Loading...
20120515_PC_mtg_min_.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Randi Bryan Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER John Major, Vice Chair Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion Monty Parks, Chair CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the May 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were John Major, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, and Randi Bryan. Chairman Monty Parks asked for consideration of the Minutes of the April 17, 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. Ms. Otto introduced a new member, Jerris Bryant, who is the administrative assistant in the Planning and Zoning department. Mr. Parks made note of the resignation of Henry Levy which leaves an opening that will be advertised for three weeks. Ms. Otto stated that was correct and the deadline for applying will be June 7th; council will fill the position at their meeting on June 14th. The term of office would be to finish Mr. Levy’s term that expires on January 31, 2013. The first order of business is a site plan for storage trailers at 201 McKenzie Avenue. Ms. Otto stated the request at 201 McKenzie Avenue is for a site plan for the location of two storage containers as outbuildings at the retail location known as the Wearhouse. It is a C-2 zoned area. In the packet is a site plan depicting the location of the proposed containers as well as a photograph of what those containers would typically look like. As with all other developments in this commercial zone, it requires a site plan. Mr. Parks asked if there are any questions for staff. Ms. Bryan asked what the base flood elevation was at this location. Ms. Otto stated she didn’t have the answer but because this is not habitable space it is not required to comply with the base flood elevation. Mr. Bishop wanted clarification as to why we do not define portable storage containers in the Land Development Code. Ms. Otto stated these would be treated as permanent storage structures; they will be anchored and further stated they are not applying for them as temporary. 2 Mr. Bishop stated that with the definition of one principal structure and its customary accessory structure permissible per lot, in his review there are already, in the rear of that building, two structures that are customary accessory structures as well - would this constitute the third and fourth one? Ms. Otto stated a carport is in a separate category; it is not considered an accessory. Mr. Bishop stated there are two existing corrugated metal storage buildings; what appear to be storage buildings. Ms. Otto stated that it is understood, as mentioned in the staff report, that the ordinance does say “…and its customary structure”, however since it requires site plan, and if approved, the commission would be approving that there be more than one structure. Mr. Bishop requested that Ms. Otto go through the photos of the site again. From the street view, there is a lane alongside the right side of the structure which is shown. When you get behind the building, there is a fenced area, to the west side of the property, and within that is the carport and the storage containers would be located south of the carport. Mr. Major stated that in the staff report there is a residential home east across McKenzie – he asked if the owners had been notified. Ms. Otto stated for this meeting, the 201 McKenzie property had been posted with an orange public hearing sign and mailings will go out to the adjacent neighbors along with the item to be published in the Savannah Morning News. Ms. Otto went on to say that the city advertises for the city council public hearing; but for the planning commission it is only the public hearing sign. Ms. Bryan stated she was looking under the definition of structure and it says “...anything constructed or erected…requires permanent location… or attachment to something…and not including manufactured homes.” –and stated it looked more like a shipping container. Ms. Otto stated that the distinction for manufactured home refers to something on a trailer with wheels – something that is portable. Ms. Bryan stated she realizes that but still wanted to know if they were considered constructed or erected. Ms. Otto stated it will have a type of anchoring that will secure it to the ground. Ms. Bryan stated she understood that but her question is - are the trailers considered constructed or erected? Ms. Otto stated she considers this prefabricated – it’s coming in already constructed. Mr. Parks asked if there were other questions for staff; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if the petitioner was present. William Navon came forward and introduced himself. Mr. Parks asked if there were any questions for the petitioner at this time; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if there were any other members of the public that wish to say anything at this time; there were none. Mr. Parks declared the public hearing closed and open for motion or discussion from the commission. Ms. Bryan stated she understands that it is for storage but if we allowed shipping type containers that it would set a precedent for everything else that would be on the island. She further stated that although it would be at a location where it would not be visible she has a problem using shipping containers for 3 storage. Ms. Bryan made a motion to deny; Mr. Major seconded; Bishop, Bryan, Major, and Marion voted for denial/Callahan voted for approval. The motion to deny passed with a 4-1 vote. Ms. Otto stated this item goes to council on June 14th. The second item of business is a zoning variance for a driveway width at 7 Eleventh Street. Ms. Otto stated this request is a variance from the section of code that limits driveway widths to 25’ at the property line. The request, if approved, would result in a driveway of 34’ as estimated. The applicant has been renovating the structure and had removed the prior cement drive. While the ordinance treats any replacement driveway as new construction – the new driveway must meet the standards on permeability and width. The initial design that the applicant chose to go with was two openings of a total not to exceed 25’. The measurement from the applicant is that the resulting area between the two openings is 9’ and the request now is to install pavers in that area as well which would result in a continuous driveway with the total of 34’. Mr. Parks asked if there were any questions for staff at this time. Mr. Major stated our Land Development Code says that an application that is submitted to a zoning administrator that a variance can be considered or granted only if the following findings are made: “That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding properties, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, peculiar to the particular property; and that because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of this Land Development Code, without undue hardship to the property.” Mr. Major stated the hardship that we are given is “I would like to put pavers between the existing pavers where concrete was once present”. He would like to understand how that request meets our definition of a hardship. Ms. Otto stated she had a discussion with the applicant regarding the city’s hardship standard and the applicant wrote a letter detailing why he should be given the hardship status. Mr. Major stated he read the letter and is trying to tie it to our ordinance. Ms. Otto stated the applicant is present and he could best answer his question. Mr. Major stated we discussed having variances for issues of safety and the applicant talks about grandchildren and people playing but our current ordinance does not allow for variances for reasons of safety or environmental. Mr. Parks asked if there were other questions for staff; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Helmly came to the lectern and introduced himself. He stated that he requested this because the concrete that was there originally, he knew he would have to install permeable pavers and the 25’, which is the two 12-1/2’ sections, and there would be a 6’ wide by 9’ long area between those. Mr. Helmly stated he was told he could not put pavers there and could put rock there. In putting the rock there, he is afraid the rock will wash out into the road. He took a photograph the other day after we had the rain and stated he knew the rock wouldn’t wash but all the sand washed out and had to be 4 replaced. He feels after a period of time, they would be driving over it and the rock would end up in the road. For that reason, in the 6’ x 9’ area, he is just requesting to install pavers. Ms. Bryan asked if he had considered any landscaping. Mr. Helmly stated he had considered this and was going to put the landscape rock there but didn’t think it would hold because it is a small area and didn’t think grass was feasible. Mr. Major asked if the original driveway was entirely concrete including the 6 by 9 area. Mr. Helmly stated that it was. Ms. Otto stated there is a picture in the PowerPoint presentation and that picture was taken in 2010. Mr. Helmly stated that the area where he wants to install pavers is between the two narrow sections of posts where the gap is now. Originally the concrete came over to the side and there was a concrete wall and permeable pavers were placed where the concrete was. He stated that he is afraid the rocks will wash out into the road and feels it will be a hazard and a nuisance. He further stated the driveway is steep compared to other driveways on the road and his neighbors all have pavers across their drives which possibly could have been before this ordinance was passed. Mr. Major asked to direct a question to Ms. Otto and Mr. Davis. He asked if a very steep driveway, where the slope results in rock and sand being delivered to the road, be considered as topographical circumstances. Ms. Otto stated that the solution could be curbing in the area, a raised bed to enclose the area, because the city cannot allow the sand to continue migrating off the property. An owner is responsible to keep soil under control and curbing would accomplish that. Mr. Major stated so would pavers. Ms. Otto stated that is true. Mr. Major stated he originally had a concrete, which was not a pervious, he took the concrete out and put in pavers, which are more pervious, but at that time he was told he couldn’t fill in the entire thing. Ms. Otto stated we discussed the ordinance from the property line to the street, the city doesn’t allow a width wider than 25’ – that could be divided into two openings which was the option chosen by Mr. Helmly. Rather than that he could have opted for one 25’ opening with no gap and once he is across the property line, flare out to encompass the bays under the house. He instead chose the two driveway openings which resulted in this bare dirt and rock 6’ by 9’ area between the two openings. Mr. Major asked how recently this occurred. Ms. Otto stated it was within the last two months, three months, maybe. Mr. Major asked Ms. Otto if that would not constitute unique physical circumstances. Ms. Otto stated no and that it is city property. It is not on the land of the applicant – it is on city property where it is being requested. 5 Mr. Major asked if it was city right-of-way and Ms. Otto replied yes. Ms. Otto went on to say that in her opinion it is not overly steep but certainly responds to runoff. Mr. Bishop asked if the property to the west, that is also unfinished, has a third bay. Ms. Otto stated she had also seen that. I know it is specifically not germane to this zoning variance request but without some additional work it is also going to create an issue. Mr. Bishop stated there are three bays and Mr. Helmly stated no and that it only has two entrances going in – into two bays. Mr. Helmly stated the reason he put that there was to balance the front of the house rather than have a garage door, a garage door, and nothing. Inside that bay, it is very shallow, only about 12’ wide and not deep enough to park a car because the house on the inside jogs out to the north and then back to the west. Where the third bay is, there is no room for parking except for bicycles. The area in front of that, where the retaining wall stops, that will have rock and landscaping in that area. Mr. Bishop stated if that is going to have rock and landscaping, that will then be prohibited in some means of washing into the street, than why wouldn’t it be feasible to do the same in the area where he is seeking the variance. Mr. Helmly stated he is only asking for it between the two driveways because pulling up into the driveways or turning into the drive he didn’t feel that the rock could be stabilized. Mr. Parks asked if there were other questions for the applicant; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if any members of the public that would like to address the commission; there were none. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing and entertained a motion for discussion. Mr. Bishop made a motion to deny/Mr. Marion seconded/vote was unanimous. The motion to deny passed 5-0. Ms. Otto stated this goes to council June 14th. Mr. Parks stated the next item is a site plan and special review for a miniature golf course at 406-B First Street. Ms. Otto stated at 401 First St. there are a few retail businesses in that vicinity that would share the parking lot proposed for the miniature golf area. In the packet is a diagram of what parking is available to service both the miniature golf course and the existing businesses. There are a total of 18 spaces – the required handicap parking would be in place – there are four spaces that would be employee and compact parking as well as one bicycle rack for 8 bikes which can be substituted for another parking space. The golf course was allowed to be installed under a landscaping permit and a fence permit. The course is already in place but what has not occurred yet is the required site plan and special review to allow the business to get a license to begin operating. In the staff report, there are a number of items such as lighting, hours of operation, and buffering have been discussed with the applicant. The applicant is here this evening. Mr. Parks asked if there were any questions for staff at this time. 6 Ms. Bryan wanted to be sure she understood correctly that they already built the property and the golf course if already is play, so the commission is looking for a variance for parking. Ms. Otto stated there is no standard in the Land Development Code as far as parking requirements for a miniature golf course – instead the route that’s been taken was what were the parking requirements for the existing commercial uses and anything in excess of that would be what the applicant is offering as the parking for this miniature golf course because we have no standard for him to meet. It would be the commission’s determination whether those excess spaces would be sufficient or not. Ms. Bryan stated the way she read this is they are asking for one parking space – is that correct? Ms. Otto stated yes and further stated there are 19 spaces including the bike rack, which substitutes as a space, and the commercial use requires 18. Ms. Bryan stated it’s almost a done deal and commented now there is only one parking place. Ms. Otto stated this came to Planning Commission as a conceptual site plan and it needed a text amendment at that time to add the use to C2. The applicant was eager to begin because there was no erection of a structure, it was treated as strictly a landscaping plan to install the miniature golf course and we don’t require permits for that. We did issue a land disturbing permit for that process and we did issue a fence permit but otherwise anybody could install the landscaping required to make a miniature golf course without consent from the city. However to get a business license, he needs this approval. Ms. Bryan asked if it was originally 9 holes and the response was that it has always been 18. Mr. Major stated that it was not a site plan that was brought to the commission, it was a concept. Ms. Otto stated it was not an approval or denial process, it was simply feedback. Ms. Bryan asked if this was the one that was tabled and Ms. Otto stated she didn’t recall that it had been before the commission. Prior to this the commission had worked on the text amendment, and that was approved, to add miniature golf course to the allowed uses in C2 after site plan and special review. Ms. Otto stated Mr. Davis was also here to discuss the site as well and answer any questions that might arise regarding drainage. Mr. Parks stated the applicant wasn’t erecting anything, there wasn’t any irrigation, lighting, signage - only landscaping the place and basically that’s okay. Ms. Otto stated any place can do those things but the key to getting open as a business is to get formal site plan approval and special review in this case. Mr. Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, stated the site before, with the large oak trees out there, had mulch covering with many bare spots. This is highly unusual, but the applicant came in with a plan that showed where they were going to put the grass and what they have out there today, it is better and more stable. It also reduces the probability of sedimentation leaving the site more than it did before. It was actually an enhancement to stabilize the ground surface so they are allowed to do that 7 under landscaping allowances. The applicant installed the proper BMPs along the roadway to capture any sediment that would have occurred. They were held to the same standards as everybody else although it did not appear that way to many who called me to ask about it. Mr. Callahan stated he had one point of confusion and that the city has no standards for a miniature golf course. Ms. Otto replied you are correct. Mr. Callahan stated that when doing the math, you end up with one excess space from the existing commercial establishments. Ms. Otto stated that is correct and why they decided to use the site plan with variance application. Mr. Callahan stated that is his point of confusion as to why is it a variance if we have no standard to begin with. Ms. Otto stated because the city doesn’t have a standard, anything the commission would decide would be adequate to the site – it would simply be a concept and not a requirement. There is only one space in excess of the square footage that is required for these retail spaces. The number of compact spaces also is 30% rather than 20% that the city ordinance allows which is another variance from our standards for parking; we only allow 20% compact spaces. Mr. Major asked what would happen if the applicant gets two people playing golf? Ms. Otto stated there is city right-of-way that the city has considered metering. Some of this would play out that the hours of operation may differ from the retail uses to allow the spaces to be available when the miniature golf is operating as opposed to when the stores are open. Mr. Major stated so now there will be night golf. Ms. Otto stated the hours of operation that were discussed was up until 9 pm. Mr. Parks stated that is one way of looking at it because the city bases parking requirements on base floor area but another way of looking at it is that we could base the parking requirements on the gross usable area of this golf course, just like in a store, it has a certain amount of traffic area. We don’t have one for miniature golf courses but we have one for retail and commercial establishments based on usable floor space. Ms. Otto stated we do and we also have another for restaurants that is based on seating area. Mr. Parks stated so there’s going be a maximum number of people that will be there, even if he is booked to capacity, he is not going to have more than 2 or 3 people per hole. I think there is a way to calculate the number of required parking spaces based on square footage. Ms. Bryan asked why if they have 30% compact instead of 20%, is that another variance they are considering. 8 Ms. Otto stated that is a variance but in her opinion it is a good variance. She stated approximately two months back, when Mr. Davis and she had the results of the survey, she stated that in the future you may see an ordinance be proposed that would improve the city’s future ratings on that survey; that survey recommended 30%, the city is only allowing 20% – that is considered a green, friendly to use to have less parking space requirement. She further stated that the coming wave of the future is to allow options in parking to not have to use so much space to meet the parking requirements. Mr. Major asked who owns the parking spaces that were being discussed the in the parking plan. Ms. Otto stated the Malins family owns this entire property. Mr. Major asked if that included the golf course but parking spaces have been designed to other businesses. Ms. Otto stated the parking area is common to the entire parcel. As the Pedi cab business has been operating there, it has been available to the customers of the Pedi cab. Last summer, where the golf course is now, there was a private pay parking lot. The designed stone area would continue to be the parking area that would service both the retail and the proposed miniature golf course. Mr. Major asked if the retail is Pedicab and paid parking. Ms. Otto stated that the retail is Pedicab, Fat Tire Bike shop, High Tide, The Boardloft, a chiropractor’s office, and others. Mr. Parks referred to the staff analysis, section 8, that their narrative also states they have special events that might go as late as 11:30. Ms. Otto stated he was correct and apologized for not having included that. Mr. Parks stated he just wanted to ensure it was noted. Mr. Parks, referring to the staff analysis, section 10, asked what happens if the owner does not complete the recombination. Ms. Otto stated that recombination would be required prior to January 1, 2013. If it was not, then the business license for the miniature golf course would not be issued. Mr. Parks asked if there was a requirement for restrooms outside. Mr. Davis stated he has not researched the restrooms at this site nor does he know what restroom facilities are in these buildings – whether they are common restrooms for the various shops or they are locked into each shop. He stated that was not part of the scope he was working on. Mr. Bishop stated that by the staff analysis, customers will not be given access to toilet facilities within the existing structures on the property but employees would have access in the High Tide building. Ms. Otto stated that is the current situation, this is a sister business to the Pirate Pedicab and that is the current arrangement for those employees that they can use the facilities in the High Tide building but there is no intent that the customers at the miniature golf would be given that access. 9 Mr. Bishop stated so there is no requirement that customers would have to have a restroom. Ms. Otto stated she did not know if that is a requirement or not. The facilities are not at the miniature golf location although handicap parking is required. The restroom that is available to the employees is not handicapped accessible. She further stated she did not know if it is a requirement but also knew it is not being offered as a service. Mr. Davis stated he had a similar situation in another jurisdiction where you have a small venture and there are two employees. Codes do not require, referring to state codes and ADA codes, a handicap restroom for employees. He stated it may be the same for the Pedicab but he did not look into that but would assist Dianne and work with Ray [Hord, Building Official] to inspect the ordinances. Mr. Major stated he wanted to be sure what they are being asked to consider and vote on – a commercial enterprise with 3,500 square feet, with one parking space, no restrooms, with periodic activities until 11:30 at night. Ms. Otto stated you are correct but this is for special review and site plan. With special review, you can impose conditions; we would be looking for two motions this evening on this. Mr. Parks questioned buffers on the south side. He stated it is an R-2 residential and according to the map, the course is up against the fence that exists there. He was inquiring in what sense does that meet the city’s need for a buffer between commercial and residential. Ms. Otto stated the applicant will state there is a buffer there although it is not depicted accurately on the drawing as there is a space between the red fence and the course of a width I am unable to determine. The applicant can tell us what that width is. I can say this is a passive use; there would be people on the course next to the residential property. Mr. Parks asked if there were other questions for the staff at this time; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if it was understood what the motions are - one will be for site plan and the other review. Ms. Otto stated the special review would be first and the second would be site plan with variance. If the commission had any special conditions to impose, it would be with the special review. Mr. Major asked if they can request additional information and Ms. Otto replied certainly. Ms. Bryan stated if you can have four people at one time on a hole, which would be 72 people on 18 holes, which are 18 parking spots, where would the other businesses park? Have there been any other areas looked at where there is shared parking? Ms. Otto stated that discussion has occurred where the city is considering metering along the right-of- way that runs on the west side of the lot; other than that, no. Ms. Bryan asked if they could park along the right-of-way now without a ticket. Ms. Otto stated she didn’t believe so as that would be considered parking in an undesignated parking area. 10 Mr. Major stated that they have had these come to us before that didn’t have adequate parking but they had commitments from adjacent owners were overflow parking was used, and some had it in writing, but he was unsure if that is something that has been considered. Ms. Otto stated the city has offered that option to others for off-site parking with a lease agreement that is subject to annual review when the business license is reviewed and that agreement is still in place. Mr. Marion asked if there were any other supplemental parking that is not represented on the map. He further stated he knew Tim’s shop fairly well, and if you exit the parking lot and head north there is, possibly in the city right-of-way area, a gravel stretch where clients do park. He asked if there is any type of mutually beneficial agreement for overflow parking of businesses around the area. Also, is this just the common area for the business represented in this diagram and are there any other spaces not necessarily represented that could be capitalized on? Ms. Otto stated there is no other parking available on the property that this is being applied for. She also stated the parking you are describing is on city right-of-way – any other parking adjacent to this would also be on city right-of-way – this is the only parking on the property. Mr. Marion stated that in a perfect world, all this happens the way we see it here and the city decides on the west boundary of the property to install meters all the way down to Butler Avenue for the sake of accommodating the overflow business for the applicants or not. Ms. Otto stated it would not be the intent to satisfy the overflow; it would be to satisfy the need of parking in this vicinity. Mr. Parks asked if the applicant was with us; Grayson Powell came forward and introduced himself. Mr. Parks asked if there are any questions for Mr. Powell. Ms. Bryan stated in the packet it says that they would be having tournaments until 11:30 at night and asked if they would be willing to compromise on that 11:30 and make it 9 to 9? Mr. Powell stated that the special events would only be maybe once a month if he has one, and it is more or less a glow ball tournament with glow golf balls, no lighting, and the noise would be minimal. He further stated if it was bothering the residents too much, considering there is one residential area there, he would be willing to compromise but considering that it is a vacation rental, at the south of the property, he didn’t think it would be that big of a deal but if it is he would not mind compromising if that is holding everything up. Ms. Bryan also asked him if you’re not going to have music now will you in the future. Mr. Powell stated if he did have music it would definitely be kept lower than the 66 decibel level, which is the residential compliance, but if it was an issue, he wouldn’t mind turning the music off. Mr. Powell stated he just wanted to have the ability to do something fun, like a glow ball tournament at night time, that would be there and he wouldn’t have someone coming by saying you are not allowed to be open at 11, you are supposed to be closed at 9. 11 Mr. Parks stated the commission sees the sincerity, but after a year, if Mr. Powell decides to sell his business, the commission is entrusted with looking down the road, and what the commission is doing is authorizing, not just you, but whoever would buy this business if you got an incredible offer on the place. Mr. Powell stated he definitely understands this and if that is an issue, he will cut it off at 9 or whatever time the committee deemed appropriate. Mr. Powell also went on to state he didn’t know what the ordinance is on how late you can have music on. Mr. Parks went on to ask that, by the plan, it is stated that there will be two tournaments per month until 11:30 at night. Mr. Powell stated he did that because if he did have that one event already and he was approached to have a fund raiser, it would still be an option for him. Mr. Parks stated he thinks it will be successful and a great idea but with one parking place it will be difficult. Mr. Powell stated he has a silent partner and was wondering if he could say a few words. Mr. Parks asked him to come forward and identify himself. Joshua Morris came forward and referred back to a comment that was made regarding parking and stated that High Tide was their landlord. The owner is hoping that they are successful because they are paying a premium for the lot. Mr. Morris went on to say there was plenty of on-street parking that is not used. Mr. Parks stated that if he was at one of these wonderful events and there is no bathroom, what would he do? Mr. Powell stated that since there was no vending he didn’t feel as though it was needed. Mr. Parks asked, with that point in mind, am I allowed to bring beverages? Mr. Powell stated it was BYOB. Mr. Parks stated that on Tybee, when you say BYOB, that opens the idea for a bathroom. Mr. Powell stated there was a public bathroom down the street, next to Chu’s, and it is handicap accessible. Mr. Parks stated that it would be about a block and a half away. Mr. Powell stated there are about ten trees on the lot also. Mr. Parks stated you should not have said that. Mr. Parks asked if he felt he had met the buffer requirement. 12 Mr. Powell stated there were no holes and nothing against the fence; there is at least 10 feet between the course and the fence. Ms. Otto stated she had a couple of items. She stated this is the first she had heard of the BYOB concept and the staff was not aware of that. Secondly, she asked if Mr. Davis could talk about a recent miniature golf ruling that went into effect and how it does not apply to this situation. Mr. Davis stated that on March 15th, it became law through the Justice Department, which we do not enforce Federal laws, only state laws, the ADA came out with a ruling that weighed heavy on miniature golf courses regarding handicapped restrooms. He stated it is his understanding the previous approvals attached to this project, gave them the privilege to be grandfathered in. Mr. Davis stated in this case, we are aware of it and they are not violating an ADA law. I have been told that they have already met that standard by the old ordinance. In other words, they are not violating any federal law that states you must have handicapped restrooms and handicap access routes. Mr. Major asked what approvals were granted before any conceptual presentation. Mr. Davis stated he wasn’t a part of that and there is nothing we can do about it, but it is general information that the ADA has come into effect on miniature golf courses. Again we don’t enforce that on a local level and even the State of Georgia doesn’t enforce it. The ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code. Mr. Davis further stated it was his understanding that the previous considerations, discussions, and maps that were shown, gives them a vested interest. Ms. Otto stated she has been advised of the same thing because we issued a land disturbing permit for a miniature golf course and that established a date of this and predates the enactment of the rule that Mr. Davis is referring to. Mr. Davis stated he wanted to clarify, the way the Georgia state building code reads, if this applicant, as the operator of the facility, has agreed upon restroom usage for his employees, that is under his ownership, lease, or control, it can be just an agreement that his employees can go into another building with the Georgia state building code. Certain businesses do not have to provide restrooms for their users but he and Ms. Otto will be looking into it but based on employees, he has met the standard. Ms. Bryan asked for clarification. She asked Ms. Otto if she heard correctly, there have not been any approved applications, it was just for landscaping, but now there was a land disturbing permit for the miniature golf course. Ms. Otto answered yes, the land disturbing permit that was issued was specific to installation of the greens, mulch, and fencing related to this miniature golf course. Because there were no structures it did not require a building permit. Mr. Parks stated the commission has done a lot to try and ensure this thing succeeds. He commended the city for working with the applicant and trying to get things done for a truly different type of operation. Mr. Parks asked if there were any other questions for the applicant; there were none. Mr. Parks asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak on this; there were none. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing on this site plan and special review. Mr. Major stated he has some ideas for consideration. First would be a parking plan that shows 18 parking places and in reality would need 36 parking places. He would like to see some proposal or 13 conceptual idea of how that requirement would be met; whether it’s locations on the plan or other parking is located where that requirement could be met. Regarding the evening activities, he would like to see something that captures the concern by Ms. Bryan, that if these things prove to be a problem, that something will be done regarding the music and the evening activity. He also asked that the commission have the correct map. When something is proposed to the commission, no matter what that map says, that it will be 10 feet away or whatever the correct distance is. Mr. Parks asked if there was any way to consider, regarding the parking – I don’t think every day they’ll have a need for 36 parking places - there ought to be some kind of plan as what do we do with all these people. Ms. Otto stated that the response would not be through the use of city parking in the vicinity, it would need to be an offsite, private parking agreement. Mr. Major stated he is not comfortable with saying you have 36 people and one parking spot is okay. Ms. Bryan stated she totally agrees with Mr. Major. She stated that when she first found out about this, it was awesome and couldn’t wait, but there has got to be parking considerations and we need to find a solution. Mr. Parks stated he has concerns about public access to restrooms. I don’t know if I want to make any requests for a special consideration but like parking there should be some plan for what if somebody has to use the bathroom. If we have 36 people for a special event, with BYOB, we ought to have a plan. Mr. Major stated maybe we could get something in writing from High Tide and check the availability if they are even open at 11:15 pm. Mr. Parks asked if there were any other comments on special review. Mr. Major asked if we were looking for approval or denial on the special review. Ms. Otto stated yes and conditions or an option. Mr. Major stated that the plan, as presented, should address the non-invasiveness of music, some type of overflow plan on the parking, the correct map, and that if High Tide is the emergency employee restroom they need something from the landlord that those restrooms are going to be available. He further stated he was unsure what time High Tide closes but if it is before 11:30, when they are having events, we need plan B for things after that. If those are addressed, he would love to see this go through. He doesn’t know if 18 or 36 designated parking spaces are needed but would like some reasonable percentage of those addressed in the plan. Mr. Parks stated that if the commission needed something special to determine how many parking spaces are needed for a miniature golf course, they could do that. Ms. Otto stated that would also be a goal to be incorporated into the Land Development Code for the number of spaces for a miniature golf course. 14 Mr. Parks asked if they could recommend that council arrive at a number or should the commission address it? Ms. Otto stated she would expect the council would send it back to the commission. Mr. Parks recommended that the commission determine the number of spaces. Mr. Major stated they could arrive at a starting point, whether to go by square feet of the whole building, parking lot, or facility. He stated they’ve got 3,500 usable square feet that make up a golf course, but he wasn’t sure how that would compare to a restaurant full of tables and four people to a table or how many people are in a car. Mr. Parks stated he liked it by holes, eighteen holes with two people per hole. Mr. Major asked how many parking spaces is that – 9? Mr. Parks said let’s say 9. We need a number and see what the council says. Ms. Bryan asked what the easiest or quickest thing can be done so they can get up and operating – would it be go to council or table it? Mr. Parks stated the commission could conditionally approve it and then approve the site plan with variance and then they could go to council. Mr. Parks stated that he was getting the sense that the commission agrees with this, wants to see it happen, but want to pass it on to council with the commission’s thoughts and put that in the form of these considerations. Mr. Parks stated we’re not asking for this to come back to us because that would stall the applicant and time is of the essence. Mr. Major stated he wants to see 50% of the parking that is imposed on other commercial operations. Council can make it 10% or 100%. Ms. Otto wanted clarification on the math, 50% of the retail. Mr. Major stated that would be 18 required parking spaces. Mr. Parks stated that 3,500 square feet and one spot for every 200 square feet – that would basically be 18 and if you cut that in half it is 9. Ms. Otto stated that it will be 9 for the miniature golf use; Mr. Parks and Mr. Major agreed. Mr. Parks asked if there was a second? Ms. Bryan wanted to understand the motion on keeping the hours 9 to 9. Mr. Major stated he wanted something in their plan, that is a commitment, that if the afterhours or later hours pose residential problems resulting in complaints that the city will have the right to cut them back to the 9 to 9. He did not know if it would be a problem but he would like to have that condition included. 15 Ms. Bryan stated that she thinks that would be hard to control once the ‘cat is out of the bag’. Mr. Parks stated that the initial review that came to the commission, the conceptual was 9 to 9, and, as a matter of fact, was dawn to dusk and no mention of solar power lighting. Mr. stated you could have the 7 o’clock event with glow balls but it would be the same thing as in February Major. He further stated he would be willing to modify it from the original 9 to 9. Mr. Parks stated from 9 to 9. Mr. Major stated that is correct, 9-9. Mr. Marion seconded the vote. The vote was unanimous. The Special Review request was approved with a 5-0 vote with the following conditions: overflow plan for parking, hours from 9 AM until 9 PM, non-invasive music, and resolve the bathroom issue. Mr. Parks asked Ms. Otto if the site plan was the next vote. Ms. Otto stated yes, site plan with variance; there are no conditions on a site plan so it’s strictly for approval or denial. Mr. Parks asked for a motion on the site plan. Mr. Major stated that based on the special review that was just conducted, that we approve the site plan. Mr. Marion seconded; the vote was unanimous. The Site Plan with Variance item was approved with a 5-0 vote. Ms. Otto stated this will go to council June 14th Mr. Parks stated the next item on the agenda is billboards. Ms. Otto stated when the planning commission last heard 6-080, the decision that was sent to city council was to continue to allow billboards in the vacant commercial lots but the characteristic of the neighborhood be considered. When sent to city council, the council went into a different direction which was to no longer allow new billboards. For this reason, the item has been returned to the commission for reconsideration since they took it so far in a different direction. Mr. Parks stated that the wording here is no signs. Ms. Otto stated no new billboards. Allowance has been made which has expanded into other sections of Article 6 to allow repairs and maintenance to the current billboards on Tybee Island. Mr. Parks wanted to know if the 75% rule applies if it is destroyed. Ms. Otto said no. If it is destroyed, it could be replaced. Mr. Parks asked if there was any public input or questions for staff. 16 Mr. Major stated that if he owns a vacant lot today, and he just bought this lot, permitted use includes billboards. Ms. Otto stated he was correct. Mr. Major stated that if this ordinance is passed, than permitted use is no longer for billboards. Ms. Otto stated he was correct. Ms. Otto stated the prior billboard allowance, which is currently in the code, is always after site plan and site plans are subject to approval or denial. In that sense, if the code section was removed, it’s as if they are all denied. Mr. Major asked if Mr. Hughes was at the last council meeting and Ms. Otto replied that he was. Ms. Otto stated that this ordinance was the form he took from their comments. Mr. Parks asked if there was other discussion; there was none. Mr. Parks asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak on this; there was none. Mr. Parks declared this public session on Section 6-080 closed. A motion was made by Mr. Bishop to approve / second was made by Mr. Major / the vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed 5-0. Ms. Otto stated this will go to city council on June 14th. Mr. Parks stated the next item on the agenda is Section 4-050(P)(5). Ms. Otto stated in the PowerPoint presentation, there is a slide that shows the portion of the north end overlay. It encompasses the waste water treatment plant, the Public Works facility, the campground, and the police station. That property was placed in an overlay a few years ago. Within the ordinance that created that overlay, the last section addresses site plan review for any future new uses or expansion of any existing uses. It stated that approval would be by the Planning Department of the City of Tybee Island. The text amendment before the commission would change that to the typical site plan review by the Planning Commission and then city council. Mr. Parks asked if there was other discussion; there was none. Mrs. Parks asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak on this; there were none. Mr. Parks declared this public session on Section 4-050 (P)(5) closed. A motion was made by Mr. Major to approve / second was made by Mr. Bishop / the vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 4-050(P)(5) passed 5-0. Ms. Otto stated this will go to city council on June 14th Mr. Parks stated the last item on the agenda is text amendment for Section 4-050(Q)(5). 17 Ms. Otto stated this is on the same end of the island but a different overlay. This includes the north end cultural which is the light house, Shrine Club, North Beach Grill, and the museum. The same wording was in this overlay that planning department could approve new uses and expanding uses at the staff level. It is requested that be changed to site plan by planning commission and city council. Mr. Parks asked what the motivation was for the change. Ms. Otto stated that the pending development in this particular overlay of the Marine Science Center. It was identified at that point when the city is beginning preliminary discussion that decisions should not be made at staff level for that type of use on city property. Mr. Parks stated very good and asked if there was other discussion; there was none. Mr. Parks asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak on this; there was none. Mr. Parks declared this public session on Section 4-050 (Q)(5) closed. A motion was made by Mr. Bishop to approve / second was made by Mr. Callahan / the vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 4-050(Q)(5) passed with a 5-0 vote. Ms. Otto stated this will go to city council on June 14th Motion for adjournment was made by Rob Callahan; the meeting was adjourned. Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant