Loading...
20120717_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 David McNaughton Monty Parks, Chair CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the July 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were John Major, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and David McNaughton. Mayor Jason Buelterman swore in David McNaughton as the newest Planning Commissioner. Chairman Monty Parks asked for consideration of the Minutes of the June 19, 2012 meeting. Mr. Bishop moved to approve, Mr. Callahan seconded the motion. The vote to approve the minutes was unanimous. Mr. Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals; there were none. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DUNE CROSSOVER AT 1075 BAY STREET Ms. Otto - This request at 1075 Bay Street, a single family home, is located in an R-1 zoning district. The code section 3-100, in our Land Development Code, requires this type of project to go through special review which is the application before you this evening. The applicants are Judith and Patrick Beaman. At this property, they are requesting to install stairs and a walkway that would tie into an existing beach crossover. They have been to the DNR and obtained a permit which is in your packet. Are there any questions for staff? Mr. Bishop - In the packet, the June 26, 2012, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Shore Protection Act Permit #413 that was directed and the committee considered an approved permit for Judith Silva Beaman, who is the applicant, is that correct? Ms. Otto - She is the applicant at this special review, yes. Mr. Bishop – In reference to 413, there was a direction to Camille Molero Silva which seems to be contrary to the first item I mentioned. Following on the heels of that, the actual Shore Protection permit was issued to Camille Molero Silva on June 22, 2012, so I see a conflict. With regards to that and the certification of compliance is to Camille Silva, so my question, according to this, there seems to be a conflict with the application, the applicant, and the person it was issued to, is that correct? 2 Ms. Otto - Ms. Beaman, who is our applicant on our special review, is the daughter of Ms. Silva that you see in the DNR; Ms. Beaman acted on the easement that is in Ms. Silva’s name. Further explanation probably needs to come from the applicant, but it is mother and daughter. Mr. Bishop – This is the same action just two different entities receiving permission, the applicant and her mother. Ms. Otto – On the same property, yes. Mr. Major - Having read through all of the materials, it seems like the point that Demery raised is pertinent because I have the question but not the answer, is to whom was the walking easement granted and is that easement transferrable on sale of the property, and was the property actually sold to someone else, which it seems to have been, and did it permit transfer of ownership and construction of the structure? I don’t know if we can get those answers, but the DNR permit states in two different places, and two different documents, that this does not dissolve any disputes or discussions that are ongoing between the parties. I don’t know if that is standard language on a DNR permit but they went out of their way to say that granting this permit in no way is meant to settle any dispute or arguments. I think that the point of ownership, which is reflected on the permits, is relevant. Ms. Otto - The special condition, #1, which is on page 3 of the DNR permit, states that the permitted stairs and walkway are for the exclusive use of Ms. Silva and her heirs which I interpret to mean both Ms. Beaman and Ms. Silva as she would be the heir to her mother. Mr. Major - I guess my question, whether or not that would supersede an easement that was granted in 1996. Ms. Otto - That is not a legal question before us this evening. Mr. Bishop – In one of the items provided to the commission for review, there was a reference to the easement. I went down to the courthouse and picked that up and there seems to be, in my opinion, there is some question with regard to the easement granted to Camille B. Silva on the property in question. It also says that the easement of record is subject to her reasonable use and is not assignable and non-transferable but then it does specifically say “and shall inure only to the benefit of the heirs of grantee”. That clouds the issue to some degree. I realize we are not interpreting legalities, but from a perspective of special review, these are issues that I think are applicable based on the LDC, in requirements and paragraphs of the LDC with regards to special review. There seems to be some distinction between non-assignable, non-transferrable, because the property has transferred from Camille B. Silva to her daughter, if I’m correct in that. And so therefore, that does put the issue before this commission with regards to the non-assignable, non-transferrable. If that’s the case, I’m not sure we are able to move forward on an easement that is, in fact, not transferable, and therefore the property rights and the liability that attaches to an easement that may or may not be considered a legal easement of the current property owner. Ms. Otto - I will not be able to answer the legal questions of ownership. You have before you an applicant that owns property, who is requesting special review, who does have a DNR permit, and the next step is to obtain a Tybee permit through the special review process. Any legal battles on the easement rights would come outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Tybee Island. 3 Mr. Bishop – I understand that, I’m just raising that because those are issues that in order for us to make a decision, perhaps, has to be resolved so that we do the right thing based on the criteria as established by the LDC under special review that specifically says we, “have to be legal in our corrections to insure that we are not acting on anything that would be detrimental to the use, or development of the property, that it is not affected adversely by the existing uses of the adjacent properties and the legalities of that”. Those are the reasons I’m asking these questions and maybe that can be answered as we proceed. Ms. Otto – At some point, if you choose before public input or after, there is a document that was received today from a neighbor that does need to be read into the record. I will be glad to do that now or later at your discretion. Mr. Parks – I wanted to ask the question, to follow up with Mr. Bishop, while I was considering the legality, I was also considering - does our obligation go to the properness of construction, the adherence to codes on construction, or to actual ownership? I assure you that there are concerns there but I guess I went more to our function as a commission to be more of suitability for construction rather than ownership. I don’t know if I’m saying that correctly. Ms. Otto – That is what I was trying to state as well. Mr. Parks – I want to put that, not in disagreement with you Mr. Bishop, I respect your opinions to the utmost, just as another side. Mr. Bishop - Understood. Those are issues I’m raising, that’s all. Mr. Parks – I think they should be noted and believe this should be a part of the minutes. Are there other questions for staff at this time? At this time, let’s read the letter from the neighbor. Ms. Otto - Read the email from Kirk Jones, a neighbor, sent on July 16, 2012, addressed to Monty Parks. The email read: “Dear Mr. Parks: This letter is in reference to the Silva-Beaman request to build a structure across the sand dune between my property at 1011 Bay Street and the property of my neighbor, Mr. Arnie Seyden, at 1013 Bay Street. My wife and I are opposed to the construction of this structure, which we believe will have a negative impact on our property value, given the proximity of the proposed structure to the two cross-overs that already exist from both my property and that of Mr. Seyden’s. Erecting this additional cross-over at this time represents a substantial and significant alteration in the agreement in place with Ms. Silva for the past 20+years. We believe the construction of this structure is unnecessary, as both we and Mr. & Mrs. Seyden have explicitly invited Ms. Silva to continue to use either of the existing cross-overs to access the beach at any time. Finally, and importantly, the current walking easement between ourselves, the Seydens, and Ms. Silva stipulates that the walking easement she currently enjoys does not convey with the property, if and when the property is sold outside her family. The construction of a structure that is unnecessary, and that has the possibility/probability of needing to be removed at a future date, makes even less sense to us. Due to work commitments, my schedule does not permit me to attend tomorrow evening’s meeting in person. However, please allow this letter to serve as my proxy in stating that I and my wife are strongly opposed to the erection of an additional cross-walk between our property and that of Mr. & Mrs. Seyden’s property. Sincerely, Kirk Jones.” 4 Mr. Parks – Thank you, Ms. Otto. Mr. Major – Maybe I just missed it, but I believe the paragraph that Demery read was from Judith Beaman’s statement where it says that “Mrs. Silva has the right to access his easement and build a suitable structure necessary for access to the easement which was granted to her and that upon her death shall inure to the benefits of her heirs, see attached”. I couldn’t find an attached that had those words in it. That would have been good if I could have found it. Did you find an attached? Mr. Parks – I’m sorry, what are you referencing? Mr. Major – Did you read Mrs. Beaman’s letter? Mr. Parks – Yes. Mr. Major – It says, see attached, which I thought would have been some type of legal reference, or explanation, that this inures to the benefit of her heirs but there was no attachment that I saw. Mr. Parks – You’re right. There is also another reference to it – there are three references. Mr. Major – I was talking about the drawing that was done by Mr. Seyden – it says “See Attached”. Mr. Parks – Well, it appears there are several “See Attached” here. That might solve some of these questions. The question is, were they a part of this submission and just not part of the packet? Ms. Otto - It is my recollection, when I met with the Beamans, there were documents submitted and advice I gave suggested that they write a narrative to describe the project as you customarily see in packets. The narrative was received after the original submittal of the Special Review application and attachments. There are other documents in the file that are not in the packet and she may have been referring to those items although there is no reference to see exhibit A or B. I’m unsure which ones she is referring to. The ones in the file are additional surveys with highlights. One has a highlight of that same five foot easement. Mr. Major – I think that is a critical statement as to what we are dealing with here. Mr. Parks – It looks like there should be, if I read this right, … (hesitation) Ms. Otto – Again, I want to caution that this is not an exercise of determining ownership of an easement or whether it carries into perpetuity or not, this is a Tybee resident asking, under our ordinance, for special review to build this. Any legalities or challenges to who may, or may not, have future rights to that easement would come in a court of law. Mr. Major - If I read the paragraph prior to that one, Mr. Jones, I believe you just read a letter from him, according to that paragraph, he raises the offer to create a new drawing with input from Mr. Seyden and they provided a revised drawing that was acceptable to them and that was sent to the City of Tybee and that was approved. I’m just throwing that out there that if we have a compromised drawing but I guess we’ll find out when we hear from the applicant. 5 Mr. Otto – What I have included in your packet is the same one that is in the PowerPoint of the survey of the property. Since this isn’t a Site Plan, I provided the survey. Mr. Major – Is there a Mr. Jones, we have several drawings in our packets. Ms. Otto – I don’t believe so. There is the one in your packet that was prepared by Root Design Studio. I do not know which one is referred to as Mr. Jones’s. Mr. Parks – Are there other questions for staff at this time? (There were none.) Do we have a representative from the applicant present at this time? Ms. Otto - She has a presentation as well. Ms. Judy Beaman came forward. Good evening, my name is Judy Beaman. I am the daughter of Camille Silva. She is the one that has the personal easement that goes between the two properties of Mr. Jones and Mr. Seyden. I was acting as her agent when we went in front of the DNR to get a Shore Protection Act permit. What we requested from DNR was that we be able to adjoin to the existing crossover that is already there on Mr. Seyden’s and Mr. Jones’s property, and we just wanted to access over the dune. It was a walking easement but my mom can’t get over it. In order to get over it now, we requested that we add that addition of the stairwell. This is the existing (referring to PowerPoint slide), this is after they repaired it. This is what is there now and it T’s off and goes to Mr. Seyden’s house and Mr. Jones house but it doesn’t continue on so my mom can get across. I don’t know if you can tell on that one (referring to slide) where the ‘T’ is. The picture that is down at the bottom that is the dune we are wanting to access to go over with the stairwell. The one (referring to slide) that is on the top, to the left, is the end of the deck that is already there and we would like for the stairwell to come up and connect to that deck which would allow my mom to use the easement as provided. This was part of DNRs (referring to slide) special conditions when they approved the application for us. Are there any questions? Mr. Parks – At this time, do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Callahan – Can you define a walking easement? Ms. Beaman – It provides egress and ingress over a certain area - to and from access. I don’t have a legal definition - that is my definition. Mr. Callahan – On the ground? Ms. Beaman – On the ground, yes, it could be on the ground. Mr. Major – I have not seen the 1996 document but did it….(interruption) Ms. Beaman – You didn’t get a copy of the actual easement? Mr. Major – I did not. Ms. Beaman – No. My apologies, I’m very sorry. 6 Mr. Major – My question is did it specifically allow or specifically deny or was it silent on transfer of ownership and on structure? Ms. Beaman – It doesn’t transfer with the property. What it does is transfer to my mother’s heirs which would be myself and my siblings. Mr. Major – That is specifically stated on the walking easement? Ms. Beaman – Would you like me to read the easement? Mr. Major – How many pages is it? Ms. Beaman – Just a short paragraph. It says “For and in consideration of one dollar in hand, and other good and suitable considerations, the undersigned hereby grant to Camille B. Silva, hereafter referred to as grantee, an exclusive five foot walking easement for the use of grantee, personally, which traverses the length of the eastern border of Lot 4A2 and 4A1 as fully described and shown in the plat of the Serjan subdivision, a subdivision of Lot 4A Bay Ward, Tybee Island, Chatham County, Georgia, located in the Records of the Clerk of Superior Court of Subdivision Map Book 7S. The exclusive easement herein granted shall be personal to grantee, subject to her reasonable use and shall be non-assignable and non- transferrable and shall only inure to the benefit of the heirs of grantee.” My husband and I did purchase the property from my mom but my mom has always lived there. It is her house, she lives there, and it is hers until she passes away. My husband and I did purchase this 10 years or so ago. Mr. Major – That was probably the “See Attached” that had the language in it. Ms. Beaman – I apologize for that, I thought those attachments were part of that document. Mr. McNaughton - How does your mother access the beach now? Ms. Beaman – We can’t get over the dune because it’s overgrown so we have gone, occasionally, through or onto Mr. Jones’s walkway, it is less obtrusive but we don’t just do it; we would never just walk over there. We don’t go to Mr. Seyden’s because it goes directly, all around, …it’s an invasion of privacy – I would never walk up on his deck…he could be up there eating. Mr. Seyden’s deck is a little less intrusive to get up on but it’s still not part of the easement to be able to do that. We want to be able to preserve the right of the easement which is five feet down the center of the property line. Mr. Bishop – We have two different applicants? Ms. Beaman – When I met with Dianne, I wasn’t sure if I should put the application for the permit in my mom’s name or in our name, I didn’t know if it made a difference or not. My husband and I were here so we put it in our name for the actual permit to build but the Shore Protection Act, I acted as my mom’s agent and that permit was granted to my mother. Mr. Bishop – You and your husband are current property owners? Ms. Beaman - Correct. 7 Mr. Bishop - In this process, were there any other options pursued or looked at with regards to access in a walking easement environment other than construction of a new item over the dunes? Were there other alternatives that you looked at and explored? Ms. Beaman - We did, and when we spoke with DNR, the DNR – when we were at the meeting going through the permit process – the question came up – would a walking easement, actually walking over the dune, or building something over the dune, which would be less obstructive to the dunes and DNR said building a structure. Mr. Burgess said that building a structure over the dune would be less detrimental to the dune itself. Mr. Bishop – Under Special Review, if this is approved, one of the questions I have which would need to be explored, under our special review, we have to determine that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties, or adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers which brings me into to a broader interpretation of paragraph two. The construction of that, with that easement, where would the liability of individuals using that fall if, in fact, have you considered that with regards to injury or problems, or detrimental use by other individuals such as adjacent property owners versus using a natural dune crossover that is adjacent to the property to the west? Ms. Beaman – I know our homeowner’s insurance would have some kind of policy, I’m assuming. But I really don’t know as far as liability how that would affect. Mr. Bishop - It was not an option or consideration at the time when you considered building the crossover? Ms. Beaman - No. Mr. Major – In considering options, when I walked the property, I know Mr. Jones and Mr. Seyden have both said to feel free but I know you do not feel comfortable walking onto Mr. Jones deck area and even more so around Mr. Seyden’s deck. But it seems like, just as a consideration, if on Mr. Jones side, if you added a couple of steps up to his walkway, that would be yours, and then you would have access to the crossover at a whole lot less expense and maybe even the easement could be modified to include that. Ms. Beaman – That isn’t part of the easement. The easement is five foot straight down the center of the line. Mr. Major - It would have to be modified, that would accomplish the purpose without putting that third rail in the middle there. Ms. Beaman - The property that Mr. Jones is in now has changed hands quite a few times. Mr. Major - That is why you want it documented. Ms. Beaman – At this point, we’re just trying to preserve what we have, the right that we have now. Mr. Major - Could you tell me about the process that resulted in a compromise drawing being submitted to the City and the DNR? 8 Ms. Beaman – The one that Mr. Jones drew…we couldn’t come to an agreement. It was before Mr. Jones owned it, it was Mr. Seyden and at that time the bank owned it and we couldn’t come to an agreement on building something on it or walking over it. My husband and I hired an attorney as a mediator to try and come to some compromise. We came up with some options, Mr. Seyden sent some pictures, we had some different options and finally together we came up with this and it doesn’t have Mr. Jones name on this, it’s just a drawing. I’m sorry you didn’t receive a copy of this. Mr. Major – That’s one of those “See Attached” that we didn’t have. Ms. Beaman – Right. And we ended up having to get another drawing because Mr. Jones isn’t a certified engineer, architectural engineer, so we had to get another one, which is the one that that says Root Design. Mr. Major – And it is the same as that? Ms. Beaman – I don’t know if this is in your package, it should have been part of the attachment, I apologize if it wasn’t. Ms. Otto – We got to a point, for DNR purposes, they needed to know that this structure would withstand our wind climate of 130 mph so the original drawing that came in did not have the stamp or signature of a licensed architect or engineer and that’s what lead to the one that is in your packet that does have an architect’s seal on it. The DNR requested that document. Mr. Major – Does that reflect the drawing that came from Mr. Seyden and Mr. Jones? Ms. Beaman – The drawing that Mr. Seyden and Mr. Jones proposed did not have railings. When we sent it to the city, they added railings to it. They said it needed railings for permitting. So when we had it redrawn, we had it redrawn with railings. It’s the same without the hand railings. Mr. Parks – There is no lighting proposed? Ms. Beaman - No. Mr. Parks – Is there a gate or signage of any kind restricted to the use of only the family? Ms. Beaman – I’m more than happy to put a sign up there. Mr. Parks – No, I mean, what we see on the drawings is what it is. Ms. Beaman – Correct, there is no lighting. We kept it pretty much like Mr. Jones. Mr. Parks – It’s not covered? Ms. Beaman – No. Mr. Parks – It does meet all setbacks and has the DNR permit? Ms. Beaman – Yes. 9 Mr. Parks - Are there other questions for applicant at this time? (There were none). Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission at this point? Ms. Sue Seyden came forward. I am Sue Seyden, one-half of the owner of 1013 Bay Street. It is a long and convoluted story about the easement but I’ll leave that for later. We’ve lived here for twenty years and the easement was there when we bought the house, however it was not straight down the property line in 1997, we changed that. However, in the 20 years that we have lived there, Camille has always had access to the beach through our walkway or through the Warner’s property, the owner’s that were there, to our right. So she has never walked over the dune to get to the beach and has always used our stairway. In 1997, when there was some transfer of property on Bay Street, we abolished that easement that she had, that went down the left side of our property, across the front of our dune, across the dune in front of the Warner’s and down the right side of their property line. When we did that, we made a verbal agreement with her, and the Warners, that she could use either of our walkways to access the beach which she has done all the years we have lived there. We have never said she cannot do it, or whatever, it’s never been an inconvenience or uncomfortable or anything of that sort. My concerns are this, can the City of Tybee grant permission for a non-property owner to build a structure on property they don’t own and the liability issue is a big concern for me. If somebody gets hurt on their walkway, and we can’t get insurance on that walkway obviously, because it is not our structure, so how does that work? Everybody sues everybody now so does that mean whoever gets hurt sues the Beamans, Jones, us, and the City because they granted permission to build something that we did not grant permission for you to build? I don’t know how all that will work. Also the policing of who gets to use that walkway; do we have to ask everybody who is going on our property if they are friends or family of the Beamans - how do we know…it is just a very complicated and involved process of a structure that really doesn’t necessarily have to be there since they do have access at two different places. I also think that the one who owns the actual easement is still under dispute. Mr. Arnie Seyden came forward and introduced himself. I agree with my wife totally on this. We have had a walking easement for a long time and Camille has been a very good neighbor and we like her very much and we’ve always got along fine with her. We have no problem with her walking, we’ve offered to her to use our walkway, which she has done, and the Joneses are the same way. Mr. Major, you made a statement about the steps coming up - Mr. Jones said he would seriously consider that and probably will do it if that would be acceptable so that is another alternative we could do. We don’t want to block anybody, we just don’t want a big structure going over a sand dune and destroying more sand dune and being between two houses 20 feet apart. That is basically what we object to. Mr. Parks – Do we have any questions for the speaker at this point? Mr. Major – Could you explain to us the scenario of the compromise drawing that was referred to by Mrs. Beaman that, with your input, Mr. Jones put together a compromise drawing that was submitted to the…(interruption) Arnie Seyden – I’m not sure about the compromise drawing, to be honest with you. Sue Seyden - When we were talking with the Beamans about building the structure, which we were opposed to, our neighbor, Kirk, said perhaps if it was low to the dunes, didn’t have railings, and didn’t intrude in our yard, which the current structure will go into our yard several feet in order to make it up the incline, he said he would come up with some sort of a drawing that might be acceptable. So he and 10 Arnie did that drawing and that was not permitted, it needed to have railings, it needed to be three foot higher and that’s how that came about. Mr. Parks – Do we have other members of the public that wish to address this issue at this time? (There were none). At this time I would like to close the public hearing. On this matter of business before us, I’m open for any discussion or a motion from the Commission. Mr. Bishop – Based on discussions and questions that remain, I make a motion to deny. Mr. Parks – We have a motion to deny on the table, do I have a second? Mr. Major – I second it. Mr. Parks – Those voting in favor of denial of the request, please raise your right hand at this time. I have a unanimous vote. Ms. Otto - This will be heard by City Council on August 9th. -------------------------------------------------------------- SITE PLAN AT 602 FIRST STREET Ms. Otto – This request will be in addition to their current setup for conducting business. The request for site plan, as you know, is required whenever there is a commercial development that needs to make an exterior change. In this situation, the building houses the Urgent Care Center and now the Tybee Animal Care as well. The required setbacks have been satisfied when that structure was placed there and there would be no further setback issues with this addition. The only consideration, which is not ordinance related, is the proximity of the landing and stair addition to the existing 30” oak tree. In the PowerPoint, you will see a photograph of the side of the structure where it is proposed that the window would be removed and a door would replace the window. That window (referring to PowerPoint slide) that is on the west side of the structure is proposed for replacement by a door that would enter out onto a landing with stairs going down to the ground. Mr. Parks - Any questions for staff at this time? Mr. McNaughton – The issue as to whether it would be a problem with the oak, could that doorway be moved farther to the back corner of the building? Ms. Otto – Yes. It could be moved to the south more and the stairs would need to end before that six foot setback line. There also appeared to be a greater distance on the northern side of this – I don’t know how the rooms are laid out inside the structure – but if it was possible to achieve their goals and have the stairway coming out of the room to the front of the building rather than to the rear, maybe that would also be an option. Mr. Major – Is this an employee entrance? 11 Ms. Otto – As a veterinary clinic, pets may need to go outside, and this would be used as a side entrance for taking the pets outdoors. It is already fenced through a properly issued permit. Mr. Callahan – It says the stairway will not be used by the general public. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Parks - Other questions for staff? (There were none.) Is there anyone for the applicant present? (There were none.) Are there any members of the public who wish to address the commission? (There were none.) This public hearing is now closed. Is there discussion or a motion from the commission? Mr. Major – I move for approval with the condition, as suggested by Mr. McNaughton, that every effort will be made for the steps and stairway not to touch that oak tree…to not damage the tree. Mr. Callahan – A comment on that motion, taking out a window and putting in a door, it’s going to be, in my opinion after going out there, it’s going to be impossible to miss that tree. When you use words like, “make every effort,” that is not strong enough for me. The door needs to be moved so that it will not harm the tree. Mr. Bishop – I want to join in on that comment. We need to insure that the survivability of that tree, by a certified arborist, is a fact and that in order to insure that, the door needs to be located where it will not be in proximity to harming that particular tree. Mr. Major – Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my motion. Mr. Callahan – Not just the trunk but the roots as well. Mr. Bishop – The tree structure, the canopy, the entire tree. That was my concern when you rephrased, I think Mr. McNaughton had the right manner. Mr. Parks - At this time, I am open to a motion, our first motion has been withdrawn. Mr. McNaughton – I move that the applicant’s petition be approved with the condition that the doorway be moved so as not to injure the tree or the tree system. Mr. Parks – Is there was a second? (None were offered.) Do we have discussion? Mr. Bishop – Again, I think we need to specify how it will not be injured. It needs to be certified by an arborist to ensure the canopy, if you include that, I am good with your motion but I don’t just want to leave it to “Yep, it’s not going to hurt the tree and we’re good to go because we moved it” and I don’t know who that is that made that decision. I think if we insert arborist, I think we’re good. Mr. McNaughton – I agree to the amendment to include the word ‘Arborist’. Mr. Parks – Let’s take a run at this again, please. Mr. McNaughton – I move that the application be approved with the condition that the rear door be relocated to the satisfaction of an arborist so as not to injure the tree or the tree system. 12 Mr. Bishop – I second that motion. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion as presented and seconded, please raise your right hand; the vote is unanimous. Ms. Otto – That item will go to City Council on August 9th. -------------------------------------------------------- TEXT AMENDMENT, SECTION 3-250, PRIVATE PARKING LOTS Mr. Parks – Ms. Otto, in your presentation here, you cover why this is here and the intent, what is our purpose of this, what the Commission is looking to accomplish here, what is required of us? Ms. Otto – This request is coming to you from City Council. This code section of the Land Development Code had been reviewed by the Parking Committee; they did solicit input from staff which much of that has been incorporated into the document before you. The process at that point should have been to send the proposed text amendment to the Planning Commission, unfortunately, the eagerness, coming out of committee, it got on the agenda for City Council for first reading at their June meeting; they did vote to approve it. When it was discovered that it procedurally had not been properly followed, it was again placed for second reading on this last meeting of City Council which occurred last Thursday evening with an announcement that this would be coming to Planning Commission meeting this Tuesday. So here it is before you, primarily the document you see is what came out of the Parking Committee but with some input from the City Council at that first reading; specifically, that being the districts or zones that are listed in the first sentence of the ordinance. In preparation for tonight’s meeting, notice did go out because of discussion at the Council meeting about potentially grandfathering, or not grandfathering, the existing residential zoned private parking lots. Notice did go out to the owners or operators of those businesses. Notices have not been sent to the adjoining property owners of those existing businesses – I want to make that very clear. There are no postings on the residential lots, it was strictly a courtesy mailing to the business license holders of existing residential lots because as written before you tonight, this document would not allow residentially zoned business licenses to continue in the next calendar year. There is an exception of the large parking lot at the lighthouse grounds that is in an R-1 zone, but it is also in the North End Cultural Overlay, so it is an R-1/NEC, is the abbreviation for its zoning. There was a lot of discussion at the City Council meeting of that one R-1 property being called out as eligible for this when no other R-1 properties are. Understand please, that that is not a residential use, it is R-1, but in the north end, it is Cultural Overlay, it is a large commercially operated property. In your packets, there is a list of the C-1 and C-2, and other residentially zoned properties that have current business licenses to operate private parking lots. Other specific items that were discussed at the City Council meeting, that they want brought to your attention, are in the notes that were placed in your seats this evening. Each, not all, many of the City Council members, Mayor, and the City Attorney, wanted you to have those comments for this consideration this evening. This will proceed to City Council at the first meeting in August for first reading again, because procedurally it was not handled properly; it will go back to City Council as a first reading. Within those comments you have are items such as zoning districts, which I have already covered and the potential change to the hours of operation to include special eventS. There is discussion as well to the potential grandfathering businesses. One item I would like considered is the year round operation that is proposed in the text amendment. With that I am open to answer any of your questions. 13 Mr. Major – Just for our edification, in the past year or two years, how many complaints or police reports of noise, traffic intrusion, overcrowding, or trash – or is this a regular thing? Do we have a number? Ms. Otto – I don’t have those statistics. I would say the reason the Parking Committee chose this as a project was of concerns about private parking lots and the lack of oversight the current ordinance gives to them. Mr. Parks – This list on the back (referring to the packet), is this is the list of existing parking lots? Ms. Otto – Currently there are eight business licenses issued for the operation of private parking lots. Mr. Parks – Which ones, as it stands, are not allowed to be open when January renewals come along? Ms. Otto – The first four. Mr. Parks – The first four. So these people who have operated, been licensed properly, would be out of luck by this unless there is a provision that they could be grandfathered in or given another year of permitting? Ms. Otto – You are correct. It was discussed in depth at Council about fairness and about not pulling the rug out from under those who have invested in operating. My position would be that that same fairness needs to be extended to those who have not yet chosen to follow the same guidelines and operate a private parking lot and be residentially zoned. The exemption of grandfathering those who have perhaps proven themselves versus those who have never had the opportunity to prove themselves to me is more unfair than to say across the board they’ll be no residentially zoned private parking lots. Mr. Parks – It seems to me when they come up for re-permitting that gives the public ample time to say “Hey, over the last year I’ve had numerous complaints that are formally documented through the police” or whatever. Of these four, unless there are any problems, problem makers, or if there is a bad site, there is more than ample opportunity to say “Hey, that’s no good.” Mr. Otto – I agree for those four but that does not give anyone, who never has had the opportunity, to have that same right. Mr. Parks - This is true, however, they had the last re-enlisting to get involved. Or is it possible for us to put a variance process in – and if we put in some sort of process for “Can I have one too”? that new applicants could be accepted? Mr. Otto – That would require that the first zoning district sentence be modified to allow that, yes. Mr. Parks – So these options are open to us? Ms. Otto – All of this is open, everything that I have already said, and anything I have not said, within that document is open for consideration tonight. Mr. Callahan – You would just add our zoning to that first sentence as allowable? 14 Mr. Parks - Or a request for variance? Ms. Otto – Not so much variance, an allowance to apply like those that are zoned C-1 and C-2. Mr. Major - My neighbor has a concrete driveway but I can’t have one because the concrete driveway was permitted when he put his driveway in. We can’t go back and retroactively make him rip up his concrete driveway because we now have an ordinance that says we have to have pervious materials on it. I don’t think we’re being inconsistent here. One of the points I saw raised at Council was these people don’t pay hotel taxes of 12%, or whatever it is, that people who have rental properties have to – why not? Why wouldn’t we have them pay like anybody who provides a tourist service on the island, I think that is reasonable? Ms. Otto – At the discussion, the City Attorney noted, and it is in the comments from that meeting, that there is a municipal code section for a proposed regulatory fee for the business licenses for those that operate private parking lots. Mr. Major – It would be the same as the motel fee? Ms. Otto - It could be, they briefly discussed it but at the meeting they were considering more input from the Police Department before they took any action. There was discussion of a flat rate, there was discussion based on the number of potential parking spaces that each site is approved to have, so it is not developed enough to answer your question. That is municipal code so that is not something that the Planning Commission considers but I did want to make you aware of that. It’s not a hotel/motel tax type of thing, it was more of a regulatory fee because of the increased need to oversee these and it would cover the expenses to do so. It’s much like those taxis that haul people around and require additional oversight by the city because of the potential hazards of not having that industry regulated. There is another regulatory fee, all of the alcohol licensing fees are regulatory fees; they pay for a business license but on top of that they pay regulatory fees to have an alcohol business. This proposed change would add a regulatory fee to private parking lots. Mr. Major – If this goes through, there won’t be any. Ms. Otto – No, this current ordinance before you, there would be the commercial, the other four that are on this list. In the current state, the way the ordinance is written, they would still be issued business licenses if this is the version that was adopted. They would be subject to the current business licenses fee, administrative fee, and, if adopted, the regulatory fee. Mr. Callahan - Do we, at times, have greater parking demand than we have parking capacity on this island? Mr. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – Do these private lots help solve that problem? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – Do we need more than what we have already licensed to solve the problem even better? 15 Ms. Otto - Yes. Mr. Parks – I agree with Mr. Major that the concrete driveway argument is very valid. These four have parking lots, just because they have them doesn’t mean that other people should have the right to apply for them. The rules change. What I do like is coming back every year for a permit, it shouldn’t be a hereditary thing, and it shouldn’t be something that is passed down. Ms. Otto – This is the first year we went through annual review and it’s a far improvement that gives the opportunity for the input that we’ve not had before. Mr. Parks – Significant step forward. Ms. Otto – My opinion is that opportunity, if there is going to be private parking lots in residential neighborhoods, then others deserve the right to approach the Council and ask for that and they may not have the opposition of neighbors, and just because they didn’t do it before this new regulation, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to. Mr. Parks – Is there a stack of applications for next year’s parking permits of people who are hoping to get in, that this would shatter their dreams of American capitalism? Ms. Otto - No, but as you’ll recall, the last two applications, one being an R-zone and one being a C-zone were denied. Mr. Parks - So that is two. One of which would have been permitted under this. Ms. Otto – Yes. Ms. Otto – For those four on your list, that are potentially going to be grandfathered, they never had that initial review that allowed them to begin, so they were never ‘shot’ down basically because they were at a time when there were basically no regulations. Mr. Parks - They took the risk. Mr. McNaughton – When the word grandfathered is used, the person would have the right to apply but not necessarily to gain a permit? Ms. Otto – Yes, it would still be subject to the other sections of this ordinance that call for the annual review. Mr. Major – Could it be appealed to Council if it was denied, like anything else? Ms. Otto – It is Council that is making the decision, that is who is conducting the annual review; those are done with the full notification to the neighbors, posting the property, and publication in the newspaper. This being a text amendment, that process was not used because we are not reviewing individual applications for property. Mr. Callahan - The last two applications were denied? 16 Ms. Otto – Yes, sir. Mr. Callahan – Do you know why? Ms. Otto – Neighbors predominantly. Neighbors received the notices that this was sought in their neighborhood and spoke at Council. The decision by the voting members was not to approve their applications on their initial attempt. They had no history to judge whether they would have been successful or not successful. Mr. Callahan – Thank you. Ms. Otto – There was an email received today that I do need to read at some point during this discussion. Mr. Parks – Do we have other questions for staff at this point? (There were none.) At this point, would you like to read the letter into the minutes please? Ms. Otto – This email was received from Kitty Williams. It was addressed to Jan LeViner, who is Clerk of Council, the subject is Planning Commission Meeting. She states she tried to email this to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, she wasn’t sure if it got through to all of them and asked to give each of them a copy before the meeting starts; there was a copy at your seats this evening. (The following email was read by Dianne Otto.) “Because of a doctor’s appointment in Atlanta, I was unable to attend the last Council meeting. I was very disappointed to learn that a final vote was not taken on the second reading of the private parking ordinance. Private parking lots in residential zones are using city resources. The city is paying officers to monitor them for compliance with the ordinance. The ingress/egress to the lots is across the city right of ways, which are repaired and maintained by city workers. Has council considered the costs to the taxpayers? These private parking lots in residential neighborhoods create extra income, but only for the operators. This income is taxable to the operator, federal and state tax, but none of it goes to the City of Tybee. In commercial zones, the city gains because local businesses will benefit from the foot traffic. The City of Tybee bills itself as pedestrian and bicycle friendly. At least one of the lots has a majority of its ingress/egress on Second Avenue, which is the designated Bicycle Path. Three petitions concerning three different applications have been brought to Council opposing private parking lots in residential neighborhoods. Numerous letters, emails, and speakers have expressed the same objections. We are objecting to the current lots, so why would you even consider grandfathering them? If they were not causing problems, we would not be here. Some of our concerns – trash, safety, noise, loss of privacy, devaluation of property. Allowing these commercial enterprises to operate in residential zones is spot zoning. Citizens relied on the zoning ordinances when purchasing property and feel it is unfair to have it arbitrarily changed because day- trippers want a parking place close to the beach. 17 Alternative parking is available on the island. Council has already located more than enough new spaces to replace the 32 that would be lost by closing the three affected lots under the new ordinance. Areas on the north end of the island need to be studied. Please pass the Private Parking Ordinance, Ordinance No. 19B-2012 as shown in 20120712 City Council Meeting Packet Amended.” She is referring to the posted packet at the website. Again, that was Kitty Williams. Mr. Parks – Thank you Ms. Otto. At this point, do we have any members from the public to address the commission? Ms. Marianne Bramble stepped forward and introduced herself. This is all a numbers game it seems to me. We that hold a residential license primarily operate 30 days out of the year, strictly on weekends. I don’t see where it is a problem, when on these days, a Saturday and Sunday during the season, Tybee will bring on 11,000 cars. An example, last Saturday, I had 7 vehicles, all one family, looking to park together, and in those seven vehicles, there were twenty-eight people. They were all so happy, they all came from Cherokee County, Fulton County DeKalb County – they drove all day, four hours, half a day to get to Tybee to spend a family oriented day on the beach. They left at 5:30 - all together. Yes, we are in a residentially zoned area, but anywhere on Tybee there are businesses running in residentially zoned areas; Mrs. Williams owns one of them, caddy corner from my house, it’s an apartment building, it’s not her domicile so that has to be her business. I just wanted to bring that up. I want to be grandfathered in just like any other business where ordinances have changed the rules on them. Sign ordinances, for one, were pointed out. Our sign ordinance doesn’t allow any parking benches, yet we have them all over the island that was a business prior to the ordinances being changed, this is the same thing. I don’t disturb my neighbors, I keep my property up, I don’t do this an entire year. As far the city being paid, I have been paying my property taxes, for years, the county is being paid, the city is being paid. Another thing I want to ask is regulatory fees, that is not a problem, you charge liquor stores regulatory fees when they come in for their licenses at the first of the year, how much is that regulatory fee for a liquor store, I think it’s like 50 bucks. Ms. Otto – No, it is much more than that. A package stores that sells beer and wine on Sundays is a $50 fee. A typical business that has, by the drink, beer, wine, and liquor, runs just over $2,000. Ms. Bramble – That is a liquor license and that is policed from the time they are open until the time they close, all day long, all year long. You could throw a regulatory fee on there, the City Marshal does drive by my house once on a Saturday, once on a Sunday but does he stop and get out of his car; no, he doesn’t do that. I brought you copies of what the City permits me. Every year, they permit thirteen cars on my property. Just to let you know this, not every house on Tybee will have the ability to apply for a parking license. Not everyone is as lucky to have purchased a property large enough to park thirteen extra cars. Most properties on Tybee, their houses come right up to the property line, so their personal cars cannot even park on their property; they are parked on the City right of way and I’m sure they maintain the City right of way. I’m sure a lot of you put in watering systems on the City right of way to keep the grass green to keep it looking beautiful, that is just part of Tybee. Not one of us has moved to Tybee not knowing that we are a seasonal tourist island. We have an influx of people during certain months of the year. I’m not going to stand out there after Labor Day for parking; we are an overflow when the City parking spaces are full. Then the people who were not lucky enough to find a metered space and will drive around, Lovell and Second Streets, they don’t go beyond Jones, they don’t want to 18 walk four blocks, they’re not going to Lewis Avenue, and they are not going to go down Highway 80 by Eagle’s Nest. They’re going to drive around on Butler, the east side of Butler, from Lovell to Second, until they can find somewhere to park. They will sit and wait for a family of six to load up to get that spot. I want to be grandfathered in. I believe I have proven myself over a couple of years, I don’t see any reason not to be grandfathered in, and I certainly agree with Ms. Otto. If someone who has a sizeable lot on Tybee, and they want to turn in a survey drawing with the proper allowed spaces, 9 x 18 or 9 x 16 if compact, they should be allowed to apply. The Council denies, if that’s what they choose to do, but I don’t feel it is fair in any way for the other residential parking license holders, and me, to be punished and have our little summer business taken out from underneath us when we aren’t causing any trouble. We are helping the city with forty-three spots, if that even helps with eleven thousand cars. What really needs to be done with the Planning Commission is to come up with a comprehensive plan that will help out on these days during the season; it is not to restrict this. We have the charrettes to add tourism to the island, if we want that to happen, then we have to accommodate. So I want you to please grandfather myself in along with three, or four, or five other license holders and allow anyone to come in with a plan and have the Council decide if they want it or not. Mr. Parks - Are there questions for the applicant? Mr. Major – In the last year, or two years, have you had police reports, or police show up saying that the neighbors are complaining - any complaints filed about your operation? Ms. Bramble – No. This past year there have been numerous calls to the police and I have already gone through the chain of command and met with the City Manager, Chief Bryson, and the Mayor to see what the problem is. Mr. Major – Are they complaining about your existence or specific issues? Ms. Bramble – The existence and it’s just particular people, I have pulled the police reports. You can request from Chief Bryson to pull the complaints and you’re going to see it is from two people. Every complaint has to be investigated and when they come by there, there is no problem. If you all want to meet with Chief Bryson and Officer Milliken, they are going to tell you the same thing right now; they don’t need to be called on “you need to go check this lot – she’s got thirteen and a half cars”. Mr. Parks - By grandfathering, we’re all talking about the same thing here, you have the right to reapply in January. Ms. Bramble – The same thing we did last year. Mr. Parks – And at the time, any citizens that feel you are a menace or something can show up and they can be heard, and they can be part of the process. Ms. Bramble – They can be heard; they can bring in their legitimate complaints. Mr. Parks – How do you feel about open to the hour before and after special events? Ms. Bramble – The only special event, other than the commercially zoned properties down front, would be just the fireworks night. That is a special event, because when people come to the beach on the weekends, they are all leaving at the same time, we all know what the traffic is on Saturday to leave at 4 19 and 5 o’clock in the evening. They all come at the same time. The only time provision you should give is they will come in at ten or eleven and leave by five and the latest anyone has parked in my yard is 6 o’clock and these are people that know they don’t want to get stuck in the traffic so they wait until an hour later. Mr. Parks - If I understood you right, you agreed to a regulatory fee based on a package liquor store? Ms. Bramble – No, I’m just saying that…(interruption) Mr. Parks – Fifteen hundred? Ms. Bramble – No, no. What I’m saying is that you have a regulatory fee for businesses that police are policing 24 hours…or however long they are open, all year long. Let me explain it this way, I’m allowed 13 cars, that is what the City is giving me. The Ocean Plaza has 200+ cars, so is the City Marshal going to count thirteen cars in five minutes or how long will it take him to count 200 some odd cars? Mr. Parks – I think those are the three main considerations we’ve got and I thought I would get your opinion on them – the grandfathering, the hours for special event, and some sort of regulatory fee. Ms. Bramble – If you start putting dollars on it…(hesitation) Mr. Major – In regards to the regulatory fees… (interruption) Ms. Otto – No, you are not dealing with that. I was strictly making you aware that that is being considered as a municipal code related to this one. Ms. Bramble – This is the one they had for the Council and it says a regulatory fee. But we have to go before the Council every year; we’ve had to go before the Council every year. We have to present the drawing. Mr. Parks – If I understand right, unless we make the motion to recommend to Council that the grandfathering be included, it’s possible that this would go to them and that would cut off the first four of which you are one of them. Ms. Bramble – This one they came up with last Thursday. Mr. Parks – I just want to make sure the Commission knows that it’s on us that if we are to send this forward to Council, with a recommendation that grandfathering be included, that we do that and it seems to be what you are asking. Ms. Bramble – Right. If you’re going to make an ordinance to restrict residential parking lots, I’m asking to be grandfathered in. If you’re making an ordinance that asks that anyone can come up with a rendering and ask for a residential parking license, then I will follow the same thing. But if you are going to say no to residential parking lots, then I want to be grandfathered in. Mr. Parks – Thank you Ms. Bramble. Any other members of the public that would like to come up and address this issue? 20 Russell Bridges came forward and introduced himself. What is at issue here is to whether to open it up to additional R-1 or grandfather the existing. I would like ours to be grandfathered if that is the only consideration going forth. My wife and I hold the distinction of the people who came before Council and established the residential parking lot program in the first place. This was done a number of years ago, probably took us a course of two and a half to three years and multiple visits to Council and even with all of that, we were the second parking lot to get a permit, somebody beat us to the punch the day after the Council meeting. However, in all of the years we have operated our lot, we have never had any citations, never had any complaints that we are aware of, we’ve not had the police running up and waving their arms that there is a problem or anything of this nature. All of our neighbors are fully supportive of what we do. It began for us as a measure of self-defense. We live on Tenth Street; we’re right in the center of the beach, we’re right on Butler Avenue. We’d get up on Saturday and go to the beach just like everybody else, and we’d come back and have all kinds of guests in our yard, none of which we knew and they were very kind, they always left us their trash, the baby diapers, and other things. So we, at some point, finally decided, we’d called and complained to the City, nothing was ever done. We charged some people for parking in the yard and they were appreciative; they were happy to have a place to park and that’s how this came about. If the residential parking lots are abolished, there are not that many of us, we do provide something that helps the few people that are able to find a parking place with us. It does provide a service to the City. Certainly we make some money off of it but we don’t make that much in the overall scheme of things. As Marianne said, we don’t park cars unless there is a demand. If the meters are empty, we don’t open up. It’s better to let the City have the revenue because the City needs the revenue. In fact, I think we hold the distinction of having the only residential lot that also has parking meters on it. So if somebody pulls up to a parking meter, and they are having difficulty, we help them get money for the parking meter. If the meter is not working, we tell them where they can get a parking pass to put into their window so we actually work to support the City. Now, when the parking meters are full, and people are circling the lots, circling the neighborhoods, they are looking for a place to park and that’s when we open up. Most of them say, “I’ve been looking for an hour, two hours”, and if they are from out of town, and they’ve made a trip to Tybee, they are so happy to park and go to the beach and not have to worry about running up and feeding a meter or having their car towed or heaven knows what; there is a measure of a service. Now when this originally started in front of Council, there were two versions of this ordinance, there was a 19A and a 19B. In 19A, was a residential version, I assume, because I didn’t come to the meeting because I wasn’t aware of it, I assume it was just done away with – would that be a safe assumption? Ms. Otto – It still exists, I’m not sure what you mean by done away with. Mr. Bridges – That one that directly referenced R-1 parking lots. It was almost the same exact wording as 19B which referenced the C-1 and I think the original incarnation of 19A was all the R-1’s and 19B was strictly the C-1’s and C-2’s and didn’t include this thing about the overlay district. Somewhere this version of the ordinances merged… (hesitation) Ms. Otto – This is the version that, when Council had their first reading, this was the result of that first reading that they had erroneously had by not procedurally sending it to the Planning Commission. As I brought to your attention, at their meeting last week, when they thought they may have had a second reading, but didn’t, they had all that feedback to give you and it was emphasized that all components are open for discussion, not just the districts. 21 Mr. Bridges – With that, I’m not going to belabor the issue, but I do ask that the Commission either endorse continuation of the R-1 parking lots or at least grandfather the existing parking lots who have all proven themselves over the several years they have been allowed to operate. Mr. Parks – Thank you for taking the time. Mr. Bridges – Thank you. Mr. Major – I have a question (directed to Mr. Bridges), it looks like R-1 but the ones that are here are R- 2. Other than the historical, did you mean R-2? Mr. Bridges – I’m assuming my property is an R-1 or R-2, it is residential. Mr. Parks – Everybody we see here is R-2. Mr. Bridges - What is the distinction on R-2 versus R-1? Mr. Major – Lot size for example, you can build a 4,500 square foot on an R-1 and on an R-2 it’s 12,000 square feet. In an R-1, you can build either multiple dwellings or duplexes. There are different things you can do with an R-2, other than the historical, they are all R-2. Ms. Otto – R-1 is single family and R-2 is single family and duplex. Mr. Parks – Other questions. (No further questions for Mr. Bridges.) Anyone else wish to address the Commission? Joyce Prescott came forward and introduced herself. I would just like to reinforce the grandfathering in or consideration to implement all of the private parking lots for R-1 and R-2 and I’m also in favor of the historic lighthouse. The only reason I wanted to speak again is because of Kitty Williams and her negative opposal to anyone else having a business other than herself. I oppose that; I don’t like that and she has continued to go after me. I stated in my petition this past week, all of my neighbors have agreed, and signed my petition, endorsing me to have that private parking lot for the welfare of my grandson to go to college and that is why I do it. Mr. Parks – Are there any questions? (There were none.) At this time are there other members of the public that would like to address the commission? (There were none.) Ms. Otto – I have a couple of comments. Initially at the onset, I asked for consideration on the year- round operation and we have not yet touched on that topic if you choose to delve into that. I wanted to bring out that the issues that are brought up about the City not having enough parking, if the City opted to invade the residential territories and meter the streets in proximity to the locations that are desirable to get to the beach and back river, which would be frowned upon. The City has backed off from that encroachment in the residential areas and there seems to be some sentiment that is leading to the ordinance as you see it before you – it would only be in commercial zones. By having the private businesses follow the City’s lead and not be in the residential territories, it’s a complicated issue, it’s one that the city is dealing with as respectfully as possible, for its own placement of public parking and this is an outcome of that, the residential privately owned parking lots. 22 Mr. Major – As far as the year round operation, I believe the ordinance in front of us, the draft says they may operate year round – how is that different than what they have right now? Ms. Otto – Off the top of my head, the current ordinance reads St. Patrick’s Day through…(interruption) Mr. Major – Okay, so it specifies the time they can be open. Ms. Otto – Yes. I have some concerns about that as Mr. Bridges pointed out regarding the revenue that the City may lose if there isn’t a demand. If the price is cheaper, even on a commercially zoned private parking lot for off-season, to undercut the City by allowing year round operation perhaps for a college student or for a non-profit organization to be operating at no expense manning a private parking lot and able to charge a price lower than the City because it’s an opportunity to take some funds in. That year round operation is a little bit… (hesitation) Mr. Major – So you are not in favor? Ms. Otto – I would not be in favor of year round operation for that reason. As I think we all have heard that this is to meet the demand and there is not a demand year round. I would not be in favor of it. Mr. Major – You are okay as it is now with the specified dates? Ms. Otto – With the specified dates, I think, and this is again off the top of my head, I believe it is St. Patrick’s Day where Tybee actually has that event a week prior to and it probably needs to be expanded to include the Tybee Irish Festival and then through the last major event which is the Pirate Fest in early October. Something that encompasses that range of activities but not the potential of a private parking lot operating offseason by a volunteer who is strictly pocketing funds by undercutting the parking would be my concern. Mr. Parks – What is to prevent them during the season, a non-peak day when the City has space open - a Wednesday in August or April – to undercut? Ms. Otto – By all means, that is a factor. Mr. Parks – How many total spaces are there? Ms. Otto – I’m talking about the commercial lots. If you recall years ago, the original ordinance said that the City had to authorize the opening of these private parking lots. It had to be when the public spaces reached capacity and then they were allowed to open. Mr. Parks – But that wasn’t the terms of this year’s agreement. Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Parks – It’s not the terms of this (referring to the document he was holding). Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Parks – Were C-1’s allowed to apply this last go around? 23 Ms. Otto – For a private parking lot business license? Yes. Mr. Parks – So, how many more are going to apply because we say it is okay with this one? I don’t see that there is going to be a huge growth of C-1’s applying for private parking lots - maybe I’m missing something. Ms. Otto - We worked with a hotel/motel use that sought a private parking lot business license because they wanted to sell the excess spaces they have. It was determined that they could not make that judgment call because they had 60% of their rooms that they couldn’t rent out 40% of their spaces. Mr. Parks - What formula do you use? Ms. Otto – Yes. I don’t know if that relates to what you just said or not. Mr. Parks – Do we have any more members of the public? (There were none.) Do we have any more questions for staff? Mr. Major – I’m thinking about the exercise we went through with billboards. It was determined that, in fact I think it originated in Council, that there wouldn’t be any further billboards for development on Tybee but nobody had to go out and tear down their billboard that existed at the time. Mr. Parks – And that is better than the concrete driveway. Mr. Callahan – Do billboards have to be re-licensed every year? Mr. McNaughton – Yes, they do. Mr. Parks – No, once it is up, that’s it. Mr. McNaughton – Billboard owners have to apply for renewal from the State, which is rubber stamped. Mr. Parks – From the State. Mr. McNaughton – Yes. Mr. Major – For a fee, right? Mr. McNaughton – (could not understand what was stated) Mr. Parks - Other comments or discussion? (There was none). At this time, I’m going to close the public hearing on the text amendment. We have all heard the items that were under consideration: I am open to a motion or discussion at this point. And I think what we are moving on is what you (referring to Ms. Otto) recommended to Council. Ms. Otto – Yes. That would be as is or with language changing what you propose to recommend than what is written here. 24 Mr. Callahan – I’m not sure I can word it well enough for a motion. I would direct my comment to things – one being the seasonality aspect. I agree with Dianne that there should be a window that’s opened for the private parking lots and then the window closes whether it is St. Patrick’s Day to Pirate Fest or whatever it is, there should be window. I think all our zones should be allowed to apply if they choose to. Those are the two things, or conditions, whatever you want to call them. Mr. Parks – Without it being a motion. Mr. Callahan – I’ll try to make it in the form of a motion if that’s what you want. Would you like me to try and do that? I thought we were just providing comments to the Council on this. Mr. Parks – No, we’re text amendment. Ms. Otto – Yes, this is a text amendment. Mr. Bishop - Mr. Callahan, why would you include R-1? Mr. Callahan – I think every residential property owner should have the opportunity to apply if they choose to. Mr. Bishop - I disagree and, we’re in the comment section, I disagree because I think that is totally opposed to the intent on an R-1 area. When you purchase into an area that is strictly residential single family, it would be very difficult to explain why you have a parking lot adjacent to your R-1. R-2 is different; I can see where that would be because it does include multi-family buildings. I’m tending to lean with what you’re saying, but I have an opposition to R-1. I also have a draft motion but I am deferring to see how yours goes. Mr. Major – I think that, for discussion points, I’m impressed with the need for a window and certainly the City having the option, in the event of an unplanned event it falls outside that window you could notify operators of something upcoming just because it is not in the current language of the ordinance. It states that but if we’re saying May to October and something huge happens in February, a marathon or something, where we’re going to have lots of people on the island, we could notify the operators to stand by. I think from the discussion I’ve heard and from reading the minutes from Council, and listening to the people here, I would be very comfortable recommending that window of operation in grandfathering the current operators but not expanding further into residential - that is not a motion but it’s out there for discussion. Ms. Otto – Is Mr. Callahan’s motion on the floor? Mr. Parks – No, it was only for discussion. Ms. Otto – Okay, thank you. Mr. Parks – For discussion only. Mr. Major – I make the motion that we return the ordinance to the Council with language that, and leave that to Dianne, to design a window, you said that part of it needed expansion, but basically what 25 we have now, and grandfathering in the current operators so that they can reapply under the conditions of this ordinance. Mr. Parks – Do you want to address the hours of a special event? Mr. Major – That is in the current one. Mr. Parks – Okay. So this is grandfathering and seasonality. Do we have a second? Mr. Bishop – So, John, you are simply grandfathering the four that are presented to us tonight, that are listed on this…(interruption) Mr. Major – The four that would fall outside of the C-1. Mr. Bishop – The C-1, C-2, or the R-1 property operated by the National Historical Society and not expanding, or allowing, other R-2’s to apply. Mr. Major – That is correct. Mr. Parks – Is that a second? Mr. Bishop – That is a second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second. Those in favor of the motion as it stands – is there anyone that needs it repeated or clarification – those in favor, please raise your right hand. Major, McNaughton, and Bishop voted yes; Callahan voted no. Ms. Otto - Thank you gentlemen. This will be heard at the August 9th Council Meeting; it will be the first reading. Mr. Parks – Motion for adjournment please. Mr. Callahan made the motion, Mr. Major seconded, vote was unanimous. Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant