just
spoke. He was a DOT engineer and has expertise with radiuses. Davis asked for the WB50 slide to be
displayed. If a truck is brought in with a wheel base, measured from the center of the front set of wheels
to the center of the rear set of wheels, a truck with the distance between them of 50 feet is a WB50. A
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 9 of 17
WB50 can make the plan as shown. He doesn’t know what size trucks come to the store. He has seen
WB40s and 45s not sure if Hosti has WB50s and never noticed a WB60, they are very big. These are the
same templates that GA DOT uses and wanted council to have them. The plan could be modified if
needed. The space 33 & 32 could be shortened for compact use and the driveway could be widened a
little. As city engineer he is not speaking pro or con but he just wanted to give them the information.
Council could forward this for further study but they are going to use the same templates we use,
Savannah uses, and GA DOT. You merely lay the template on it and see if it is going to work. Brewer
asked Davis about turning radius on pickup trucks. Davis replied 15 feet. Brewer asked with the lot 60
feet, if you closed up the back of the lot, what would be the geometry and would the trucks be able to
make the turn. Discussion was held between Mr. Davis and Mr. Brewer on regular trucks and vehicles
being able to make turn around inside the lot if the rear was closed and the parallel parking was
eliminated. Mr. Davis stated he believed they could make the turns. Normally you like 80 feet width but it
could possibly be done in the 60 feet. Councilman Brown asked if the 45 feet radius starts inside the
store or outside by the parking lot. Mr. Davis replied it is where it is measured mathematically. They are
not going to tear down the store to pull the radius but for computation purposes they basically justify the
basic curve the tires will follow. Brown asked if it starts at the point of rotation inside the store or outside
by the parking space. Davis answered no. Downtown Savannah you’ve got plenty of radiuses that trucks
make that if you pulled from the tangent, point of curvature of the curbs, you would go back up in the
structure. It is just a way of laying out the curb. There are different ways.
Tom Groover spoke in favor of petition. We have a lot of tourists. They are our economy. We need to
support businesses that support our economy.
Jimmy Brown addressed council again against changing zoning as conditional zoning with the uses does
not guarantee keeping the grocery store.
Dotti Klutz spoke and asked council to make it a win-win for neighbors and petitioner. Compromise can
help both petitioner and neighbors. She cautioned against rezoning.
Paulette Fisk asked if Mr. Hughes could clarify the zoning, and if council could vote for the parking lot to
be kept that way. Mayor Buelterman confirmed.
Claude Williams spoke for the petition. He cautioned against big companies coming in. We have to get
the business coming in and out of the market that we have now.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing and called a short break.
Mayor Buelterman reopened the regular meeting and announced a collection is being taken up for the
Captain Matthew Freeman of Richmond Hill that was killed in Afghanistan. Todd Smith will have it in the
back of the auditorium.
Councilman Brown asked Mr. Hughes why we couldn’t do a conditional use property without changing the
zoning and leave it as a R2. Why can’t we say a conditional use of a grocery store and as a parking lot
and forget the zone. Mr. Hughes replied in his opinion council is trying to make just the residential lot
have a use that is not permissible in the zone it is for. That is a lot that serves the commercial
establishment that is next door. Mr. Hughes stated this is what the conditional zoning is supposed to do.
Brown asked forget what zone it is why we can’t do it under the R2. Mayor Buelterman stated Mr.
Hughes doesn’t think legally we can do that. It would not have any functional difference than rezoning it
and limiting it to a few things. Mr. Hughes responded a lot of people are concerned, and there is also a
few hard legal issues involved as the arguments have demonstrated, with the commercial zone. It is
actually conditional commercial zone. It is not where it can be used, depending on what you do; it does
not open it up, if something happens to the grocery store, for anything beyond what you put in this
ordinance as the conditions. Brown asked why we can’t leave it R2. Under our definitions it says we can
do conditional use. It doesn’t matter what zone it is under. Mr. Hughes said no, if you read the definition of
conditional zoning, the base zone used. In this case, you are trying to use R2 to establish a conditional
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 10 of 17
commercial parking lot. You can go down by being more restrictive in the zone you establish but you
can’t go up. For example, you couldn’t conditional zone a R1 lot to permit a gas station, but you could
rezone it C2 and provide that it only ever be a gas station, without it coming back to be rezoned.
Brown asked can we do a text amendment to allow the parking lot because we’ve already allowed
parking lots in R2 even though they say they are not commercial use, they are collecting money on them.
That is a business. Mayor stated then you open it up to everybody in that zone, correct? Brown replied
he is just trying to see all options available. Hughes replied you could do a text amendment to R2 that
would be drawn to almost be specifically applicable to only this and no other property.
Brown asked if this is the same as conditional. Mr. Hughes replied no it is not the conditional zoning. It is
only a Text Amendment and you would not have the control you would have by way of conditional zoning.
Except, there is a way to do that but his concern in doing that, you are opening up other lots in the R2
zone for issues, depending on how the text is drawn. If you try to draw a text that would be narrow
enough to only apply to this one lot next to a non-conforming use. Mr. Hughes stated he would have the
same concerns he had last time regarding what Mr. Hartridge’s complaint is about, if they wanted to
challenge that. But that is an alternative way to try and accomplish the same thing without actually
rezoning the property. If you amended the R2 text. . . . .
Brown stated everyone agrees that we need to make the parking lot where people can come and go. We
need to designate the space behind the market, “decal parking only”. We can close off Lovell Ave so they
don’t go that direction. But the biggest issue seems to be the zoning. He doesn’t care for the conditional
zone, but that is just one option. If another option is available and it can be done by a text amendment,
can the three of you (attorneys) get together and figure out how to do that. Hughes stated they could but
that would not mean everyone would agree on what it says or if it is valid or not. He does not think the
zoning being changed is Mr. Hartridge’s only objection. Mr. Hughes would be willing to do this but unless
you are willing to open it up for the R2 district to have this situation. His concern is it would be very
difficult to project what might come in the future in other locations. You would have to draw it so that it
would only specifically apply to this location and if it is done it would only permit that use after special
review where you have powers greater than just site plan approval for imposing conditions.
Brown asked what would stop the domino effect if taking this property and making it C2 Conditional, what
would stop this from spidering out. Hughes stated there is no guarantee it wouldn’t, Brown stated then
you have the same point on both sides. Hughes answered yes.
Councilman Smith asked Mr. Hughes what is the best way to do this legally.
Mr. Hughes answered in his opinion, the only way to accomplish expanding this parking lot without
running afoul of the prohibition of expanding a non-conforming use, is through the legislative zoning
power to make that use conforming. The best way to do that and still protect the property from other
commercial uses ever coming in there is to zone it conditionally so it is a grocery store market as it is
today and those conditions could include that structure not to be expanded any further and the adjoining
lots be rezoned conditionally Commercial 2 only to be a parking lot that serves that grocery store. And if
that ever ceases, the only permissible uses that could be reestablished there would be the same uses
permissible now in R2, single family dwelling, accessory building, bed and breakfast, two family dwelling.
Smith stated but not necessarily the uses planning commission recommended. We do not have to do
that. Hughes replied no. Smith said there is a gift shop, business office, retail establishment there now.
Hughes replied there has been a lot of talk about the Lovell Ave opening and that should be part of the
conditions. That should all be addressed and don’t leave it for the site plan because your ability to
impose conditions at that stage is significantly less than your ability as part of the zoning power. Hughes
stated he could not guarantee a judge would agree with his opinion. Obviously Mr. Hartridge doesn’t.
But the lots would have to recombined, if it ever ceases being a grocery store and one of these other
uses were going to have to be permitted or attempted to be they would have to be re-subdivided to the
then existing minimum lot size requirement of what would then be the R2 zone.
Brewer asked Hughes, if possible the process council would go through would be to define something on
the order of making an approval on the configuration of the property as conditional zoning, than laying in
those requirements we place on the property. Yet if we have other issues still on the table about the site
plan, like the way the spaces are laid out, turning radiuses, etc., is there a multiple step process you can
guide us through that we could get to a point. We all have the same general concept to have more
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 11 of 17
parking for the market. So can we go through a process where we approve conditional zoning that says
we agree to that and we will have a boundary and a border, and lay in a condition that there is or isn’t a
back street. Then when we get to the site plan go into specific detail like we want to make sure the
parking spaces are a certain way and meet certain requirements. How do we go about that step because
we are trying to do a lot of things at once? Hughes replied the safest way is to do them all at once.
Brewer asked what if we still have questions about the geometry of the parking lot and things like that.
Do we have to resolve that tonight to get to a final resolution? Hughes replied you are going to have to
have a 2nd reading regardless. You have concluded the public hearing. Hughes asked that the public
hearing held on the rezoning also be considered as the public hearing on the text amendment and site
plan and asked if there were any objections to that let it be known now. No one objected.
Hughes stated rezoning would not be effective until the other issues are resolved. You do not have to
vote on anything tonight. You may want to vote tonight. You had to have the public hearings and you
had them. Mr. Mahoney had conditions on the hours of usage; you may want to review the minutes
before making a decision. Brewer stated then council would be reasonable if we believe there is another
way of addressing the parking lot and the back area and closing the street, and we don’t vote tonight but
ask for a resubmitted alternative plan and let us look at that and validate or invalidate that it is a viable
way of dealing with the parking and turning and those issues. Is that correct?
Mayor Buelterman asked couldn’t council vote tonight and then when it comes back for the 2nd reading, if
there are details with the parking and council stipulates certain things that are different then what is on
this plan, those things could be worked out between now and then. Is that not the case? Hughes replied
as long as those details are presented at another public meeting, not necessarily another public hearing,
but a public meeting. Brewer asked if that is so, those changes might require a citizen to speak on those
additional proposed changes. Hughes replied it’s possible. The more input you permit the better off you
are going to be from defending the ultimate determination. We have had occasions in the past if a site
plan got changed it got sent back to the planning commission. I think a lot of people want to resolve this
issue. The biggest issues are the conditional zoning and the entrance/exit on Lovell Ave.
Mayor stated regardless people would still have the opportunity at the beginning of the meeting to talk
about it. Hughes replied yes.
Brown asked if it is legal or illegal to create a zoning for conditional use, a whole new zone for a pre-
existing use. Hughes replied there is nothing illegal about rezoning the property. It may be invalid for one
reason or not. Brown stated he is talking about creating a new zone or district. Hughes replied you need
a text amendment for a new district. Mayor asked what would be the difference between what some
people are suggesting now and what Brown is suggesting. Brown replied it would be a completely new
residential zone in that particular location for that particular use as another type of zone. It would still be
non-conforming use. Mayor stated he disagreed. Mayor Buelterman called for a motion. Councilman
Brewer then made the motion after asking for clarification from Mr. Hughes on uses and if the grocery
store ceases to exist.
A Motion by Councilman Brewer to approve conditional Zoning C-2 with the property specified as grocery
store in its current size, with no expansion; includes adjacent lots only to serve the grocery store, the exit
on Lovell Ave. to be closed off and the property reverting to R-2 zoning restrictions for use if the grocery
store goes away, was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle.
Councilman Brewer amended his motion to restrict the additional adjacent lots for parking only,
Mayor pro tem Doyle seconded.
Councilman Brewer amended his motion adding to continue the buffer through parking space
#33 and across the rear to be the same as the side buffer, Mayor pro tem Doyle seconded
Councilman Smith stated by disallowing any access to Lovell you are creating a dead end and a
traffic snarl in the parking lot you are allowing him to use. This is not doing a whole lot to
accomplish the goal. Councilman Brewer stated earlier Mr. Davis indicated cars could back out
spaces 33 and 32 back over it, so he amended his motion to eliminated spaces 32,33,&34 then
withdrew this amendment after conferring with Mr. Hughes this could be addressed before 2nd
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 12 of 17
reading. He asked Mr. Davis to verify changes for angling spaces, turning radius, etc before next
meeting.
Doyle stated she also wants this to be a win-win situation. Everyone on council has researched,
reviewed plans, spoke to the public and done everything to be able to make the right decision.
This has been one of the most difficult in her four years on council. Everyone has rights and we
all have to compromise it is just finding it. Council hopes it is going to work and asked for
everyone’s patience.
Wolff stated the same difficulties and hopes if approved the conditional zoning does not spread.
The vote was Brewer, Doyle and Wolff in favor and Brown and Smith opposed
Hughes stated for the record this includes the Text Amendment that recites the content of Mr. Brewer’s
motion and the Site Plan is to come back with specifics, for final 2nd reading.
Mayor Buelterman opened the next public hearing.
2. Zoning Variance: Setback Variance into side yard to replace stairs with a porch and two
sets of stairs at 29 Van Horn PIN 4-0002-18-001/Zone R-1 Petitioner: Margaret Stone &
Robert Parker
Mr. Lynn explained the request is to alter their porch. They are requesting the variance because the
current existing porch encroaches on the setback. It will have to be torn down and rebuilt but will have
the same footprint and will not encroach any further. It had previously been approved in August, 2007 but
work has not started. The variance has expired so they have to come back for the variance again. The
planning commission heard it last month and recommended approval. He received a phone call from the
owners and they are out of town so they have someone else designated to speak for them tonight.
Brown asked if this was approved previously was the delay in work starting due to the fire across the
street. Lynn responded he was not aware. Brown said he thinks this did have some impact on the
delay and also asked if the property owners had been notified the variance was going to expire. Lynn
responded, the expiration is on the bottom of the permit but the owners had not been given any further
notice.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing.
A Motion by Councilman Smith to approve was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle. The vote was
unanimous.
Mayor Buelterman opened the next public hearing.
3. Special Review: For Special Events for up to 20 people at existing bed and breakfast at
24 Van Horn, PIN 4-0002-22-002 Zone R-1 Petitioner: Cathleen Kilday
Jonathan Lynn explained the request as this is an existing Bed and Breakfast and they want to hold
special events for up to 20 people. Planning commission voted 5 to 1 to deny with their concerns being
on the parking plan.
Mayor Buelterman stated according to him in reviewing the minutes of the planning commission they
wanted a little more detail on the parking plan. Lynn responded that is correct.
Doyle asked about the 10 things the engineer found to be deficient in the report and only one of those ten
things had been revised. Lynn responded the petitioner chose to only comply with one of those issues.
He deferred to Mr. Davis. Doyle asked if that was true, only one was taken care of. Mr. Davis asked
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 13 of 17
which one. Doyle replied a parking space was not shown on the first plan but this item had been
addressed by the applicant. Davis stated his comment still stands.
Cathy Kilday stated she was the petitioner in December 2008 to get the Text Amendment approved to
allow all residential Bed and Breakfast to host special events for up to 20 people. That is why they are
here today. The ordinance requirements are: buffers surrounding the property, this has been met and
has been met as the result of us having a bed and breakfast there. She explained the surrounding
properties as the nursing home and rentals. Parking: two spaces are required by the owner, one space is
required for each guest room and one space for each person that may attend the special event, for a total
of 14 spaces. Currently they are approved for 5 parking spaces in the front and four in the back, two
under the carport and two beside it, regulated spaces 9 x 18. That plan was submitted in the text
amendment. She explained the additional spaces and parking plan she is proposing. The nursing home
has given them permission to move all 14 spaces to their parking lot. She also explained the changes
now done to provide more space that had not been done when request was heard by planning
commission.
Brown asked if the gravel asphalt coming in from behind the nursing home is a dedicated easement.
Kilday answered she did not believe so. It is all gravel. We don’t have anyone with an easement. The
McCuskers, the nursing home, all use it. Brown asked if the nursing home decided to close it and not
allow them to drive on it how would they get to the back of the property. Kilday stated there is also a city
pump station back there so city vehicles go there also. Brown stated if the nursing home has given them
a legal document giving them permission or a dedicated easement. Hughes stated he has not seen
anything that says it is a dedicated easement. The lane depending on how long it has been used may
have been established as a dedicated easement. In the absence of a document it is always difficult to
rely on something due to historical use. He stated he did not know if the nursing home could close it or
not. Brown stated he thinks it is part of the nursing home’s parking lot behind the nursing home.
Discussion was held on if this is a public lane.
Mayor Buelterman asked if the planning commission was not opposed and they just wanted more
information on the parking. Shouldn’t they be working all this out? Hughes answered yes. Doyle stated
previously if there were changes made to a site plan before coming to council they would always send it
back to planning commission. Lynn said this is the same plan that went to planning.
Kilday stated they were not aware of the ten things, they were never told there were ten things under
objection. Lynn stated normally those sort of things are relayed back to the architect. Diane Otto stated
the plan was returned with a print out from Mr. Davis with his comments and attached to the plan. When
it was resubmitted only the space that had been missing was added. None of the other concerns had
been addressed. Kilday stated we did not get those in any way. Otto responded her husband had picked
them up; she put them in his hands.
Wolff stated we probably needed something from the nursing home allowing the access. The seven
spaces in the front are they in the public right of way? Kilday responded yes. Wolff stated could the fence
be moved and some vegetation to get all the spaces up front and eliminate the need for the back.
Brown asked about the spaces in the back, if they intrude into the road. Kilday replied no. The fence has
been moved to give the needed space. Kilday stated most of these events would be to host a wedding to
be able to rent the rooms. This is to allow rain alternatives for beach weddings.
Smith asked if the person who signed the permission from the nursing home for the 14 spaces is
authorized to sign this or shouldn’t it be from William Foster the owner of the nursing home property.
Kilday replied she didn’t know. Smith stated this could cause problems. He recommended she get a
cross-parking agreement signed by the owner to lessen the problems.
Mr. Hughes stated the county and the city requires something recordable. Everyone agrees they prefer
the garden not be disturbed. He can’t answer the question about the drive depicted on the survey. It is
written in it is a private drive once it reaches their property. If that is the case the Kildays can stop that
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 14 of 17
any time they want. And it is either open to the public or it is not. Discussion was held on the easement
and access road.
Brewer stated according to what is in the request for up to 10:00pm, would they be holding night
weddings? Kilday stated that it is not their intent. It is their intent to be able to rent more rooms for
couples coming down for their weddings. There is not going to be DJ’s or catering. They do not want to
be in the wedding business. It is really simple and they would be happy with the condition. Councilman
Brewer and Mrs. Kilday had discussions about the fire occupancy limitations and how this plays into their
request. Brewer stated the numbers do not seem to match.
Larry Nesbitt spoke in support of the petition. He asked for expeditious decisions not delays. He
recommended a letter be sent to petitioners if everything is not in compliance before coming before
council.
Lynn stated the 10 comments could easily be worked out with Mr. Davis and city staff. There is nothing
that would cause a real big delay if they would be willing to work with them. There is nothing that
couldn’t really be resolved in a short period of time.
Dottie Klutz spoke about when B&B’s first came on to Tybee. An advisory committee was established
that came up with the restrictions and limitations to preserve the neighborhoods but allow the B&B. That
has worked. Over time B&B’s do not want to stay B&B’s they want to expand into other businesses such
as weddings. This creates all kinds of problems (like parking) bringing more commercial into the
residential areas. She asked council not to put more business into the neighborhood.
Kilday stated B&BS are commercial, so is the nursing home. This is a text amendment that has already
been approved.
Brown asked for clarification of exactly where the nursing home is suggesting the overflow parking. Kilday
stated the lot that is really designated as employee parking in the back of Oceanside. Smith stated they
tried to do this for the theater but that area is really just an opened field not a parking lot. Kilday stated it
is not designated so it probably anywhere they have a spot. Smith asked if we could approve with
stipulation of proof of parking agreement.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
A Motion by Councilman Brewer to Deny failed for lack of a second.
A Motion by Councilman Smith to approve contingent on a legal agreement between the Kilday’s and the
owner of the Nursing Home (Mr. William Foster) for additional parking being submitted to the city,
including the 9 items recommended by the Planning Commission and the Kilday’s documenting ingress
and egress rights across the neighboring property on the gravel road, was seconded by Mayor pro tem
Doyle.
Brewer stated his concern with the engineer’s and planning commission’s concerns not being
addressed and ignored and the vagueness of several issues like the night time events. Special
Event facilities are becoming bigger and areas of concerns.
The vote was Smith and Doyle in favor and Brewer, Brown and Wolff in opposition.
A Motion by Councilman Brown to send back to the Planning Commission to work out the engineer’s
issues and gravel road issues was seconded by Councilman Wolff. The vote was Brown and Wolff in
favor and Brewer, Doyle and Smith in opposition.
A Motion by Councilman Brewer to deny was seconded b y Councilman Brown. The vote was Brewer
and Brown in favor and Doyle, Smith and Wolff opposed.
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 15 of 17
Lynn deferred to Downer Davis. Mr. Davis stated if they get the cross parking easement in a
legal document from the nursing home then all of his remaining nine issues will be resolved
because they are not adding any additional parking to their site. Or a cross parking agreement
would put their additional parking there. So if you approve it conditional on that agreement, then
if that doesn’t come thru then they would have to meet his concerns.
A Motion by Councilman Smith to approve subject to parking agreement with Kilday’s and The Nursing
Home was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle.
Brewer stated he is still concerned with no stipulation about the nighttime events, etc.
Wolff stated there are still issues about the parking rather than just an agreement. He still prefers
it go back to planning commission.
Mayor asked Mr. Hughes what would be the ramifications if council approved this and they
violated the conditions approved originally in 2008. Hughes responded it would be an
enforcement problem. Citations issued, etc. Mayor asked if the business license could be
revoked. Hughes answered that is one of the enforcement mechanisms the other citations.
Brewer answered because of the event industry, if we have problems we have a recourse that
both parties know, if they comply everything is fine.
The vote was Smith and Doyle in favor and Brewer, Brown and Wolff opposed.
A Motion by Councilman Brewer to reconsider and send back to the Planning Commission to look into
parking issues, hours of operation and fire code requirements was seconded by Councilman Brown.
Councilman Wolff confirmed that no more than Twenty (20) people including guests would be
allowed.
The vote was Brewer, Brown and Wolff in favor and Doyle and Smith opposed.
Lynn clarified for the Kildays information, deadline for planning commission is usually Monday but
due to the Labor Day Holiday, their petition would have to be resubmitted on Friday, September
4th.
Mayor Buelterman opened the next public hearing.
4. Special Review; For a Guest Cottage at 38 Solomon Ave, PIN 4-0002-16-018 Zone R-1-
B Diversified Designs for Petitioner: Russell Akers
Jonathan Lynn explained the request is to add a guest cottage on their property in design to match their
existing home. It is only for guest and petitioner understands it cannot be a rental property. He
understands there is no intent at the current time to sub-divide the property into 2 lots. The proposed
guest cottage will continue to meet all current setbacks as controlled by the ordinance.
Jeff Cramer spoke on behalf of the petitioner. This is a historical house from 1898. Then they didn’t have
carports. The petitioner wants to have room for his cars and more room for his guest. So the guest
apartment would be over the carport. This is a large piece of property, over half an acre in size, he
recombining the lots, about 5 partial lots, per the planning and zoning’s recommendation. He has agreed
not to rent it and met all requirements.
Wolff asked what the square foot of the guest cottage is. Cramer responded it is based on a three car
garage, 34 x 24. Lynn responded 864 sq ft. Wolff commented if he is going to recombine the lots he
could come back after he builds the cottage and sub-divide. If the square footage is there this is possible
and allowed. He also confirmed it is R1B zone.
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 16 of 17
Hughes stated once it is combined it is a large piece of property and in the future could be sub-divided
into 2 lots and would be complying with the zoning. Both front public roads. Brown asked why he
doesn’t just build a garage.
Russell Akers spoke and stated he doesn’t want just a garage that is why he is putting a one-bedroom,
one-bath guest apartment. This is not for profit.
A Motion by Mayor pro tem Doyle to approve was seconded by Councilman Smith. The vote was
unanimous.
Mayor Buelterman opened the next public hearing
5. Text Amendment: Land Development Code, Article 3, General Provisions.
Mr. Hughes recommended council hold off on Article 3 until Article 5 comes up for review probably
October. Planning commission concern is council would think they have already approved and not look
at it closely.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing.
A Motion by Councilman Brown to table and re-advertise when Article 5 is ready was seconded by
Councilman Brewer. The vote was unanimous.
Hughes stated they both would have to be re-advertised at that time.
Mayor opened the next public hearing.
6. Text Amendment: Municipal Code, Section 34-3, Private Parking Lots
Doyle stated she has had several meetings with several different people on the general parking all over
the island and has a lot of information to review and study,
Lynn explained this is a recommendation from the planning commission to actually approve one of the
ordinances, ordinance 10-2009B originally submitted to the council.
Mary Ann Bramble stated she has information to share with council on the parking situation but would not
mind waiting for the issue to come before council again in September due to the lateness of the hour.
She did note everything that comes up before council seems to deal with parking.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing.
A Motion by Mayor pro tem Doyle to table until the 1st meeting in September and re-advertise was
seconded by Councilman Brewer. The vote was unanimous.
Hughes stated council has in effect put a moratorium on the application of creating any more of these.
There have been applications submitted that are being held. He assumes this is to continue in place.
Various council members responded in the affirmative.
Council, Officials and City Attorney Considerations & Comments
Councilman Brown requested the City Manager research and report to city council the cost of providing
medical insurance to all employees who are eligible to retire between the ages of 55 and 65 along with a
contribution system that will allow employees to enroll and pay into it in order to have their medical
coverage provided between the ages of 55 and 65. Report to be provided at the 2nd meeting in August.
Prepared8/26/09dw Page 17 of 17
Executive Session
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to go into Executive Session to discuss Litigation, Personnel and Real
Estate was seconded by Councilman Brown. The vote was unanimous.
City Council excused Diane Schleicher and Vivian Woods from the Executive Session on Personnel.
A Motion by Councilman Smith to end Executive Session was seconded by Councilman Wolff. The vote
was Smith, Wolff, Brown and Doyle in favor and Brewer opposed.
Adjournment
A Motion by Councilman Brown to adjourn was seconded by Councilman Smith. The vote was
unanimous.
______________________________________
Mayor Jason Buelterman
___________________________________________
Clerk of Council