Loading...
20120417_PC_mtg_min_.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Randi Bryan Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Henry Levy Dianne Otto, CFM John Major, Vice Chair Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting April 17, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the April 17, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion and Randi Bryan. Chairman Monty Parks asked for consideration of the Minutes of the March 20, 2012 meeting. Mr. Bishop moved to approve. Ms. Bryan seconded the motion. The vote to approve the minutes was unanimous. Mr. Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. The first order of business is a zoning variance, front stairs, on 1101 Lovell. Ms. Otto said that the request for variance is related to setbacks. This is zoned R-2. It is a single family home. The required setbacks in that zone are 20’ front, 10’ in the rear and on the sides. A survey is in the packet. The area to be discussed is on the 11th Street side. This is a corner lot on Lovell and 11th Street. There is an existing set of stairs there that result in compliance with a 10.3 and a 10.4 setback. The request for the variance would widen those stairs and the landing at the top of it, to reduce the setbacks below the 10’ requirement. The applicant is here to speak, Sue Brown as well as her spouse Robert Hough. Mr. Bishop asked if it would be more appropriate to direct questions to the applicant with options as to whether to pursue the variance or not pursue the variance. Ms. Otto suggested questions should go to the applicant. Ms. Brown came to the podium. She stated that the house was built in 1996. The staircase that was put in was only 4’ wide with a landing up top that barely exceeds the width of the door. She said with the previous owners moving out and them moving in, every time something of size was brought in, damage to the side of the house occurred and constant repair to the railing. It is quite a steep angle, and mathematically, it is impossible even the way it is now, should they decide to buy a two door refrigerator or new stove or any kind of major appliance or king sized bed, to get it up the stairway, on the small landing and through the door without causing damage would be impossible. Ms. Brown said that they do have 10’4” out to their property line right now. She said that they are not going overboard. They are asking for 21 inches only. That will allow them to make that landing 2’ wider, not any longer and the staircase, which is not 47” wide, 5’ wide. She said that they understand the reason for rules and regulations, but at times they need to be varied. In this case, this is their retirement home. They live 2 here full time now. They would like to know that when they have a relative die and leave a piece of bulky furniture they can say “yes, we’d love to have that.” Right now, it is causing them a little bit of heartache and inconvenience. She said that they’re not remodeling this and making it fancy. If anyone who has ever been by their home, they can see that they just continue to make it lovelier and lovelier. Ms. Brown said that there are more and more responsible folks who moved to this wonderful island. She asked the commission seriously consider this. She said it was not a variance to break the rules, but a variance so the quality of them loving our home can be enjoyed to the fullest. We have tried to exist with these stairs for 2 ½ years. They do need to be rebuilt no matter what the decision. Rather than do “like”, she’d prefer to make them a foot wider on the steps, 2’ wider at that horrible small landing. Ms. Brown asked if there were any questions for her. Mr. Parks asked for questions from the commission. Mr. Bishop said that, as noted in the application and staff comments, and looking at the survey, there appears to be more space and room on the south side for an ingress/egress of the type of she is proposing. It says that she has chosen to pursue a variance rather than pursue that option. Ms. Brown explained that there was no door on that side. It is a solid wall of kitchen. There is no space to put a doorway. It would require, instead of just a new staircase, breaking through that wall and putting a door. If they put a door up to the porch, that would mean that people would have access to their home, not only up a staircase that will have to be rebuilt, because it is swaying and sagging, but up through their porch with screens then through two sets of sliding doors, That would make their home virtually a place where someone could break in without any problem. The second reason is that right next door is Gloria Leonard, Kathy Williams mom, who has a garden that encroaches on the Brown’s property about 4’, probably since she was a little girl. She said that she is not about to tell her that she’s going to have to build through her garden now because they have a little more legal property on that side. It doesn’t seem feasible to put in a brand new doorway. They have a door. There is no doorway on the other side. They don’t want to have to create one through the porch. There was no one else from the public that wished to speak. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for commission discussion and motion. Mr. Bishop asked Ms. Otto what other modifications could be made if they stayed with that side. Ms. Otto stated that other opportunities would be double doors with a longer but not wider landing at the top. That would allow things like a refrigerator and other big things to go through the door at the top. It would not alleviate things turning unless they remove the railing at that top landing to make a swing in. There’s always an option, but it would detract from the front porch, to come up through a porch and have the stairs enter from underneath, if there is a sliding door that could be the entrance then. Mr. Parks asked if there was only one entrance to the house. Ms. Otto confirmed that there was only one entrance. Mr. Parks asked if the setback would be taken down to 8’4”. Ms. Otto explained that the narrative stated that the landing at the top would be the widest thing and it would be 24” wider than the proposed stairs. She stated that it would be a six foot landing at the top going into what is currently a 10’3”. 3 Mr. Parks stated that it would be down to 8’3”. Mr. Callahan said it was more like 8’7”. Mr. Parks stated that it was below the 9’. Mr. Callahan asked if the 11th Street right of way was 60’. Ms. Otto confirmed that it is 60’. Mr. Callahan said that he had not measured, but would guess that the roadway was 20’, 10’ on either side of the center which would leave 30’ to the edge of pavement. Ms. Otto explained that the property line was at the tree line. Mr. Callahan stated that this was a tough call as variances have a specific criterion for hardship and is a very clear definition. The request does not meet that definition. Mr. Parks asked Ms. Otto if the definition of hardship had been covered. She stated that it had been covered. Ms. Brown came to the podium again. She stated that the assumption that having to repair their home and railing each time something comes in and out of the house is not a hardship. That is a financial hardship. It requires time off from work. That is a hardship. Variance is a word that means vary. Ms. Brown gave an analogy of the meaning of variance, stating the need to bend. They are not asking for 10’ feet or to add a deck but to add inches. They have worked too many years to be doing this kind of nonsense every time they get something. She said that they would not be here if they did not think this was necessary. This is not a luxury. This is a necessity. Ms. Brown directed comments to Mr. Callahan stating that this hardship was impeding their retirement years and if that was not a hardship she didn’t know what was. She said that she is not in a wheelchair yet. Ms. Bryan asked Ms. Otto if making the landing larger would not make the stairs a lot steeper. Ms. Otto explained that the stairs would be rising the same as the distance from the ground to the landing would be the same. The elevation would remain the same. Ms. Bryan asked the code for the width of stairs now. Ms. Otto stated that the code is 3’. Mr. Parks stated that he was open to a motion. Ms. Bryan made a motion to approve. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion. Mr. Callahan and Mr. Marion voted against. Ms. Bryan and Mr. Bishop voted to approve. The decision fell to Mr. Parks. Mr. Parks moved to approve. Ms. Otto stated that it would go before council on May 10, 2012. Mr. Parks stated that the second order of business was a special review and site plan on the bike path through the park. The applicant is the City of Tybee Island. He asked if Ms. Otto represented staff and the applicant in this case. Ms. Otto stated that she did. Ms. Otto asked that it be noted this was both special review and site plan and be voted independently and would take separate motions. She explained that there was a code section adopted regarding Memorial Park that is in Article 4, Regulations, Section 4-05-0I Public Parks. Within that document it reads : Notwithstanding the above-described permitted uses within public parks, special review and site plan approval requirements shall be applicable to any proceedings (to include motions of council or petitions by the public) to alter the uses currently in existence within the area of Memorial Park that is generally depicted on the diagram attached hereto, so that public hearings in connection with any alteration of structures or the installation or addition of new structures or facilities or uses is required 4 before any construction, building activities or preparation therefore may occur or any new uses permitted. She explained that this improvement to the current bike path falls under that as an alteration of an existing structure. City Council has, prior to sending it to the planning commission, had a number of discussions. They chose last Thursday evening, as it was on their agenda again, but had already been placed on the planning commission agenda, in anticipation of having more feedback from the meeting to provide to the commission tonight. However, at that meeting, it was instead opted to not consider this item any further because once the commission considers it; the item will be brought back to them on May 10. She stated that she could only inform the commission of discussions that occurred. The primary things for consideration tonight are the location of the bike path. She explained the drawing on the screen: The green line depicts the current location of a stone path that has served as the bike trail. It connects from the bike route coming off of 2nd Ave, straight through the park, out through to the other side, back out onto 2nd Ave. She stated that an alternative proposal did come out through discussions at city council meetings of instead of aligning a bike path that would be more depicted by the red line on the drawing. Coming from the north, the entrance of the bike path would have been off 2nd Ave which is more across the green line. 2nd Ave bikes would do a jog down to the west on 4th Street and then travel across that edge of the park along Jones, not on Jones, but near, until it got in the proximity of the fire station. To prevent cyclists and pedestrians from crossing in the path of the potential exiting of the fire equipment from their storage areas, it would return to the east and join up where the current path is and progress on out to the south side of the park back to the 2nd Ave bike path. In addition to the locations being considered tonight, another consideration is the surface to be used for the bike path. Right now it is gravel and not been maintained over the years. It has gotten quite narrow in some areas. The discussions have led to either an asphalt path or a surface that would be permeable, of a design of pavers or some other pervious material. The original discussions had a width comparable to the width at Jaycee Park. Most recent discussions are that this path should be 8’ wide. Ms. Otto said that the City Engineer, Downer Davis, is going to talk about location, surface materials and answer any other questions. Mr. Parks called for questions from the commission. Mr. Marion directed questions to Mr. Davis. He asked who proposed the secondary route and why was it thrown out there? He asked for any feedback? He also asked if it was for safety or better flow. Mr. Davis clarified that it was the route on the drawing outlined in red. He said that it was first mentioned, that he heard of, by Councilman Brown. He said that he could tell the commission his reasons for it. There are pros and cons to both routes. He stated that his only involvement was as an engineer and material properties. Once the route is determined, he would come up with proper signage as it would relate to vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the park. As far as picking the route, Mr. Davis is not involved. Mr. Parks asked about the decision to go to 8’. Mr. Davis responded that the park is not in the design phase yet, merely looking at location, but as it gets closer and closer, he has been looking at some things. This is an off-road, two-way bike path. He said that he was unable to find anything that specified less than 8’. The city manager worked with him in research. They could not find anything less than 8’. This does not fall under a code. It falls under design recommendations. Mr. Davis stated that he is not recommending to advertise and design something as a bike trail that meets no known nationally accepted safety standards. He said that 8’ is what he is planning on drawing unless he is directed 5 otherwise. He said that when he has ridden the path, he has rarely met anyone, but we all know when you have a pig trail that is a 2’ wide path made of stone, when you meet someone, you’re both going to get on the grass. If you have an asphalt path 6’ wide, you’re going to have people awfully close to one another. It makes sense to have it 8’ wide. Mr. Bishop said that he was going to follow up on Mr. Marion’s questions. He stated that he thought this had come up before the planning commission earlier, with regards to surface matter only and not as relocation. Ms. Otto said that it had been on the December agenda, but she was not at that meeting therefore does not recall the discussion. She said that she thought that it had come up as a site plan, but did not know if determined material, rather than a location. Mr. Parks stated that the commission was reassured that there was no relocation involved. The commission went to great lengths to say, “Is there relocation involved?” and the response to relocation was “No, there is not.” Mr. Bishop stated that he did refer to previous minutes to determine a need for relocation and determine why we are moving from the green location to the red. He said that, to him, there should be some reasonableness, a reason for that. He said that not knowing that, he has some concerns. Since this is a special review, when there is a criterion for special review, there are a number of items that the commission has to has, as a planning commission, to make a decision. Specifically, under Item 2 in 5-07- 0A2, it says: Review criteria. The planning commission shall hear and make recommendation upon such uses in a district that are permitted after special review. The application to establish such use shall be approved by the mayor and council on a finding that: (2) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general neighborhood or adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers. Mr. Bishop further stated that he is not so sure that a bike path of this nature, regardless of width, is moved adjacent to Jones Ave, which is a major route on Tybee Island, and we have taken great measures at posting signs directing people off of Jones Ave to the bike path, puts us in an ambiguous situation as a commission, not knowing the reason why and special review, answering that question. He stated that he is also concerned with paragraph 3 in special review when we start moving a trail of this nature, again adjacent to major thoroughfare of Jones Ave, because, again, it says: (3)The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or hazard because of the number of persons who will attend or use such facility, vehicular movement acquainted with the use, noise or fumes generated by or as a result of the use, or type of physical activity associated with the land use. He stated this is, again, back to the major route. He said that Mr. Davis addressed his question that he had on (5) The proposed use will be placed on a lot which is of sufficient size to satisfy the space requirements of said use. Mr. Bishop stated that he could not find anything other than some research on national parks, in Virginia, where they do have an old railroad right of way that goes 40+ miles. He said that on parts of that, there are 10’ asphalt paved paths that incorporate water stations and things like that which he knows is not part of Tybee’s plan. He said that these are things he believes this commission needs to address to ensure their charge to protect the health and safety of 6 residents and visitors in this community before a decision is made to move it. He stated that he does not know why it was moved. Ms. Otto stated that she did not know the reason for the proposed move. She said she has only heard comments that it would remove the path from the middle of the park and move it so that moving vehicles, the bicycles, are not moving through the middle of the park. Mr. Parks asked if 8’ allowed for a motorized cart. Mr. Davis confirmed that it would. Mr. Davis said that he would like to update a few things. On the south side of the fire station the bay was added in, which will tighten up the corners between the previous corners of the fire station moved southward and the northwest corner of the old school. He explained that we will have a tighter corner in there. In that section, the path will have to be 5’ wide. It cannot be 8’ wide. Manuals do say, where necessary, you have geographical, physical obstructions; you can deviate down as little as 3’ for short distances. That section will be 5’. Everywhere else, it will be 8’. He said that it is his understanding, that no matter which path goes in, there will be perpendicular parking placed on Jones, both north and south of the existing drive through the middle of the park. Additionally, Skip is going to move his fence over farther. He is going to put in 25’ deep parking because a lot of the firemen drive big trucks and when rushing to a fire, don’t want them to have to negotiate space. It will also be 25’ along Jones so that people getting things out of the trunk of their cars without standing in Jones Ave. No matter where the trail goes, when the park is being used, you should have a fairly consistent row of cars during peak usage times that will be separating the trail. Mr. Davis said that he did want to add something about drainage as he has spoken to the commission before about this. He said that there was a survey delivered to the City at the end of February. He said that he perused it and it appeared to be complete. After looking at older surveys, there was limited information. There was a swale in the area. There was sufficient drainage in the park, going out to 5th Street, going southward and westward. The new survey reveals that the pipe at the corner of the school is a 12” pipe which has been enlarged and accomplishes roof drainage and is designed to take drainage off of the corner of the gym. According to the survey and what he as observed during a recent rain, there will not be more than a two-tenths of a foot of rainfall out there. He said that we do not have a large quantity of water being stored at the park. According to the to-po, with some minor cleaning of the swale, not enlarging the pipe, we can drain this area of the park. He said that we can relieve the problem with simple grading. He said that he has met with Assistant Director of DPW, Danny Carpenter, in Joe’s absence and he agrees with Mr. Davis whole heartedly. This is all information that neither Joe nor I had and we’ve just been eyeballing things. Mr. Davis said that the new survey also shows, in the other corner of the park, that there is an 8” culvert that appears to need to simply be lowered. It can be lowered 4”-5”. And drain the entire area. Drainage of the park does not appear to be near the challenge that we thought before. We are not looking at a big drainage study, new pipes, right away, just some minor grading 7 adjustments to accomplish what we want. He said that he had made previous statements about concerns with drainage in the park, and still has a little bit of work to do. He has a little design that he can help the city with. He said that he was concerned about addressing the drainage in front of the trail and based on the survey, is not going to be the challenge that he and Joe first thought. Mr. Parks said that he thought the concern was using permeable surface on the existing and then have to tear it up for drainage work after that. Mr. Davis stated, at this point, he believes drainage can be addressed as the trail is addressed. Mr. Davis said that council has not heard from him and he did not want to withhold information that has changed. Mr. Parks said that he would like to go back to the question as to how it was presented to the commission previously. It was an expedited site review, due to safety reasons. There was concern over the turn that was being discussed over at the fire station, a little farther down where it is almost a 90 degree turn and that people were actually falling and that there would be harm to some citizen or some visitor. He said that it was being expedited to try to make this a safe trail without a change in position. He said that the current suggestion adds two additional 90 degree turns, which is what we were trying to get away from in the initial one. Mr. Parks also asked Mr. Davis what would be the odds on an 8’ path that those parked cars and those people coming out will use that path to go through the park and get to the beach. He asked if this was also possibly a sidewalk. Mr. Davis said that it is a bicycle / pedestrian trail and that he has never seen anyone try to negotiate an 8’ trail. Mr. Parks asked if it could be used as a sidewalk once people exit their cars. Mr. Davis said the path is used for walking and for bikes and we are not dedicating this to bikes only. Mr. Davis said that he wanted to clarify that they have to swing one curve out because of the tightness. It will still be a sharper turn on gravel and when they are making a tight turn on gravel, they will have to slow down. The signage will have to be addressed. When there is a 5’ path and there is a fence, you have to have a 3’ clearance, and it will be about 2’ off the wall of the school. Because of the widening of the fire bay and the fence so that the boat can get out, it is a tight situation. He said that for limited distances, and it is less than 100’, he finds that to be within the acceptance of the choke down trail width. Mr. Callahan asked Mr. Davis if there was a required separation distance between a traveled roadway and a bike path like this one. Mr. Davis advised that there are regulations and there is not a big separation, usually for one way traffic. He state that we do not have a one way bicycle 8 lane so he did not go back to revisit that. The path is about 4’ and depending on road speed and road usage, may be nothing to 2’. Mr. Callahan asked the closest point between the roadway and the path shown in red right now. Mr. Davis explained that it is about 28’, as the parking spaces are about 25’. Mr. Callahan asked if it was 2’-3- in some areas. Mr. Davis said it was for one way traffic usage only. He said that was for a different type of cyclist, like touring bikes, not like mom and dad and children. Mr. Davis said that we are talking about bicycle paths, not on road paths for serious bikers. Mr. Callahan said that he didn’t see why we had to change the path. He said that he has no doubt the path shown in green came about because a lot of people decided to walk there and along the way gravel got added. Mr. Davis said that he had given a lot of information and a lot of answers and he has no preference. Mr. Callahan said that he prefers the green path. The red path is about 200’ feet longer, which means more expensive to build. From an economic standpoint, it makes no sense to him. Mr. Callahan asked if we wanted to go with the red path, wouldn’t it make more sense to go straight down Jones to 5th instead of curving it all around the fire station. Mr. Davis said that the fire chief didn’t want cyclists going in front of the fire station, which made good sense. He said that we have 28’ off Jones Ave where we have proposed parking because of parking in front of the fire station and administrative building by the fire station further south in the corner of the park area, you could not get the trail as far off and it would basically be on Jones. He said that with Chatham County street classification system, Jones is a collector street and the 2nd rated street on the island. He said that if we got into discussions, he does not believe it is going down Jones Ave. Mr. Bishop said he still does not have an answer as to why we are changing it and that is germane to everything we are talking about. He said that he is a biker and rides all over this island. One thing that is better about the way that it is now is the way it takes you through the park, keeps you away from the traffic, by the cemetery, an easy ingress/egress. He said he does not see the need for the change. He said that he feels what is important is what our bicycling community feels is important. We are recognized as a bicycle friendly community. He said that he also goes back to the issue about the special review anyway. Ms. Bryan said that it was her recollection that the discussion of the drainage was in a previous council meeting and drainage wasn’t an issue nor was the kind of materials used. 9 Mr. Davis responded that wherever the path went, we could handle it. He said that with the red, there are no drainage considerations. We could pave it, whether pervious or impervious. He advised that all of this was before we had the current survey. Now that he has the survey, he does not have the level of concerns about the green path. There did appear, before the survey, more of a disparity between the challenges than there appears to be now. Ms. Bryan said that she has been on the green path. She does not really like either path. There were people using Jones. She is not convinced that either is the right one. Mr. Marion said that he concurs with Ms. Bryan. He likes to bicycle and prefers the green path. He is confused about the logic behind the red path. Mr. Callahan asked if the materials need to be addressed. Ms. Otto confirmed that they did. Mr. Davis said that most of the time when pervious material is used it is to keep storm water from increasing from the site. There are many ways of addressing storm water management. He asked Mr. Callahan if he wanted to use permeable pavement to control storm water management or for trying to keep it permeable material in the park for the principal of not increasing impervious material in the park. He said that would be important for city personnel to know what the criteria are. He asked if he was just opposed to impervious material or concerned about storm water management. Mr. Callahan said that his answer is “all of the above” plus, we, the City of Tybee, impose pervious on our citizens, it seems we should impose them on ourselves. He cautioned that we cannot lead by exception. We have to lead by example. The City should set the example. Mr. Parks asked for members of the public that wished to speak. Ms. Lyn Randall approached to podium. She stated that she lives at 10 6th Ave N and she is a biker. She said that she is part of a large body of bikers and none of them ride on Jones, anyone riding on Jones is a tourist. She said that they love the current path and love going through the park. She said that the commission asked who made the changes and suggested that it was not a bike rider. Ms. Randall discussed the turns and that they knew how to make them, but if it had to be redone, she would widen it, resurface it, but leave it where it is. She said that she speaks for other and they want it left where it is. 10 Mr. Wayne Harper, 407 Jones Ave, spoke from the podium. He said that he was on the original Ad Hoc committee four years ago. He said that they studied this for ten months, with ten people on the committee and studied it extensively, studying the whole park, not just the bike path. He discussed several paths that had been studied. He said they had looked at pervious materials, the drainage problems that they had. He said the drawing was not to scale. He said they looked at so many things. They even looked at going down 2nd Ave, going across 4th Ave, to Miller and coming back up. They decided it was not the thing to do from a safety stand point. No one has addressed safety that he has heard. There is a lot of high rate, speeding traffic. It is a safety issue. He advised the commission that they can look at the studies. There is not a good solution. He said that they came up with a lot of stuff, talked about it four or five days and the paths. He also stated that they thought there was nothing better than what was there. From a drainage standpoint, there is minor flooding in the corner, in the center there is 6-8 inches. The water is a problem if you put it anywhere other than where it is. He said he is not for or against. The red path across Jones is a safety issue. He said that, for himself, he would prefer that it stay where it is. He advised that if there were any other questions, they might think about, they might look at the study. They studied that a long time. Mr. Bill Cannon, 10 6th Ave, approached the podium and spoke. He said that he was there to speak in support of existing route, the green route. He said that it seems that the questions of location, drainage and surfacing have been blurred into one objective. He said that he believes that the true objective here is location. He said that the existing route offers good alignment with the existing bike path on 2nd Ave. It ties the north portion of the island and the south portion of the island together with an easy to follow route. The existing route does not occupy any otherwise usable land in the park. The existing route is a tried and proven route, offers safety and simplicity to the tourists. With regard to the proposed red route, it adds additional turns, which have been pointed out. It misaligns the bike route. He said that it confuses people that are unfamiliar with that route. He said that the alignment is just no good. He added that it creates an unsafe situation with regard to crossing the park driveway too near Jones. There is a safety issue right there. It also creates too much opportunity for cyclists northbound to continue on to Jones. He said, with regard to other considerations, the curbing at 5th street, it needs leveling right there. He suggested trying to increase the radius of the turn at the southeast corner of the fire station, also talked about. Ms. Bryan asked if the new material could be, like at Lake Mayer, and, if the path would be well marked. Mr. Davis said we are not in the design phase yet, but there is the intent to improve signage, striping and improve the method of getting the attention of all. Mr. Bishop asked about the reference to the usable property in the park if the green path went away. He asked if there was another use. Ms. Otto said that she thinks it would just be absorbed into green grass. The only discussion she had heard of was the possibility of adding 11 a small pavilion where the concrete slab that was left of the entrance way. She said that it would not be as large as the main pavilion, but larger that the tiny ones on the corner. She said that was the only other development in the park that she was aware of. Mr. Bishop asked if the four year study that was referred to by Mr. Harper would benefit. Ms. Otto said that it was available and the slide prior to the one on the screen is the plan adopted by council in November of last year, which is comparable, not entirely, but has some similar characteristics to the plan that the gentleman referred to. Mr. Parks asked if that was the Ad Hoc Memorial Park. Ms. Otto advised that all the plans are available. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing on the special review and site plan. He asked if the commission now voted on site plan or special review. Ms. Otto asked for special review first. The point of the special review is location and material. Mr. Parks called for a motion to include location and material. Ms. Bryan made a motion to keep the path in the present location and use only pervious material. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Otto stated that a motion for the site plan was now needed. Mr. Parks asked if the same motion would work for the site plan as was made for the special review. Ms. Otto advised that it would. Mr. Parks asked for a motion. Ms. Bryan made a motion to keep the path in the same location and use only pervious material. Mr. Bishop seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Otto advised that the item would be on the May 10 council agenda. Mr. Callahan made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bishop seconded. The meeting was adjourned. Minutes prepared by Sharon Shaver