HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111018_PC_mtg_min.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Henry Levy Steele Knudson
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the October 18, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, and John
Major. Tyler Marion was absent due to illness.
Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the September 20, 2011, meeting. Rob Callahan
moved to approve. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks introduced newly employed Steele Knudson, Planning and Zoning Manager.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval with Variance for 16 Tybrisa
Street, PINs 4-0008-03-080 through 4-0008-03-139, Zone C-1/S-E. The petitioner was Tybee Condo
Investors, LLC. The request was expansion of the existing structure for a restaurant. Steele Knudson said
they are seeking to expand an existing space and remove parking spaces from what is now a condotel. He
said in their application they noted there is an off-street parking exception. Knudson said Staff is going to
recommend this Site Plan with Variance be denied; there is no hardship and this building is already under-
parked. He said it used to be a hotel, it was then sold off as individual condo suites, and then was bought
back up and mostly consolidated under one ownership. He said there used to be a restaurant which is now
the lobby. Knudson said they are asking to put in 8 new [parking] spaces; they are removing 3 or 4. He
said the new spaces would be parallel and would be valet parked and would block existing spaces. He said
people have started using the valet spaces that are marked “valet only.” He said the existing spaces used
to be numbered and he believed those numbers pertained to individual units. He said he was not sure of
the ownership of the spaces now. Knudson explained the space that was being proposed for expansion to
become Wet Willie’s. The floor plan for the bar/restaurant was shown. He stated this may be the right
thing in the wrong space at this time; the variance would require a hardship and he did not believe what
had been described really qualified. Knudson said if this was not given a parking exception it would
require well over a dozen parking spaces that are currently missing from the building. John Major said in
the Staff Report it said they are seeking approval to have parallel parking spaces that block perpendicular
spaces. He asked if that was the variance or was the variance to have under the number of parking spaces.
Knudson said that was a good question because as written there was some confusion as well in terms of
who owns the parking spaces. He said they want the exception to apply because it is under 4,000 square
feet and then the variance would be to say a hotel is required one space per unit . He said there are 60 units
and 58 spaces. Knudson said they are removing 3 and then they would be adding 8 parallel spaces which
block in the other spaces so they would be adding back enough for the hotel but not enough for the
restaurant unless the exception applies. Major asked when they finish they would have more parking than
they have now but a bigger requirement then they have now. Knudson said yes. Major clarified with
2
Knudson that it was a restaurant, not retail. Major said the parallel parking spaces are there. Knudson said
they put them in and they marked them. Major asked if that was a violation of anything: to have parallel
parking spaces that block perpendicular parking spaces. He said the hotel has a 24-hour attendant that
could, and he guessed is, serving as a valet. Knudson said he does not know that they have started valet
parking but, yes, it is a violation and it also changed the nature of the drive aisles which by code have to
be a certain width for perpendicular parking. Major asked if there was a safety issue if those spaces are
used. Knudson said yes. Major asked if the City granted permission to paint the new spaces. Knudson said
no, there was no permit. Major asked if one was required. Knudson said for that parking, yes. Demery
Bishop asked if there would be a code violation for fire, ingress/egress, and public safety access if those
valet spots were approved. Knudson said yes. Bishop asked also if blockage of the non-marked valet
spaces would also constitute an ingress/egress for fire/emergency equipment. Knudson said if they were
allowed the valet parking there may not be entirely a violation of fire code but because reduction of the
drive aisle is a standard in the code and in addition to the safety problem there is the problem of the
ownership of each space so he was not sure how they have gone about blocking spaces they may not own.
Bishop said that ownership would obviously belong to the current owner an d that would take that right
away under deed right of ownership or something to that effect. Knudson said yes. Referring to the Staff
Report, Rob Callahan said Knudson was saying there was already a situation where there were not
sufficient parking spaces. Knudson said that was correct. Callahan asked how it got to be that way.
Knudson said it was 58 spaces but if you add the bike rack technically it is 59 spaces. He said he did not
know how that came about; this hotel was built some time ago and has gone through some real ownership
changes. After listing previous ownership situations, he said the LLC came in and bought up most of the
units; they do not own them all. Callahan asked if it was neither a hotel nor a condo now. Knudson said
condotel. Callahan said in a perfect world what we would try to do is have him bring himself into
compliance with the overall parking requirements for both the condotel and the Wet Willie’s . Knudson
said yes. Callahan asked which would be a total requirement of how many spaces. Knudson said over 20
spaces would be required for the restaurant if the exception did not apply. Callahan asked why the
exception does not apply. Knudson said they cite the hardship as the entire building, the entire hotel, but
then the exception would apply only to the space that is the restaurant. He said he thinks they are trying to
have their cake and eat it too as their hardship is, “This is the only space we can use because this building
envelope is such that the only place we can go is these parkin g spaces yet we want the exception to apply
only to this space that we are changing.” Callahan asked how many spaces there would be after the
expansion of the Wet Willie’s and the addition of the 8 spaces. Knudson said they take out 4, they add 8
so you go from 59 down to 55 plus 8 so you are going up to 63 spaces . Callahan said that would be
sufficient for the condotel. Knudson said yes. Callahan said if in fact the restaurant was within 1,000-feet
of public parking, which it is, then the exception might apply but Knudson does not think that is the
correct way. Knudson said then you have to accept valet parking with 24-hour attendants as something
that is acceptable in the condotel and the blocking of spaces that exist under different ownership. Major
asked if they were looking at a variance both for the number of parking spaces and the ability to park
parallel behind perpendicular; what exactly was being asked of them. Knudson said, according to the
narrative provided by the applicant, the variance requested since the 8 new parking spaces would be
parallel and valet only so the variance was for the spaces and then they apply the exception to the
expanded restaurant. Major asked if that could happen without a variance if they were looking only at the
restaurant. Knudson said if they were only looking at the restaurant as a separate structure under the code
and it was not part of this other structure, the exception would apply. Major asked if the restaurant did not
have a hotel around it and was 1,000-feet from municipal parking would there be any requirement for
spaces associated with it. Knudson said no, there would not. Major said there are restaurants down there
that rely on municipal parking. Knudson said that was correct. Major said there are a number of
unanswered questions in the Staff write up: why the former restaurant is unavailable and if the [parking]
spaces are individually owned. He asked if they would not share that. Knudson said in their narrative it
3
did not explain. He said their explanation for needing that space and having to take out 4 spaces was that
there was no other space available however what is now the lobby of the condotel used to be a restaurant.
He said he does not know the reasons for not using that space. Knudson said it was not in the narrative
and he does not know that it has been explained properly to him because that was the confusion of the
parking space ownership. Major said hopefully there will be somebody here that can answer that.
Knudson said he hoped so. Mark Smith, one of the principals of Tybee Condo Investors and owner of
property near Fort Screven, said their business in Savannah is to own and operate the Mulberry Inn,
Hampton Inn, and Holiday Inn Express; they have been in business for 19 years. He said Wet Willie’s has
been a fixture on River Street for 23 years and they work closely with them on a lot of Savannah-related
issues. Smith said they consider themselves good corporate citizens; they support a lot of the efforts of the
philanthropic work that goes on in the community from buying fireworks to the 200 Club to any number
of organizations that they support. He said they came into this project by multiple defaults; this project
was built as a motel with a contiguous ownership and that was when the restaurant was in the lobby area.
Smith said developers out of South Carolina came in and decided to call them condominiums and
convince people to buy them as such and shortly thereafter people started defaulting on their mortgages
and the project was in horrible disarray. Smith said after about four years the bank that he does business
with came to him and said that this was a mess. He said they had been through four management
companies in four years, there was no rental activity taking place, there was just a dysfunctional situation.
Smith said they got involved a year-and-a-half ago and there was no reservation system, no ability to rent
rooms; it was a horrible mess. He said they took over some units, established a professional management
system; first they had to stabilize the patient and now they are trying to get the patient off life support and
out of the hospital. Smith said it has been a long struggle of trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together
again. He described the 1,000 square feet of vacant space that unfo rtunately would not accommodate the
Wet Willie’s but was designed and approved for retail and it just needs to be expanded about 600 square
feet and that was the propose with the site plan. He said the only logical space to expand is the parking
spaces behind it. He said they tried to come up with creative solutions for the parking. He said they use
stacked parking downtown and he described their experience with valet parking at the Hampton Inn.
Smith said the reason they are not putting the restaurant in the lobby area was they do not own the area; it
is still a condominium project and it is still convoluted ownership. He said some units are owned by the
FDIC, some by banks; it is a mess they are trying to straighten out and they would appreciate the Planning
Commission’s consideration in looking logically at the plan. He said he does not know how many other
properties are responsible for having drive-thru emergency vehicles; this is private property that is not
required to have emergency vehicle access. He said there are a lot of technical nuances so if the
Commission would bear with them their attorney, Tom Mahoney, would make a presentation. Mark Dana
said he works with Mark Smith in the Holiday Inn Express and the Hampton Inn. He said at the Hampton
they have 118 parking spaces and have been operating 287 rooms and 118 parking spaces for years. He
said he brought photographs to show they are a very capable and responsible hotel company with many
years of professional experience. The photos were passed among the Commissioners. Regarding
emergency vehicles, Major said the beams seemed very low and a fire truck could not go through. Dana
agreed and described the public property on the south and north sides of the building which emergency
vehicles could use. Parks asked about the people that own the parking places that are being blocked by the
valet parking. Dana said they would have total control of the vehicles that are parallel parked; the keys
would be in their possession and nobody would ever be restricted from leaving. He said this is a situation
they deal with continuously downtown. Major asked if he owned a unit would he have a given space that
belongs to him or just a guarantee that he can park somewhere. Dana said you have a space but not a
particular location of a space. Smith referenced their September hotel/motel taxes of $2,800 and said they
wish it to be more. He said this property does not do well; it is a rare occasion when they do not have
enough parking. He said they hope to improve that. Parks asked if it was possible that once the patient is
off life support that parking would be a premium . Smith said that is their intent and what their solution
4
addresses. Bill Dickinson, owner of Wet Willie’s, said he is the perspective tenant. He said he would
prefer to be in the lobby space but it could take them a year or two to get that if they ever could. Referring
to the vacant space that would need to be expanded, he said if this does not happen he could start looking
for other spaces. He said he has been here for over 22 years; he did not just discover Tybee. Dickinson
said he has been trying to get here for at least 15 years. He discussed how hard it is to get space that is not
falling down or needs a tremendous amount of renovation, and the vacant space was in pretty good shape
and easy to build on to. Dickinson said he would love to be under construction by December. Callahan
asked who owned the space Dickinson would like to make Wet Willie’s. The owner of the current lobby
was the condominium association according to Smith. Tom Mahoney, representative of the applicant, said
they would respectfully disagree with the Staff recommendations. He said they do not believe a variance
is necessary in connection with the expansion. He said under Section 3-080(E), it is located within 1,000
feet of a municipal parking facility and is also a building that is the proper size that can expand up to
4,000 square feet. Mahoney said Staff’s recommendation to deny was based on the fact that they do not
consider this part of this overall development to be a structure and Staff is misguided on that by the terms
of its very own ordinance. He read Section 2-010(B), “A structure means anything constructed or erected,
the use of which requires permanent location on the land, or attachment to something having a permanent
location on the land, and not including manufactured homes.” Mahoney said they are stuck with one
development that occupies a tremendous amount of space. He said that Staff said that is one structure and
you are not expanding the structure; you only want to expand a portion of it so therefore it does not meet a
definition of a structure. Mahoney said Staff loses focus of the last phrase in the definition which clearly
shows that this is attached to the building, it is attached to the land and it therefore meets the definition of
a structure. He said if the Commission and City Council follows its own definition of a structure then they
do not need any variance or any off-street parking for Wet Willie’s and that leaves the decision of what
parking do you need for the remaining portion of the development. Mahoney said this development was
built many years ago, it does have one parking space too few. He said if they take away 4 spaces and add
8 spaces they come up with more than enough to service the condotel. Mahoney explained they meet the
definition of a hardship under zoning law because the condo association owns the former Asian restaurant
which is now a lobby. He said they have absolutely nothing to do with it; they do not have a lease on it,
any ownership right to it and under the condo documents and the declaration when the condo was created
the condo association cannot sell it because it belongs to all the owners of the condos and it would take
negotiations with the owners of the condos to make any deal and to make that kind of a deal you are
forcing the proprietor and the developer of Wet Willie’s to deal with people he does not necessarily want
to deal with. He said from a hardship standpoint the applicant cannot change the building, cannot change
the footprint, cannot change where the rooms are, cannot build higher, cannot change those parking
spaces that are in existence to bring them up from 59 to 60, but his plan of the parallel parking will more
than adequately address that, and he cannot use or change the former restaurant space so you are down to
one place where Wet Willie’s can go and that is in th e vacant space that originally was designed to be
retail space. He said under the definition of a hardship they have met that; they cannot do anything with
the condo, they cannot acquire that space, they believe they have demonstrated the ability to parallel park
these additional parking spaces; it has worked in Savannah for a number of years on a larger scale.
Mahoney said a fire truck cannot go through those openings and there is really no reason for that to be an
open breezeway; they probably would prefer to close it off to avoid the traffic that circumvents trying to
go through the Strand parking lot by doubling back and going out Atlantic Avenue to Butler Avenue; they
do not like that but it was inherited. Mahoney summarized the points he had made. Major asked what
exactly was the variance they are seeking. Mahoney said he questions whether it meets the true definition
of a variance. Major said to Mahoney that he had just said that it did. Mahoney said under the definitions
in the code he does not think they need a variance for Wet Willie’s for off-street parking. He said Staff
felt they needed a variance because of the number of spaces at the hotel; they tried to address that by
coming in with a bike rack and with the parallel parking. He said in the true definition of a variance under
5
zoning law he does not think they really need an actual variance unless it is the variance between parallel
parking and stall parking. Major asked if they were already doing that. Mahoney said they have not
started the parallel parking. Major said there is a sign there that says “valet parking only” and there are
eight spaces. Mahoney said he does not believe they have physically started it; they have painted the
spaces for illustration purposes more than anything else, and he will commit that t here will be 24/7
attendants there to handle any parallel parking and the keys will be in the possession of the owners of the
hotel. He said the hotel owners own 42 rooms and the rest of the units are the condos that are owned by 9
or 11 different entities, some banks and it is difficult in a couple of instances to find out which bank owns
the foreclosed units. Mahoney said a variance in zoning law is very difficult to define and he does not
think they need an actual variance as in terms of building over a setback line or building too high as much
as they are requesting a change in the way the parking is going to look; if that meets the definition of a
variance then the variance they are asking for is the parking situation, but they really do not believe they
need anything for the Wet Willie’s off-street parking because the code is very clear that it is not required.
He asked Major if that did still not address his question. Major said he thought that was as good as it was
going to get tonight. Bishop questioned Mahoney’s feeling that there was not any relevance to the Tybee
LDC definition of structure that was applicable to the Wet Willie’s construction. Mahoney said yes, he
believes that the vacant space meets the definition of a structure in the Land Development Code. Bishop
asked if it was correct that there was going to be an addition to the current space in order to accommodate
the square footage for Wet Willie’s by the taking of 4 [parking] spaces. Mahoney said yes. Bishop asked
how that would not be part of a change in a structure by definition in the code. Mahoney said it would be
an expansion of a structure which you have a right to do if that structure is under 1,000 [square] feet and
you can expand it to up to 4,000 [square] feet; you do not need any variance to do that nor do you need
any off-street parking if it is a restaurant. He said you are adding onto a structure but you have a right to
do it under the code. Bishop stated it was in fact a structure and it was being changed because there was
actual construction and an increase of square footage. Mahoney said yes, agreeably to your ordinances.
Bishop asked if there were any requirements under the existing condotel documents that property owners
of the existing units would need specific notice of this action. Mahoney said he knew of no legal
requirement for the owners of the hotel portion to have to give notice to the condo owners and the fact
that the condo owners have in effect lost their identity by virtue of having no management and by virtue
of some of the units being taken over by lending institutions, they were very happy to see occupancy of
the hotel and hoping the hotel might end up renting some of their units for them. He said good manners
might suggest that if the work progresses they would notify them as a courtesy but it would be difficult to
notify each of them. Smith said the condo documents are elaborate, detailed documents, 50 to 60 pages;
they have all sorts of procedures for notifying but there is no need to until the project is approved.
Mahoney said the hotel has no legal obligation to notify the condo association; he did not mean to suggest
it would not be done but they do not have legal obligation to because they are not joint owners. Bishop
and Mahoney discussed. Major asked how many units were in the condotel. Mahoney said 60; 42 owned
and operated by this applicant as a hotel. Major said that leaves 18 owned by somebody else. Mahoney
agreed. Major said the Wet Willie’s proprietor said he would prefer to be in the lobby, the prior restaurant
space. He said the variance law says that because of physical circumstances or conditions the property
cannot be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the code that is the only time a variance
can be granted. He said he was not sure that they have a situation where physical conditions could not be
met another way. He said there are 18 owners, we cannot find them, but somebody owns those units and
they are probably not getting a lot of revenue out of them now. He asked if those 18 along with the 42
collectively own the lobby space. Mahoney said no, the applicant has no ownership interest in the lobby
space, has no leasehold interest in the lobby space. Major said the applicant was not a member of the
condo association. Mahoney agreed. Bishop questioned that the owner of 42 of 60 units had no ownership
or connectivity with the association. Smith said they are members of the condo association but it owns the
lobby; the applicant has an interest in the lobby but does not own the lobby. Bishop and Smith restated
6
that point. Bishop said of the 60, it was alluded to they are not sure who those owners are. Smith said
some are owned by the FDIC, some by the bank, others are owned by individuals and they know who the
individuals are. Bishop asked if they have been put on notice with what they are planning to do in
compliance with the condo docs. Smith said they have a lot of goodwill with the people. He said there
were four management companies in four years before they came down there; in March of 2010 the
people who were managing the property left with the month’s revenue and it was a mess, was in default,
no bills were being paid, electricity was about to be turned off, so they have been the savior of the project.
Smith said some people want to maintain their condominium; they like going there, they keep it for
private purposes, some are in the rental pool, some are owned by a vacation club out of Maryland that is a
huge corporate organization that is difficult to deal with, some are owned by the bank, some by the FDIC:
it is a convoluted spaghetti of ownership. Callahan asked if other than being able to get a lease and the
price of that lease was there any other reason why they wanted to develop this area as a Wet Willie’s.
Dickinson said it is available, in pretty decent shape, is on Tybrisa, and has a nice traffic flow. Callahan
said he was projecting he will do a great business there. Dickinson agreed and said he thinks it will be a
homerun for them. He said they have 14 locations and have been doing this for 23 years and this is a
terrific opportunity. Callahan asked if the applicant would be leasing the space to Dickinson. Smith said
yes. Dickinson said Smith approached him. Parks asked if there was any public comment. There was none
and Parks closed the Hearing. Major asked Staff to articulate exactly what they were being asked to vote
on. Knudson said Mahoney was correct in terms of zoning law and variances may be a little different than
our definition in our code; here we are doing a variance to make an exception to this portion of the code
and that variance in our code requires a description of a hardship. He said Mahoney was describing a
hardship as the fragmentation of ownership in the building; a hardship only applies to the property.
Knudson said he has never heard it expanded to say, “Well, I don’t own the space therefore I have a
hardship.” Knudson said he thinks that is a stretch and a breaking point in the law. Parks asked the exact
variance in less than 25 words. Knudson said he would use the applicant’s words and he read, “The
variance is requested since the 8 new parking spaces will be parallel parking/valet parking only.” He said
the issue of the drive aisles is not only about emergency vehicles; it is about the ability to back up and
turn your car around. Parks said that is almost a DOT question. Knudson agreed. Parks said the actual
variance is valet parking rather than standard perpendicular parking. Knudson said that was correct. Major
said but only a problem because of the number of parking spaces that are there now and with the addition
of the restaurant. Knudson said yes. Parks said he is thinking this is a Text Amendment to allow valet
parking. Major said their job as a Planning Commission was to look at requests and try to decipher
whether or not they fit not the zoning laws but our code which is what the y are here to interpret and
enforce and if a variance is going to be granted that goes beyond that, th at is City Council’s job to make a
decision. He said their determination is does this or does this not fit within our definition of a hardship
which is when they are allowed to grant variances. Parks asked if there was a motion. Bishop commented
that with the issue of the variance, if the [parking] spaces are not approved as asked for that basically was
going to prohibit the improvement of the retail space. Parks said if we do not allow valet parking they will
not be able to build. Knudson said he would not be allowed to build in that particular space which could
be another retail use as is without expanding; that space could be occupied by any number of tenants. He
said the space is on the market like any other space on Tybrisa and could be rented without expansion.
Bishop confirmed Knudson was speaking of the existing footprint of the vacant space. Knudson said Wet
Willie’s could go into any number of vacant spaces on Tybrisa. Parks said the variance was for valet
parking. Knudson said and it was to recognize the hardship as the fragmented ownership of the building;
in order to grant the variance they have to recognize there is a hardship and so in granting this variance
they would say their hardship, as they described, is the fragmentation of the building ownership. He said
they are saying the only place they can go is this place in this entire building; because the ownership is
fragmented they cannot use any other space so their hardship, as Mahoney described, is they just cannot
negotiate with everybody so they have no other choice. Bishop said he did not hear that. Regarding the
7
former Asian restaurant which was currently owned by the condo association, Bishop asked if there has or
has not been any deliberations with that group. Knudson said they could fit it in there just fine. He said he
does not know that the ownership is a hardship; their difficulty of negotiating with the co-owners is sort
of self-imposed; it is not a hardship as defined in law. He said the hardship almost always applies to the
land and to the property. Parks and Knudson discussed and agreed the selection of a location was not up
to the City. Parks said the variance they are being asked to vote on is for valet parking spots. Knudson
said an exception to the parking regulations in the Land Development Code. Major asked if that was
granted and the applicant comes to the City for a building permit, if they have those parking spaces there
was there any reason why they would be turned down for the building permit. Knudson said no. Major
said then they would say because we have parking 1,000 feet away we do not have a problem with the
restaurant; we have increased the number of [parking spaces]. He said this is difficult. Parks suggested a
Text Amendment allowing valet parking in replacement of variances site by site; planning instead of a
variance for one occasion. Marianne Bramble said she agreed and she has used the applicant’s valet
parking and they have it down to an art; it works and she did not see how it would not work here. Parks
told Knudson about a prior Text Amendment to allow a miniature golf course that had went very well.
Parks asked if a Text Amendment allowing valet parking would be better. Knudson said it probably
needed a little more study but he tended to agree that it was better to look at our ordinances instead of
making variances to every rule; rather to plan proactively and find the proper application. Parks said on
the other hand Dickinson has 60-days to get this project fired up or he is going to lose the season next
year. Bishop said as a planning entity they have to be very careful and with tremendous specificity when
they start granting variances or alterations/modifications to our LDC. He said in many instances
precedence is set and then they have to live with it and successive Planning Commissions and Councils do
also and that is the issue they ran into with the prior miniature golf petition so they need to be mindful of
that. Parks said if they vote in favor of the variance for valet parking they are in essence saying an
exception to the LDC that anybody can walk in with. Henry Levy questioned what would happen when
the valet attendant was not available to work. Bramble re-expressed her positive experiences with valet
parking in Savannah. She asked how long it would take for a Text Amendment. Major asked if valet
parking were permitted would they not be here. Knudson said they would have to address this from a
building code standpoint on the drive aisles and the parking spaces within the structure. Major asked if
that would be administratively. Knudson said he still does not believe they could put the spaces in in
terms of blocking the other spaces. Major asked if he has seen how they have them painted. Photographs
of cars parked that were taken by Knudson that afternoon were shown. Dana said it was recently restriped
but that was an existing space before they did anything with valet. Callahan said there are 4 lined spaces
on each side. Major added and a sign that says “valet parking only.” Bishop offered a motion that Staff
develops a Text Amendment that would be specific to this petition for presentation and review to the
Commission for its November meeting. Major seconded for discussion. Bishop said he was still
concerned with the variance issue and the modification of the LDC and how that would impact them. He
said he would like to see wording that would potentially specifically address this issue that might allow
this improvement to occur but not have far reaching effects and precedence for other petitioners at a
future date. Bishop said he wants to be right in what they do and how they do it. Knudson said he would
be happy to look into a Text Amendment and to study valet parking and regulations in Savannah and the
surrounding area and bring that to the Commission. Major said he hated to tell businesses that want to
come to the island that they cannot do it. He said maybe Knudson could discuss it with the City Attorney
and come up with something that works for the petitioner and also for our codes. He asked if it would be
appropriate to ask how the petitioner felt about that. Parks asked if there was any way to unleash Wet
Willie’s and still study this as a Text Amendment. Knudson said no. Bishop restated the motion. Parks
recognized Mahoney’s request to speak. Mahoney asked they consider that a Text Amendment to the
Commission in November means that the very earliest it could get on the Council agenda would be
December, it would have to be read twice, and that would put them into January of next year. He said he
8
was not quarreling about that timeframe but it does get involved as far as the developer is concerned. He
asked if there would be any way they could consider, if they agree with their presentation, that the Wet
Willie’s expansion does not need any variance and that part of the project go forward. Parks said that was
his question and the answer was no. He said he understands the timeline and the deadlines, and this
Commission as a volunteer group of citizens takes their mission very seriously, does not want to create an
environment or an atmosphere where they create a variance that might lead to a problem for the citizens
of this island and they are very careful and very methodical at times. Major seconded the motion. He said
he could not support a motion to approve. He said one possibility would be a motion to deny and they
take their chances with Council in November; the other would be to let the Commission try to work with
them and that is going to slow them down. Parks said the intent of a Text Amendment was to find a way
to make this work rather than to vote to deny. Bishop said that was their duty and responsibility: to
ensure they act in compliance with the LDC and in the best interests of the citizens of Tybee as well as the
petitioner but they need to make sound decisions and be sure they are correct in what and how they act.
He said he understands the time limits, but decisions by this Planning Commission are also critical
because they are long-term and could be everlasting and precedence-setting and therefore he must
disagree with making a motion to deny and putting it in the hands of Council. Major said he was not
suggesting that; he was saying those were the only two alternatives. Parks called for a vote. The vote in
favor of the motion was unanimous. The motion that Staff develops a Text Amendment that would be
specific to this petition for presentation, review, and consultation by this Commission at its
November meeting regarding valet parking passed with a 5-0 vote. Major asked if this does not still go
to Council in November. Knudson said the Public Hearing had been announced and advertised. Major
asked if it was on its way. Parks said yes. Major told them good luck at Council; meanwhile the
Commission will keep doing what they are doing.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance for Jones Avenue at Fifth Street, PIN
4-0005-01-001, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Georgia Power Company and the request was for a 12-foot
fence. Steele Knudson said the Character Area was the Inland Cottage Neighborhood. He said the fence
rules limit the height at 8-feet. He said this was a public safety issue. He said what they had before was a
chain link fence with razor wire to keep anybody out and ensure public safety. Knudson said what they
are proposing is a fiberglass fence. He said this prevents people from climbing, was as safe as enclosing
this thing like a prison but a whole lot better in the neighborhood so he was recommending the Planning
Commission approve this. John Major said given all the discussion that they just had about things meeting
or not meeting our very narrow definition of a variance, and we have had safety variances come before
them in the past, stairways that move into the setback or the marsh setback or the City right-of-way, that
provide the only egress from a third-story of a dwelling and that he has a hard time voting against issues
that are, public or private, safety or environmental or historical. Knudson said they cannot move this
facility, there is no other place to put it, there is no way to expand it or contract it, they need a fence for
public safety, they do not have options of going elsewhere so the hardship truly is this is the only place it
goes and can be, if they do not get the variance the City then has a public safety issue of an 8-foot fence
and then we get sort of status quo. Major said the hardship they define was replacing an 8-foot fence with
a 12-foot fence and we define variance as irregular, shallow, narrow, or exceptional topographical or other
physical conditions peculiar to this particular property and because of that it cannot be developed in
conformance with the Land Development Code. Knudson said this is a difficult one; our development
code uses the term “variance” rather loosely and, as Mr. Mahoney pointed out, zoning law and the term
“variance” are essentially different than our precise definition. He said the question is was it a hardship
that it is an extremely dangerous facility located next to homes. He said they are probably stretching the
term yet he does not see many alternatives here. Demery Bishop said under our definition of hardship
“exceptional condition” does qualify as a hardship. He said there is probably some reason Georgia Power
has used 12-foot fences in other locations and that may very well constitute an exceptional condition in a
9
neighborhood area and that may very well suffice but they would not know that until they hear from the
petitioner. Rob Callahan asked if any part of this was also for aesthetics. Knudson said the fence design as
opposed to the fence height was certainly about aesthetics but that was not the variance request; they are
not asking permission to put in fiberglass instead of chain link. Callahan asked if it was more aesthetic to
have fiberglass. Knudson said absolutely. Callahan said apparently Knudson was defining this as a
privacy fence. Knudson said the privacy fence related to no gaps as opposed to an open fence. Callahan
read that privacy fence means wood, metal or masonry structure. He said it does not say anything about a
fiberglass structure. Knudson said he stood corrected; then the variance would also be for the material.
Major asked if they were creating a visual impairment for people that are coming west on Sixth [Street].
Knudson said it was all within the setback that is required. Parks asked if a 12-foot fence created a line of
sight problem at an intersection. Knudson said our line of sight ordinance was addressed by a setback
from the intersection and the site plan meets all those setbacks. Bishop asked, with the structure being
solid, what about wind resistance/FEMA guidelines. Knudson said they have structurally engineered it; it
has been used before and in the site plan was the depths of the supporting posts. Major asked if the safety
issue was to protect people climbing over the fence. Knudson said it was to keep people out; the safety
issue was not necessarily that people climbing this would be safer than they would be climbing a fence
with wire. Marianne Bramble asked how many times there has been anyone caught climbing over the
fence. Knudson said he would be happy to make that inquiry and report back to her. Bramble said Georgia
Power should know. Callahan asked if the new fence would be along the same lines as the old fence. He
said what was there now was a temporary fence which had expanded the fence to some degree and there
was construction occurring inside. Knudson said that was a question best answered by the applicant. Mike
Gresham, Georgia Power Company, provided a portion of the fiberglass material that would be used as
the fencing. He said it was very nice looking and very sturdy. He said the purpose of the fence was to
keep folks out. Gresham said what they have behind the fence is very dangerous and people might not
climb the fence at Tybee but everywhere else they have people going in substations and stealing copper.
He said it was very hard for someone to climb this type of a fence. He said they can cut the concertina
wire, cut the cyclone fence wire and get into the substation. Referring to the fiberglass, Gresham
described that it would not be damaged by a car hitting it, it is non-conductive, it is definitely a safety
improvement. Bishop asked the reason for a 12-foot fence. Gresham said it was a National Electric Safety
Code requirement. He said the purpose is the poles are so close to the fence there is a potential for
someone to lay a ladder against a pole and climb over into the substation. Major confirmed with Gresham
that the National Electric Safety Code requires a 12-foot fence. The differences between the current and
the proposed fences were discussed as was aesthetics. Parks asked if Georgia Power knew they were
going to install a 12-foot opaque fence when the project was proposed to whoever approved it. Gresham
said yes. Major asked if the City approved the plans. Gresham said that was why they are here now; they
are asking for this variance. He said there was no permit required for the fence but they found out about
this variance at a later date and now are asking for approval. Knudson said the site plan was approved but
there was an oversight on the fence height months ago and the question he thinks they are asking is did
we already approve this and if it was approved as a 12-foot fence why are they asking the question again.
Parks said yes. He asked Gresham why he was here if he already got a site plan he is three-quarters of the
way done. Gresham said they were told by the City to apply for a variance; it came through Diane
Schleicher, she brought it to their attention and made it a point that they needed to apply for the variance.
Major asked Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, if there was a site plan that was administratively approved.
Otto said it was not handled in the Community Development office; it was handled by the City Manager.
The group attempted to understand the City’s prior involvement with the project. Stan Scarborough,
Georgia Power General Manager, said they build substations all over the state and normally do not have
to go to these types of meetings. He said they are not expanding the property or the site; the fence was
built just about on the property line and that is where the new fence is going back so we did not really
have a need, we didn’t think, to come. He said they are spending additional money to do the hard fence
10
for safety and for aesthetics. He said they thought it would be appreciated by the City and by the
community to hide as much of the hardware and equipment as they possibly could. Major asked how
many 12-foot fences were in the greater Savannah area. Scarborough did not know. Gresham said there
are some in Atlanta and wherever they have this condition where the poles are adjacent on the outside of
the fence where there is potential that somebody could climb a pole and go over the fence. He said the
added benefit to it is you do not see as much of the equipment inside the fence. Scarborough said their
standard was chain link with razor wire around the top and they volunteered to go with this for safety and
for aesthetics to the community. He said they were told in order to do a 12-foot [fence] they had to come
do a variance. Parks added and for the fiberglass. Knudson said correct. Parks asked for public input.
There was none. Parks asked if the public had been notified. Knudson said all the public announcement
requirements were met. Henry Levy motioned to approve. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous.
The motion to approve passed 5-0. The item would go to the Mayor/City Council on November 10.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance for 1310 Lovell Avenue, PIN 4-
0007-16-010, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Richard Mitchell and the request was a 10 -foot fence. The
applicant was not at the meeting and Steele Knudson said it was something he had discussed in depth with
both sides of the fence. He said good fences make good neighbors. He said Mitchell is next to a
commercial property. Knudson said this was in the Character Area of the Inland Cottage Neighborhood
and the applicant has an existing 8-foot wooden fence and he would like to build a 10-foot masonry fence.
He said the Staff recommendation was to deny; it does not meet the standard, there is not a hardship on
this property. He said the issue here was noise enforcement; this particular restaurant [Tybee Island Social
Club] had numerous calls on noise, they have been cited and we had a meeting scheduled with them and
their attorneys to discuss their noise violations which got postponed due to a family emergency. Knudson
described the area of the proposed fence. He said at the restaurant at some point a 2-1/2-foot tall deck got
built so on one side of the fence it is only 6-feet tall and on the other it is 8[-feet]. Rob Callahan said it
was a bocce ball court. Knudson said they play cornhole there and also use it for seating. He said they
have live entertainment, amplified music, etcetera, but because this has been such a frequent issue in
terms of noise enforcement he thinks the best approach is to properly enforce the noise ordinance rather
than take out all the trees and build a fence that was not necessarily going to solve the problem. John
Major said in the absence of a petitioner to plead his case, would it be appropriate to table this or would it
be more appropriate to act on it based on the information they have. Knudson said he did not want to
speak for Mitchell. Parks asked if there was an applicant in the audience that wished to address the
Commission. There was not. Parks asked if there was anybody from the public that wished to address the
Commission. There was not. Major moved to deny. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. Callahan said
Social was built out completely to their property lines in every direction. He asked how that came to be.
Knudson said he wished he could answer that. Callahan said there was absolutely no setback except in
front. Knudson said the side yard area would be the only setback they have because they are built to the
property line on the south side of the property. He said on the north side where they border the residential
area there is a side yard. He said this was built before buffer requirements came into being but the deck
there was within the setback. Callahan and Knudson discussed. Parks called for the vote. The vote in
favor of the motion was 5-0. The motion to deny passed unanimously. It would go before City Council
November 10. Callahan said the only reason he was voting for denial was he does not see how two more
feet was going to solve the problem with the noise going over the fence. Major shared his own reasoning
as being related to the likelihood that some of the natural vegetation would have to be removed in order to
put a fence in.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment of Article 7, Tree Removal
Regulations. Steele Knudson said the City Council asked that three things be looked at specifically:
whether or not pines could be added as a significant species, the mitigation cost of paying to removing
11
trees or replacing them, and the enforcement of this article in terms of fines. He said they have before
them the proposed modified ordinance. Henry Levy said $50 per inch was excessive. Rob Callahan said it
was not enough. John Major said two meetings ago the Chairman assigned a task to one of their members,
who unfortunately was ill tonight, to do research and come back and report to the Commission his
findings. He said he knows Tyler [Marion] has done some research on it. Demery Bishop said the
Commission did task Tyler [Marion]. He recommended obtaining the research prior to proceeding. Parks
agreed. No action was taken. A typographic error on a PowerPoint slide related to this agenda item was
discussed.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a proposed Text Amendment to be Article 18, Lighting.
Steele Knudson summarized revisions that had been made to a prior version of the proposed ordinance.
Demery Bishop said at the last meeting Henry Levy brought up the Dark-Sky Initiative and they were
furnished that model ordinance to review. He said the proposed ordinance, although it appears to be very
good on its face, it certainly does not meet near the requirements, and probably was not intended to, as the
Dark-Sky ordinance but it does not address several things that are important and this is to specifically by
definition not only from the IDA and the IDS with regards to how you define ambient lighting, wildlife
lighting, whether it is low, whether it is moderate, high ambient timers, the use of appropriate lighting
under different circumstances as the model lighting ordinance that has been proposed by the Dark-Sky
Initiative group does and numerous articles on research in which municipalities, some large, some small,
have followed or attempted to follow some of the requirements as proposed by the model lighting
ordinance. He said they should consider before they adopt Article 18 and move it to Council, giving a
little more thought and concern as to how the Planning Commission can, for the sake of light pollution,
waste of energy, the disruption of wildlife, not only inclusive of turtles but humans as well although they
are not really wildlife, consider a little more in-depth look at this and consider some of the general
proposals the Dark-Sky Initiative has and also the annotations associated with that particular model
ordinance as far as User’s Guides and how they can be implemented without extreme amounts of costs
but with a more significant environmental impact on communities such as Tybee and others and examples
given in research from the internet. He thanked Levy for bringing this to their attention. John Major asked
Bishop how he proposed getting from here to there. Bishop said with the appropriate professional entities
they could perhaps look at a very similar group as they had with Shore Protection to really look at this and
come back with some type of proposals but it was going to take some time. He said he knew they imposed
a 90-day sunset at their last meeting, 30 of which has passed. He said they would need to extend that but it
also was going to take Staff input as to the appropriate professionals that should be part of this. Bishop
said Levy has been more involved with this than others and could have some input, but if t his
Commission wants to look forward from a planning perspective versus an ordinance that is good but is
not as complete and comprehensive as a planning entity should be involved in manufacturing. Parks said
they could reset the clock on the 90-days and start it again from this month. Major said if they are going
to do that somebody should have accountability or, like this month, nothing will have happened although
they do have a big ordinance to look at now that they did not have last month. Parks said that was true.
Candidates and guidance for a possible group that would focus on this topic were discussed. Bishop
suggested that Planning and Zoning take on the initial responsibility of input into who might constitute
the group so that it would be a valid group of individuals who were in the lighting industry, our engineer,
Levy, some volunteers, members of the public, and have that within the next couple of weeks and then
setup a timeframe to meet and start looking at this with a reasonable amount of turnaround. Parks
discussed putting it back to City Council to see if they put it back to the Planning Commission with a
request for an ad hoc subcommittee. Bramble spoke about Section D and that Georgia Power dictates the
security lights of a commercial property so this ordinance does not protect the residents that abut
commercial properties. She said she was not willing to send this on to City Council. Parks explained that
none of them intended to send the current version of the proposed ordinance to Council. He said if
12
somebody from the Commission would like to address Council and ask them if they needed an ad hoc
subcommittee maybe that was appropriate. Bishop said if this Commission felt the need to study this they
could certainly make a recommendation as he just tentatively proposed to Staff and that would be to
Council that that was what they are doing and put it on the agenda for Council to yea or nay it. He said he
did not see a need to have Council tell they what they should or should not do. The discussion continued.
Major suggested appointing a group to talk about it and to homogenize the proposed and model
ordinances. Parks asked Knudson if he felt comfortable carrying that message. Knudson said he was
happy to carry it. Major asked him if it made sense. Knudson said yes. He said thank you for suggesting
they bring in expertise; he has written code but he does not feel qualified to get into the absolute details of
illuminance versus luminance. Bishop said that was critical if they are going to go in a true planning
environment; as they had in Shore Protection, they need all those different entities. He said it was there
but were all of the provisions applicable to us and if they were, were they correct. Major said we certainly
do not want to propose something that somebody can throw back at us as a problem. No further action
was taken.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for proposed Text Amendments to Article 5, Procedures
for Administration and Enforcement. The six sections to be considered were: 5-110, 5-111, 5-120, 5-
130, 5-140, and 5-150. Steele Knudson said the proposal changed a number of capitalizations and inserted
the term “designated city official” to replace language that had been for positions that have changed title
or positions that have been open for some time; by using the term “designated city official” it sort of gives
ourselves some breathing room He said it also clarifies some requirements and removes the burden of
explaining a disapproval and then removes some of the default of, “I get approved unless you explain to
me why you disapprove me.” He said it gives the Commission and the Council more authority. That
revision was to Section 5-130(I). Henry Levy suggested regulations on signs to require the background of
signs be dark and the wording be white. John Major directed Staff to an instance in Section 5-030(C)
where “plat” had not been corrected to “plan.” At Major’s suggestion it was agreed to strike the words
“nor both” from Section 5-130(F). Parks asked for comments on Section 5-110, Standards for Land
Development Code or Zoning Map Amendment Approval. The vote to approve was unanimous. Section
5-0110, Standards for Land Development Code or Zoning Map Amendment Approval, was
approved with a 5-0 vote. For Section 5-111, Conditional Zoning, Major moved to approve and Demery
Bishop seconded. The vote was 5-0. The motion to approve Section 5-111, Conditional Zoning, passed
unanimously. On Section 5-120, Sign Permit Approval, Levy asked where the dark background with
white lettering suggestion should go. Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said that would need to go in Design
Standards in Article 6. Major motioned to approve. Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-120, Sign Permit Approval, passed 5-0. Section 5-130,
Major Subdivision Plan Procedure, was motioned for approval by Major with the two minor corrections
that had been agreed to earlier. Bishop seconded Major’s motion. The motion to approve Section 5-130,
Major Subdivision Plan Procedure, with the correction of “plan” and the striking of “nor both”
passed with a 5-0 vote. Section 5-140, Minor Subdivision Plan Approval Procedure, was next. Bishop
moved to approve and Callahan seconded the motion. All voted in favor. With a 5-0 vote, the motion to
approve Section 5-140, Minor Subdivision Plan Approval Procedure, passed. Section 5-150,
Standards for Subdivision Proposals was the final item. A motion to approve was made by Callahan and
Bishop seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-150, Standards for
Subdivision Proposals, passed 5-0.
Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn the meeting and Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous and the meeting adjourned.