Loading...
20120918_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 CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the September 18, 2012 Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were John Major, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tyler Marion. Mr. Park - The first order of business is the minutes of the August 21, 2012 meeting. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Do I have a motion on the minutes? Mr. Callahan - I make a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Marion - Second the motion. Mr. Parks – All those in favor signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Mr. Parks - Are there any Disclosures or Recusals from anyone on the Planning Commission? [There were none.] ZONING VARIANCE FOR 105 17TH STREET – ADDITION OF SCREENED PORCH Ms. Otto - This request from Tom and Mary Farmer is a zoning variance request at 105 17th Street. This is a single family home zoned C-1. The request is to add a 300 square foot screened porch with a roof at the dwelling. When this home was built in 2004, the address at that time was 1702 Lovell Avenue. The house was oriented with a 20’ required setback on the Lovell Avenue side. This being a corner lot, they did have the choice at construction to choose which of the two abutting sides of the streets could be the front and the Lovell Avenue side was selected. What you have is a structure with a 20 foot front setback on Lovell and a 10 foot on the side of 17th Street. In the staff report it discusses a request came for a change of address. The request actually came from the owners at the time of construction which, in your staff report, Jimmy Brown had indicated to me that he thought the current owners had done that - I did find a document that says that the prior owners had requested this just before the home received its certificate of occupancy. The home was readdressed to 105 17th Street, still the 20 2 foot front setback is on Lovell Avenue. The request would result in a 10 foot front setback rather than the existing 20 feet as required in Zone C-1. Are there any questions? Mr. Parks – Questions at this time for staff? [There were none.] Is there an applicant that would like to address the Planning Commission? [Tom Farmer approached the podium.] My name is Tom Farmer, the joint owner with my wife, Mary Ann, of the house at 105 17th Street. Our request is that we be able to add a porch on the west side of the house, which is actually Lovell Avenue. The front is on 105 17th Street. This porch would allow us to seat more people in our family; our family has grown since we bought the house six plus years ago. At the present time, we have a screen porch and we can seat a grand total of four people comfortably. With three daughters and grandchildren that come to visit, we would like to be able to have more family gatherings on a porch. We have dealt with Anthony Sapone, he would be our contractor, and his assistant, John, have discussed and been here with us before. We would like very much to proceed with this project if the zoning board approves it. Any questions for me? Mr. Parks – At this time do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Major – How is it that the Chatham County records never got changed when the address got changed from Lovell to 17th Street? Mr. Farmer – We bought the house, Rick Evans and his wife were the owners, and I believe the note said they requested the change of address before they sold us the house. Mr. Major – Ms. Otto, am I correct that it never got changed with Chatham County? Ms. Otto – Yes, the current property record card for this is addressed on Lovell. Mr. Parks – Other questions? Mr. Bishop – Mr. Farmer, in your deliberations with the staff , looking at the plat and walking the property, there are really no other alternatives for the construction without any way of getting into a variance. That is the only area that you want to build the additional deck, correct? Mr. Farmer – Correct. The other option would be to put a porch across the front which would not be pleasing in appearance and would not serve the purpose. This porch that we would like to build would be a door going from kitchen to porch which would be a big asset. There is no other good alternative to putting a porch on that particular dwelling. Mr. Major – Where is the front of this house right now, is it on Lovell or 17th? Mr. Farmer – Seventeenth Street is the way it faces now. 3 Mr. Major – That is the front and the setback on 17th is? Ms. Otto – Ten feet. Mr. Major – And the requirement for the setback for a front is? Ms. Otto – Twenty feet. As I said, when the structure was built, it was oriented to Lovell and had a Lovell address and that is where the front will always be as far as setbacks. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? Mr. Major – What is the variance that we are asking for? Ms. Otto – The variance from Section 3-090, setbacks for C-1. Mr. Major – He can build a 10 foot deck and still have a 10 foot side setback right? Ms. Otto – No, his request is to build in the front setback. Mr. Major – Which is now? Ms. Otto – Twenty foot and he is proposing to reduce that to ten feet. Mr. Bishop – Ms. Otto, the house currently has a 17th street address. The porch that is being recommended is actually on the side of the house. Ms. Otto – Based on addressing, yes. But based on when this structure was built, the proposed porch would be on the front. Changing of the address, because it is a corner lot, they requested and received a granting in the change of address. Lovell Avenue is not identifiable as a street at the place, it looks like a common entryway to a number of homes but the 17th street request was granted. It did not change that this structure was built with a front on Lovell and a 20 foot front setback at that point. Mr. Bishop – When was that done? Ms. Otto – The address change? Mr. Bishop – Yes. Ms. Otto – It was done in 2005. The permit for construction was in 2004 and it was near the very end and prior to Certificate of Occupancy the request came to change the address to 17th street. The CO that was issued had a 17th Street address but throughout the project, Lovell was the front and for setback purposes remains the front. 4 Mr. Bishop – But in actuality, it is the side. Ms. Otto – Based on the address. Mr. Bishop – Physically the side of the house. The actual address being on 17th and have ten feet there which would normally be twenty but because of the request and the change in the address, the setback did not change which, had that been at the time of application , perhaps they could have requested that. Ms. Otto – They could have. The contractor could have oriented the house to 17th Street and provided the twenty foot setback from there but instead oriented the other way on the lot so the front was Lovell. Mr. Bishop – The owner of the property at that time that the new address was requested, is not our current applicant. Ms. Otto – That is correct. Mr. Major – What is the minimum lot size in a residential home in C-1? Ms. Otto – There is no minimum lot size in C-1. Monty – Other questions for the applicant? Mr. Farmer – I would like to add, I’m sure all of you realize, Lovell is actually a dead end street, it’s a cul de sac that goes down to a creek, stops, and picks up on the other side of the creek. The proposed porch would be on that side but there is no through traffic by automobile down that street. This portion would take about nine feet of the ten feet we have. We have an apron going into the garage, so it would not stick out into the lane any more than our present apron to the garage area. Mr. Major – I’m sure you are aware that our ordinance on variances says that there has to be unique circumstances or conditions beyond that of the surrounding property. Could you explain how your petition meets the requirement for a hardship? Mr. Farmer – The hardship is we can’t have one of our children, let alone all three of them, on our porch at this time. This would allow us to have a family gathering of our three daughters and husbands on our porch which is currently not possible. I believe our porch is 12 by 12 and you think of a Tybee house as having a porch, that’s one of the things we enjoy about Tybee. We would like to have one and that would add to the resale value, of course, that is not your interest or problem, but it makes it a more desirable place to live. 5 Mr. McNaughton – Aren’t there two porches on the house? Isn’t there a smaller one on the other side? Mr. Farmer – Correct. McNaughton – How big is it? Mr. Farmer – It’s probably five feet by ten or eleven and they are narrow, not much use at all. Mr. Parks – Other questions for applicant at this time? [There were none.] Thank you for your time sir. Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address this? [There were no others.] At this time I would like to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion or discussion from the commission members? Mr. Major – I will make a motion to deny on the basis it does not meet our definition of a hardship. Mr. Parks – I have a motion on the table to deny. Do I have any discussion? Mr. Bishop – In interpreting the LDC section that’s applicable here with regards to hardships, taking the totality of the request at the time in 2004 for the change in the address, and recognizing that the applicant at that time did not request that the setbacks be changed but simply the address be changed, upon the application of the petitioner for the reasons of giving more personal comfort in a room, would that not in some way qualify because of the fact that the reorientation of the home at the time of the address change was not made, would that not in some way qualify as a unique physical circumstance for this property to allow the homeowner to fully and completely enjoy their property? So, therefore, allowing us to have some exceptional condition to this particular property that would in fact allow that then t o be within the meaning of our 5-090A, defining hardship for a variance? I pose that as a question to this body. Mr. McNaughton – There is no obvious hardship that would support this variance request but the reality is the side of the house where they want to put the porch is the side of the house, it is not the front. I have been there, you would not consider that the front of the house so I think that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Parks – Other comments? Mr. Major – How did they get a ten foot setback for the front of their house? Ms. Otto – My position is that Lovell Avenue is the front of the house ; despite the request to re- address, that never changed. Mr. Major – Is it because the address change was never filed with Chatham County? 6 Ms. Otto – No. At a corner lot, at construction, there is the option to orient the required twenty foot front on whichever side is desirable or most advantageous. This lot was selected to have a twenty foot setback on the Lovell Avenue side. It didn’t have the option to have ten foot on both sides, they had to choose one of those to have twenty foot . Lovell Avenue was selected. Despite the address change, that did not re-orientate the setbacks, the twenty foot setback that was required at construction remains on Lovell Avenue and it is my position that this request is an encroachment into a front setback that was required at the time of construction in 2004. Mr. Bishop – But in essence I agree it is not an obvious hardship but simultaneously I think the physical conditions as to the change from the front setback to which is now a side setback because of the front of the house being physically on 17th Street, does constitute, what could be in terms of the LDC, peculiar to that particular property and whether or not the owners at the time were advised that in order to make sure they met the setback requirements, they had to re-orient the house. Whether that was or was not done in 2004 when the building permit was issued and in 2005 when the request for the address change I don’t know. B ut it seems we do have, in this case, an exception peculiar to the particular property does exist, not because the current owners neglected to do anything. Mr. Parks – Other discussion at this time? I have a motion on the table to deny. Do I have a second? Mr. Marion seconded the denial. Mr. Parks – For a vote, those in favor of denial of the presented variance, please raise your hand. [Mr. Major and Mr. Marion voted for denial.] Those in favor of not accepting the denial, please vote. [Mr. McNaughton, Mr. Callahan, and Mr. Bishop voted against the denial.] The motion has failed for lack of majority. Do I have another motion? Mr. Bishop - I make a motion to approve at the request of the applicant. Mr. McNaughton – I second the motion. Mr. Parks - Those in favor of approval of the motion as presented, please vote. [Mr. McNaughton, Mr. Callahan, and Mr. Bishop voted in favor.] Those against the motion for approval, please vote. [Mr. Major and Mr. Marion voted against.] Motion carries. Mr. Parks – Ms. Otto, when does that go to Council? Ms. Otto – On October 11th . Mr. Major – Probably six or seven months ago, the Planning Commission in reviewing Section 5, passed on for Council’s review, amendments to a number of articles in Section 5, including 7 variances which I think will make the intent more clear and as far as I know that has not been reviewed by Council. Can we have that done? Ms. Otto – To update you, the delay came as the C-2 corridor charette was taking place at the end of March; we received the final report from that in August. Council has scheduled, for their workshop in November, to determine what, if any, response will be done to the C-2 final report and then the intent would be to move forward with the Article 5 update. Mr. Major – Can we request that the Article 5 go ahead and be reviewed by Council? Ms. Otto – Yes. Are you speaking specifically of the variance section? Mr. Major – Variance, site plan, and special review were the ones I think that sometimes causes some difficulty. Ms. Otto – I can put that forward to them, yes. SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES – VICKI’S RESTAURANT DECK EXPANSION – 1105 HIGHWAY 80 Mr. Parks – Our second order of business is a site plan approval with variances, after the fact deck expansion at an existing restaurant and bar, 1105 Highway 80. Mr. Hughes – This is an application by RLH Holdings, LLC, in connection with Vicki’s Restaurant at 1105 Highway 80. The staff report has referred to this as a site application approval that is being applied for with variances. This is somewhat of a unique situation procedurally the way it got to you and some of that may or may not be relevant to what we are trying to do here. The applicant has made the application for a site plan after debate about whether or not site plan approval was required. The drawing that has been submitted, that is now on the screen, is the only plan that depicts parking places that the City has received. The hash mark area in the upper right portion of the diagram, and as explained in the text that goes with it, refers to it as the expanded deck seating area and in reference to this, the hash mark area is the part that was added to the deck. The ramp and what is called the entrance waiting area was also added. That addition, in our view, required site plan review. That is now what has been belatedly applied for since the structure was already there. It was put in originally without a building permit but we got past that and permits were issued and in order not to close the business down or to deny a CO, since it was a new owner involved, a conditional CO was issued so that they could operate and just not use the newly added area. They have now applied for the site plan and I believe there is some debate between the City and the applicant as to whether variances are required. What we are talking about are the amount of parking spaces that is required on that plan as submitted, given the expansion, the aisle width for traffic between the two rows of parking depicted on what would be the east side of the property, the west side of the property has got what the plan identifies as new parking field - six stalls. The issue with the ability of the owner to use that property for parking is contested so to speak. This obviously borders on Highway 80 here [referring to PowerPoint] and according to Mr. Davis, City Engineer, DOT will not permit backing out into traffic on to Highway 80. They have identified 8 that as six spaces, if it can be used at all. The City has concluded, at most, it would be three if it could be used without the DOT issue because a portion of it, as shown on the diagram, goes into the City’s right-of-way. The ordinance refers to off-street parking and off the street means off the right-of-way as well; it’s supposed to be on the applicant’s property. Right here [referring to handicap space in primary parking lot] you have got a parking space that also intrudes into the right-of-way. Basically the expansion of the deck, and the widening of the ramp to access the deck area, encroached into what had previously been used as parking, reducing the space available between the fence, which is not exactly on the property line, and it’s at an angle so it makes it hard to calculate, but it impacts everything. T here was originally an issue about whether site plan is required and this more or less demonstrates why site plan is needed when there is an expansion of an existing use. There is also an issue about the buffering requirements. This area abuts residential on the back and the Land Development Code, 3-160, provides that if there is a change in the character, or nature of the use, and it is our position that the addition of outside dining would be a change in the character of the nature of the use, at least in so far as the residents behind there would be concerned, thereby the buffer requirement. There has been some communication back and forth to try and get past some of these hurdles but unfortunately I don’t think we have gotten there. As we see it, there are 27 spaces required and the plan does not have 27 even if you include the 6 on the west side if they were available. According to Mr. Davis and DOT, there really aren’t except for commercial vehicle traffic to get the dumpster out of there and I think the petitioner has submitted their position to you this evening, which I received this evening, and I quickly looked at it and we obviously continue to disagree about a number of the items. The issues that are in play, in so far as the variance standard is concerned, in our view, concerns the aisle width requirements for the parking that varies from what I believe to be 24 feet and it goes from 21 to 23 depending on where the fence is. The number of parking places, the code permits a bike rack in a retail establishment to be substituted for one parking place and they have indicated willingness to do that but they haven’t identified where the bike rack wo uld go - staff has not opposed the use of a bike rack even though this is not technically retail space if it would help accommodate this situation. I mentioned the DOT backing issue, encroachments on the right- of-way, and the buffer and that is basically where we are. We believe that the uses of right, followed by site plan approval, and is consistent with the master plan of the character map – arts, eats, and eco business corridor, the number of places, the use of the City right-of-way, the buffer requirement and all of that needs to be addressed. One other part of the Land Development Code is 3-160 about buffering. It provides if you don’t use the buffering as an eight foot privacy fence and five foot planted buffer, you can request, by special review, that an alternative buffer be approved and that would be up to you and Council to address. I will try to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Parks – I’ve got three issues in front of us. I’ve got number of parking spaces variance, aisle width variance, and buffer requirement variance. Mr. Hughes – Correct. 9 Mr. Parks – At the end of this discussion and at the end of this business, those three issues have to be in a motion. This document received this evening that was on our seats when we came in, have you reviewed this document? Mr. Hughes – I looked at it quickly. Mr. Parks – This refers to Tybee Land Development Code, IBC requirements, OCGA handicap requirements, personally I did not bring my handbook. I brought my LDC but if we want to take the time to review whether this corresponds to the LDC that I have, I’m not sure what to do with this Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes – As I say, I just saw this too. I have some concerns, the issuance of the conditional CO and whether that was appropriate. I don’t think that is your issue, that’s more their argument. If you focus on the Land Development Code requirements for site plan review with variances requested, I think that will get you there. Any questions about handicap access I would defer to Mr. Davis. Mr. Parks – I think one of the main issues in this, if I read it right, on the last page, in the middle, we’re called in to question how many parking spaces are required based on the size of the restaurant. Should I just work with the packet in front of me or is this actually a contentious issue that we should say this isn’t ready to come before us? Mr. Hughes – That should be your call, they did initially resist making the application, they have made it, it would behoove us all to proceed to the ext ent that you are comfortable doing so and we can. It you’re not satisfied with the information you have, and that is your call, you can make that your determination. Mr. Parks – I want the Commission to be aware that it is a possibility also. Other questions for staff at this time? Mr. Major – The proposal they are seeking, after the fact site plan for a deck expansion with variances, but what we’re really be asked to approve is the after the fact deck expansion is that right? Mr. Hughes – That is what in essence it is. On the application itself it says handicap access ramp. Mr. Major – I saw that so I’m trying to figure out what they want. Mr. Hughes – But we know on their plan, and on the ground, we’ve got an expanded deck. We’re trying to address what is out there to determine whether or not it would meet with your approval. Mr. Major – If we approve this, is any more construction going to take place? 10 Mr. Hughes – There is no more applied for as I understand it. Mr. Major – It is our understanding that everything to be built has been built. Mr. Hughes – That is my understanding as well. Mr. Major – So now the question is what do we do about it – do we have enough parking spaces or aisles wide enough, does the fence meet the requirement. Mr. Hughes – That is correct. Mr. Parks – We have three variance items – parking spaces, aisle width, buffer. Mr. Major – Can we articulate those one at a time, parking spaces required, parking spaces we have, what are we asking. The only thing I see is a safety hazard with the aisle width is what concerns me. Mr. Parks – Does the aisle width question go into the six additional parking spaces off to the left? Mr. Hughes – No. Mr. Parks – That is strictly on the eastern parking lot? Mr. Hughes – Correct. Mr. Parks - Are we being asked to consider these six parking spaces to the west? Mr. Hughes – The only diagram or parking plan that has been submitted to the City is this one. Mr. Parks – In this site plan review, those six spaces are also subject to que stion. Mr. Hughes – Yes. Mr. Major – There are City parking spaces available on the street adjacent to this – correct? Mr. Hughes – There is parking on Highway 80 in that area. Mr. Major – I look at restaurants down on the Strand that have zero parking, Fannie’s, Spanky’s, and they rely on municipal parking. Is there another restaurant on Tybee that has as much parking space as this one does? Mr. Hughes – Off-street parking? 11 Mr. Major – As much in their parking lot right now, Crab Shack doesn’t count – that’s not on Tybee. Mr. Hughes – I don’t know but I doubt it. With respect to the ones in the Strand, there is a provision that permits a restaurant business to expand and take into account the parking that is available in a public parking lot and that is why most of the restaurants don’t have as much, if any, off-street parking required. Mr. Major – Does it have to be a lot or can it just be municipal parking available? Mr. Hughes – It’s a public parking lot. Mr. Major – It is a lot. Mr. Parks – Additional questions for staff? Mr. Marion – Specific to the deck, the hash mark area, and it’s inclusion in potential restaurant space, my assumption is at one point they want to serve food out there. Mr. Hughes – That was their intent as we understood it and it shows expanded deck seating area. Mr. Marion – In part of what we are looking at, the expanded deck is influencing the amount of parking spaces needed, in other words, it is ‘x’ amount of space and ‘x’ amount of parking. In everything I have read that has been brought before us, has anybody contemplated a slight reduction in the size of the actual deck size itself and would that influence or make it a more positive, favorable situation for the applicant? Mr. Hughes – I think the applicant tried to take that into account, you see it says expanded deck seating area, 180 square feet, equals 3 stalls. The deck itself, as expanded, is significantly larger than that, it’s 570 square feet but they have got to have room for the handicap access to get by but they would still have more than 180 square feet that could be used for seating. My suspicion is that they kept it at 180 to reduce the parking demand because they would physically have the capability of having more seating outside. Mr. Marion – Thank you. Mr. Parks – At this time, do we have an applicant that would like to address the commission? Mr. Hughes – If I may, before Mr. Edenfield starts, looking at this photograph that is on the screen now, the building is on the west side of the photo graph, the ramp in the center, you can actually tell where it was expanded by the difference in the color of the concrete. That on the left is lighter and that to the right is the newer concrete and the expanded ramp and the deck is 12 on past that. That is the expanded deck area and the diagram shows the configuration of the expansion by way of the hash marks that are on there. [Franklin Edenfield came to the podium.] My name is Franklin Edenfield, I’m an attorney from Swainsboro, Georgia, proudly to announce I’m also a part-time resident of Tybee Island and hope to change that status sometime in the not too distant future. We’re here, of course, about Vicki’s. We all know the building that Rich Hammons bought has been a restaurant for as long as any of us can remember. All he wants to do is make it a restaurant again. I can remember eating there twenty plus years ago under somebody else’s ownership. We’re here because Rich had a problem with his handicap ramp, it needed to be rebuilt or replaced. That triggered, as I understand it, a new ADA requirement about wheelchair turning radius which required expansion of the ramp which necessitated expansion of the deck. Although he has additional space, he only intends to use the same amount of space that he could have always used without ever applying for anything. The issue of the site plan, I suspect you will want to address that, but I want to explain why we didn’t apply for a site plan initially and frankly suggest that it is not an issue that needs to be considered. Your code says a site plan is not required for internal changes. Over the years, staff has apparently interpreted that to say, if it is not required for internal expansion but you do an external expansion, which increases the footprint of the building, then you need a site plan by implication. I suggest to you gentlemen that you don’t regulate a property owner’s lawful use of his business by implication or interpretation – you do it with specificity. If the City of Tybee Island wants to require a site plan for any external renovation that increases the footprint of the building, then that is exactly what the code needs to say – that is not what the code says. Frankly I think our interpretation is correct but to get beyond that Rich went ahead and made the site plan application so he no longer had the threat of somebody pulling his CO because he had not applied for it. I really think that everything we are talking about here is unnecessary because none of it becomes an issue unless a site plan was required to begin with and there is nothing in the code that says what he did requires a site plan - you have to imply that. I suggest that you don’t regulate businesses by implication – you regulate by specific regulation. We’re talking about a building, a piece of property, that is going to be used only for what it has ever been used for in the past. He can’t make that site larger, he can’t create more dirt, he can’t create more parking spaces than he has although he has increased the number of spaces the previous owners of the site had and so far as I know parking and traffic there has never been a significant problem He is not going to increase the traffic significantly or substantially or create a problem where one has not existed in the past. The aisle width is the same as it always was, between nineteen and twenty-two feet. Staff wants 24 – 24 is the width of I-16. The condo I rent is on 15th Street, Brass Rail, overlooks 15th. We all know what the City has recently done down there wi th reconfiguring the parking, which I commend. I think it was a great idea, I think it has done a lot to alleviate traffic congestion, but imagine the number of cars that are backing up on 15 th Street into traffic going both ways. I will tell you, because I measured it, the distance between parking spaces on 15th Street is 21 feet. I understand a recent configuration may have increased that by a foot, so that would be 22. The City of Tybee staff is asking Rich Hammons to do more than the City of Tybee has done on a much more congested thoroughfare and I don’t think that is fair. But again we go back to he can’t make more land than he has, he has to deal with what he 13 has, he has a finite piece of property that will support a finite number of parking spaces and it has always supported those same parking spaces for that very same use. We submit that parking should not be an issue. The buffer – the residential property they refer to, the piece of property that Rich owns, and I assure you he does not intend to take a piece of purchased commercial and turn it into residential property but if he were one day to go brain dead and do that we will in advance agree to waive any buffer requirement. That is his property, which is not a requirement we need to worry about. The other piece of property is zoned commercial but apparently somebody may be living in an apartment above the commercial use. I will submit if you choose to move into and live in a commercially developed piece of property, in a commercial zone, you accepted whatever additional noise might be. Again, buffers for 20 plus years has never been an issue on this piece of property and just because Rich proposes to put one table outside suddenly we have an issue with noise and I submit to you gentlemen that is not reasonable. What we’re asking you to do here tonight is let Rich Hammons do what the City of Tybee Island needs, you got one industry, tourism – tourists need amenities. The north side of the island needs a nice upscale eating establishment, that’s what he is doing at Vicki’s, that’s all he is asking you to do. We would ask you send the recommendation to City Hall to let this business continue operating providing the amenities that your visitors need and want. Mr. Parks – Do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. McNaughton – If the City were to require additional parking spaces that it says is needed, why couldn’t the vacant lot be used for the parking? Mr. Edenfield – Well, he could but he didn’t buy it as a parking lot, he bought it for commercial development. Once you expanded into parking, in order to get this CO that is going to limit, not eliminate, if the building can be used for commercial. Mr. Major – I agree with your suggestions that we need to be specific – we have a staff proposal in front of us that says we’re approving a site plan approval with variances for a deck expansion. We have an application from the petitioner for a handicap access ramp, could you state specifically, in terms of number of parking spaces, aisle width, and with regards to the buffer, what exactly are you asking us to do? Mr. Edenfield – We’re asking you to approve, if necessary, a variance on whatever those three requirements the City says we don’t meet because we can’t physically do it. Mr. Major – How many parking spaces? Mr. Edenfield – Twenty-five. We contend there are twenty-five. We and the City disagree with the interpretation of the number of parking spaces required but we are off, at most, by two or three. We have got more parking than they have ever had before and the business survived and there weren’t any problems. You think there are going to be problems now - because we put one table on the outside deck? 14 Mr. Major – And the aisle width – what is that going to be? Mr. Edenfield - Between 19 and 22 feet. Mr. Major – Because of the angle? Mr. Edenfield – But it is the aisle width that’s always been there. Mr. Major – The expansion of the deck – did it impact it at all? Mr. Edenfield – I’m not sure. [Steele Knudson came to the podium.] I’m Steele Knudson and I’m with Mr. Edenfield representing Mr. Hammons. The deck did not go beyond what was originally sidewalked. There was a curb at the base of that deck so it did not encroach on the parking lot and the parking has not been reduced in any way by the deck. Mr. Major – And you are asking us for the buffer because he owns the adjacent property that we don’t require anything additional? Mr. Edenfield - There has never been one in the past and we haven’t changed the use at all. It is pure speculation to say we’ve increased the use. I’m sure Rich hopes he will have more customers but how much can that one table affect what is going on with the property? Mr. Major – It is one table with 12 seats. Mr. Knudson – The calculation is by square footage, 15 square foot per person. The 180 square feet was actually determined by City staff; that is not something we submitted. If you look at what we gave you, it shows you the actual requirements in the code and that there is no additional outdoor dining than what was there before. Because of the increased turning radius, the wheelchair access, there may be more deck space but there is actually no additional dining space. Mr. Major – I question, I asked Mr. Hughes before and he said as far as he knew, if this site plan with variances is approved tonight, you’re not going to build anything else, no more construction, you’re not going to tear down any buffers, not going to have any more parking spaces? Mr. Edenfield – That’s it. That’s all we’re asking the City to do. Mr. Major – To continue as you’ve been doing since March. Mr. Edenfield – Use what we’ve got. 15 Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant at this time. In the 25 spaces, are you including the six that are on the west side? Mr. Knudson – Yes, that is correct. Mr. Parks – Those six spaces, are you able to pull a dumpster out of there when there are cars in there? Mr. Knudson – The dumpster is on demand. The applicant calls for the pickup. Mr. Parks – When it is being used as a parking lot, can you pull the dumpster out? Mr. Knudson – No, you cannot. Mr. Parks – Is there lighting available on that parking lot? Mr. Knudson – Lighting. Not currently. Mr. Parks – It is not a lit parking lot? Mr. Knudson – No, it is not lit and there is no intent. There is lighting off the building to this side [referring to Power Point] but not on that side. Both sides are lit from the building, there are no separate poles. Mr. Parks – Is this intended to be paved? Mr. Knudson – There is no intent for pavement – you would have to put an impervious surface down under the regulations; there is gravel now. Mr. Parks – Can you address the DOT issue? Mr. Knudson – We first heard about this concern about half an hour before the meeting. Mr. Parks – Mr. Davis, do you have anything about DOT requirements on the west side parking lot? Mr. Davis – Yes, I got into site plan review a little late on this project due to the complexity of it. The backing of any vehicle into a City right-of-way, based on my plan reviews not only on Tybee but other cities, and what I experienced is you just don’t allow private enterprises to use public rights-of-way for their facilities. That’s why they have their maneuvering lanes within the parking areas within the parking lots. That’s why we have a chart for parallel, diagonal, perpendicular, and various orientations. We have nothing in our code that says put only the parking space on your lot and use our rights-of-way and sidewalks for maneuvering. Also, I have been challenged in my earlier years by the DOT on much lesser infractions of orienting a 16 parking lot to back into a state DOT right-of-way. I was surprised when I saw an engineered plan that showed parking spaces backing into a DOT right -of-way and I called the DOT to find out if something had changed and they said “no, absolutely not”. They further stated they have restrictions that prohibit you from backing into a drive on a private lot too close to the DOT right-of-way. They further stated they prohibit you using their right-of-way to back commercial vehicles in an urban setting. Now in a rural setting, single-family residential out in the country, they’re more lax about it. For Waste Management, Republic, or any of the other carriers, they will allow them to use their trucks to back into rights-of-way but they don’t allow commercial vehicles and much less privately operated vehicles to back in the right s-of-way. Mr. Parks – This is a new angle, I haven’t even started on the handicap angle, but I have no understanding of the DOT regulations. Mr. Davis – I didn’t see anything about handicaps. Mr. Parks – That’s in the letter that was presented here and I’m a stickler for that kind of thing. I just wanted to understand that I can’t back out of there into traffic. Mr. Davis – It’s something that is already set up that way but grandfathered in but as far as permitting, the DOT, based on what their area driveway representative says, the ones that issue driveway permits or regulates modifications of driveway permits and oversees the use of existing driveways, he said that I shouldn’t be concurring with the approval of any parking lots that back into their public rights-of-way. Mr. Parks – On this picture [referring to PowerPoint], there is nothing as creative in my mind as a Tybee Island business person but they can’t create dirt. When I was walking on that, I was wondering if I was going to park my car on that embankment; it looks like an embankment. I understand it is a parking lot and I’m not saying I disapprove of that, I’m all for encouraging business and growth on this island. I just want to know what I’m approving today. Mr. Edenfield – I have two comments. I have represented DOT so I have some idea of how they operate. Mr. Parks – Is that the position I’m to accept herein tonight as a DOT spokesman? Mr. Edenfield – Under no circumstances. Mr. Parks – Okay, I would prefer that you did not tell me that you are. Mr. Edenfield - The driveway already exists which means DOT has already permitted which means they may not like what is happening but they have gone along with it. S econdly, if you eliminate these parking spaces, maybe that is what ought to be done, we’re simply back to the same number of parking spaces that the building has always had and those were actually additional spaces Rich was proposing to build. 17 Mr. Parks – That’s why I started with the 25 that includes that six. I have to approach this from the point of view that those six are in the package. Mr. Knudson – Yes, it is, but if you’ll look at the letter, the fact is… Mr. Parks – Why didn’t I get this letter a while ago? Mr. Knudson – I wish I could have given it to you sooner but I got the report when you received the report. I couldn’t respond to the staff report until I had the staff report. The submission for this parking plan, under LDC Section 3-080(D)2, there is a provision where a business owner can submit a parking plan for review and staff has the opportunity to make a finding whether there is a significant impact on parking. What we demonstrated is there is actually no impact on parking so that the existing parking, as situated, was sufficient. W e offered additional spaces, if additional spaces had been required. You can see we debate all the numbers back and forth, measurements, etc. but the deck and the ramp itself do not increase the demand on the parking. Mr. Parks – Can we get that picture of the ramp back on the screen? So that has not encroached out and reduced the parking size? Mr. Knudson – That is original sidewalk [referring to PowerPoint]. Next to the building you can see the curb; the railing goes down on the curb. If you turn the picture, there is another one to the side; you’ll see that the lattice is actually up against the curb of the existing sidewalk. Mr. Parks – Mr. Hughes, do we have a reduction in the parking lot width here? Mr. Hughes – Obviously before the ramp was there, cars could park and overhang the sidewalk so it has reduced the aisle width between the rear of a car facing west and the rear of a car facing east because of the ramp being expanded. There is no more ability for a car to overhang; I don’t know what the measurement on that is. Let me mention a couple of other things briefly. Mr. Edenfield referred to the property owned by the applicant as being commercial property and not being concerned with the buffer. Mr. Parks – To the east? Mr. Hughes – To the west. Mr. Parks – To the west. So the vacant lot to the west. Mr. Hughes – We’re not talking about a buffer there. Mr. Parks – Right. We’re talking about a buffer, I thought, to the north. 18 Mr. Hughes – To the north where the residential property is which wasn’t addressed. Mr. Parks – I was getting to that. Mr. Hughes – I just wanted to make sure that was clear because I’m not sure the applicant understood what we were talking about. There is a photograph of that area. T here is a fence there but it does not meet the requirement of Section 3-160 and it is not eight feet and it doesn’t have the arboreal buffer. Again, there is the option of them proceeding with a lesser buffer as a method of special review, but that is a different issue. We’re not talking about buffers to the east or west of the property, we’re talking about the north side where it is separated from residential. Mr. Parks – Is that your understanding, sir? Mr. Knudson – The staff report asked for additional buffering to the east where Tim’s Bike is, I think we have addressed that. On the back side, the buffering ordinance is fou nd in LDC Section 3-160, subsection B, states specifically that protective screening is required where improvements expanded the footprint more than 25% - that is not the case here. There has not been a significant expansion like that. Additionally, Section C requires buffers where there has been a change in the degree of use – since there is no additional outdoor dining, there hasn’t been a degree change and so my contention would be the buffers aren’t required in the first place. If you find that they are, we just ask that you grant us the variance. Mr. Hughes – I’ve never known outside dining to have been permitted or allowed or done at this location before. The existing deck that was there had not, to my knowledge, been used for outside dining. Mr. Major – We’re talking about outdoor dining, 12 seats, 1 table . I’m looking at this letter that isn’t signed by anybody, but I guess it came from the applicant. On page 2, about the fifth paragraph down, it says, “since there has been no increase in seating capacity, the parking requirements have not been impacted”. The second sentence in the next paragraph says, “the deck as built accommodates no additional diners”. Are we talking about outdoor dining or are we not talking about outdoor dining? Mr. Knudson – Yes, it doesn’t accommodate addition to what was available before. Mr. Major – There wasn’t any outdoor? Mr. Knudson – The outdoor dining capacity was similar, it was about 180 square feet that could be used for tables, I believe there was a pian o out there or something. Outdoor dining in this location is by right. You don’t need a permit to use your deck that’s been there for 30 years. So, it was there by right so we haven’t changed the amount that is there. There is no additional outdoor dining to what was available before. 19 [Rich Hammons came forward and introduced himself.] Mr. Hammons – These gentlemen have a much better grasp on this than I do. But to clarify, there has always been the capability of outdoor dining, just because an owner decided against it that’s up to the owner. It existed before, it exists today. Now, does that mean I do it, I don’t know. It’s a possibility. It might be that it’s not conducive to the business. At any rate, there needs to be a way for people to come in. If I’m so busy in the future to have a waiting area, which is most likely what it ends up being, but it is the staff’s point of contention while it is there, you potentially could use it and have maybe twenty tables out there. No, that’s not the intent, never was the intent, it’s always been a possibility before and now. Mr. Major – Question for Mr. Hughes. Is there anything in this petition after the fact, as we proceed forward, that triggers a requirement for a buffer on the north side at this t ime? Mr. Hughes – The expansion of the deck. I’m aware of the percentages in the argument but it is what it is; it’s an argument. It’s my position that the buffer ordinance says, basically, and this is subsection C, “a change in the kind, character, or degree of use of improved property as proposed and there is no existing buffer on property that is to be improved or an existing buffer would not meet the requirements.” Mr. Major – What is the change in kind, condition, use? Mr. Hughes – The outdoor seating and use. Mr. Major – They say there isn’t going to be any outdoor seating. The deck is built, we either have to buy the argument that it is already there so that’s not a change or it’s not their intention to be there. Mr. Hughes – There is always an argument. The point is when they eventually came in and got the building permit and their intention, from what the CO conditionally prohibited, was the use of that. It has been expanded and with the expectation, or as we understood it, the proposed use, and by the way it wasn’t the City that came up with the 180 square feet, that is on their diagram. At the time, as presented to the City, was for tables and chairs to be placed in the outside area. If you look at the photograph you can see how much of an expansion there is because the roof wasn’t expanded. It’s a significant increase of the size of the deck which we believe triggered the buffer and the parking requirement. Basically, their argument is we expanded it but we didn’t expand it quite enou gh to really make a difference and it’s been used this way for years. Mr. Major – Would it be reasonable to impose a condition that, if and when, that the time outdoor dining was initiated, which I think would increase the requirement or the need for a buffer, that it wouldn’t be implemented until that buffer was created so he can get on with his business. Like Monty, I very much support Tybee Island small businesses since I am one myself. If that is a hang up, I don’t think we’re going to resolve tonight, build a buffer, don’t build a 20 buffer, but if the outdoor dining is what triggers a requirement for the buffer, and you’re saying that’s a change in the use, and we could tie it to that. Mr. Hughes – I guess that is an option but it imposes a policing obligation on the City again. I think Mr. Davis wanted to address the 24 feet if it is appropriate at this time. Mr. Parks – Mr. Davis, would you like to address the 24 feet? Mr. Davis – Yes. I found out yesterday morning that there had been a notification to the City by the applicant’s agents that the City had participated in creating parking that was slightly reduced. It’s recently installed parking down on 15th Street. I went to the site and met with Joe Wilson, Public Works, and it was determined that it was an adjustment that needed to be made – and the adjustment was made. I went back out there and measured it today, the curb stops which were created with utility poles were moved further from the right-of-way. We now have 18 feet space depth for the parking, we have the parallel parking which is 8 foot wide, and we do have 24 feet for the maneuvering area. The applicant’s attorney was correct that 12 foot is the lane you have on the Interstate, as you have on Highway 17 and Highway 80 as you go off of Tybee Island. The point is, 24 feet happens to be, as a matter of fact, you don’t have 12 foot lanes, you have 9 foot lanes in a lot of cases, 12 in some. Twenty-four feet is the maneuvering area depth you need for parking. It has nothing to do with two-way traffic; it has to do with maneuvering. If you have a 9 foot wide space, 18 feet deep, you need 24 feet to back out and maneuver. As Bubba said, I believe, based on what I have been able to tell from the limited drawing exhibit we have, that there was overhang available on the sidewalk prior to the new and approved ramp which is much wider than the ADA requires, and I applaud people for not going the minimum standards of ADA, but exceed it. However, when they exceeded it such a width as it is now, they’ve taken away the ability of cars to overhang the sidewalk which means now you have less than 24 foot drive and I did not create this 18 foot depth parking space on Tybee, it’s our standard size. Twenty-four foot is a national average that everybody uses, Savannah, Garden City, Pooler, Chatham County, Atlanta, everywhere uses 24 foot depth on parking. Tybee takes things into consideration, we’re giving credit for what is already happening and that is a foot and a half overhang on the east side. What has happened is the foot and a half overhang that was available before has gone away on the west side so we now do not have, in effect, 24 feet behind 18 foot spaces. Mr. Parks – I don’t mean to put it simply but it sounds like if I-16 were being used as a parking lot, it wouldn’t be wide enough? Mr. Davis – No, it’s not true. Mr. Parks – I-16 is wide enough to use as a comparison for Rich’s parking lot here? Mr. Davis – I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. 21 Mr. Parks – Do not take a lot of questions from this group as being a sign of we don’t like proposals, this is just a curious group that asks a lot of questions. I-16 was brought up and I’m still trying to piece that together and it sounds like it was not appropriate. Mr. Edenfield – It was just an example of what 24 feet looks like. Mr. Parks – Okay. If I go to the third page of this unsigned letter, the Tybee LDC parking requirements reference O.C.G.A. Title 30 Accessibility Code for disability access and parking requirements. If I include 208.2, can you clarify this for me? Mr. Knudson – What this comes down to in the staff report, there is a requirement that they wanted an extra handicapped parking space with van accessible aisle. We’re perfectly open to that; you can see where one is, the other handicapped space can certainly go on the other side of that aisle and be van accessible. It’s just the way the numbers were calculated there is a specific guideline that says you count per facility, so if the bike rack does in fact take up one space, then if there are only 25 spaces remaining, you don’t have a requirement for an additional handicap space, that’s all that addresses. It’s that the calculation for handicapped spaces was not done correctly in the staff report. Mr. Parks – But you would like for us to approve whatever variance it takes to keep going? Mr. Knudson – Yes. Mr. Parks – Want to take a guess on a parking number? How many spaces do you want us to variance? Mr. Knudson – I believe the request as phrased was, and the conclusion in the staff report, that a recommendation for approval of what has been presented, that is consistent with the Master Plan and we ask tonight that you recommend to the City Council they vote to approve the wheelchair ramp and approve disability access as currently constructed. Mr. Major – How many spaces is that? Mr. Knudson – As currently constructed, we’ve got 19 in this lot and she calculated, I believe, five to three spaces and eliminated two of them according to the right-of-way. I’ve got an argument in there about the right-of-way, so you could argue that we have the 25 spaces plus number 26 is the bicycle rack. Given the spaces we’ve offered, we’ve met the requirement. Mr. Major – Did what you just did include the west end? Mr. Knudson – Yes. I included the west end. Under the code, the west end wouldn’t actually be required because the variance in itself and the site plan in itself weren’t required. Mr. Parks – So you are asking us to variance 26? 22 Mr. Major – At 26 they wouldn’t need variance. Mr. Knudson – I would prefer you just say as constructed currently. I know that is a lot to ask. Mr. Parks – I’m sure you would. I’m just looking for a number. Mr. Callahan – Since you didn’t show the location of a bike rack on this drawing, where would you propose to put one? Mr. Knudson – We’ll put it wherever they ask us to put it. I think the best location would be towards the front, there is some space where the planters are, there is also space over by Tim’s, which is the biggest bike rental on the island. Feel free to make us any recommendations on where to put the bike rack, it could easily go in the back as well, behind the deck. Mr. Hughes – From the staff’s standpoint, we would prefer that the applicant submit a location as opposed to asking us where they want it or where we want it to be – that’s how we got to this part of the problem. Mr. Parks – I wasn’t going to beat that but I agree. The site plan comes to me, and I get to see where the bicycle rack is put, I know its detail, and it also has widths for parking and it has all this taken care of for me so I don’t have to do any homework. Mr. Hughes – If I’m correct in the variance, as far as parking requested, it would be at least six places. Mr. Parks – At least six. Mr. Hughes - All six being those on the west side and it would include the aisle width request. Mr. Callahan – Whether it be 6, 3, or something in between, for the number of spaces in that western lot, no one is showing how they would be configured, it just states a number. How would they be configured for 6, or for 3, or for whatever the right number is? Mr. Knudson – That’s an excellent question. According to the Tybee code on site plan submissions, the final engineering does not have to be completed at the Planning Commission stage. It is required to be completed before we do go to the City Council and that is something we can work out with the engineer. Mr. Callahan – Then how did you come up with six? Mr. Knudson – That’s the number he put in after he did the measurements. Mr. Callahan – He, who? 23 Mr. Knudson – The engineer, Jay Maupin, his name is somewhere on the drawing. Mr. Major – On Butler Avenue, there is a restaurant that has been variously Bahama Bob’s, and I think Cousin Vinnie’s, and currently the Social Club - and I know they did some deck work there a couple of years back, maybe a couple of owners back. Just for comparison, maybe this is for Downer, the way you park when you go into that particular restaurant , I’m not sure what the distance is between the back opposing cars would be and it is very difficult to get out of there without sometimes backing onto Butler. I’m just wondering when they did their deck work, did they have to go through any of this type of activity at that time? Mr. Davis – I recommended at that time that they do at least some voluntary corrections to the parking lot. There are two parking lots like that in Chatham County that I know of. The one there that’s been like that since it was called the Oar House back in the 80’s and there is a pharmacy over in midtown that is like that. It’s diagonal parking, which are the only two places I’ve ever seen it, where you pull in and you back into the road. I don’t know who permitted that or when, they are both very old parking lots. Mr. Major – How come they got to do theirs? Mr. Davis - Because they have that provision that they are so close to a public parking lot, that Bubba mentioned earlier, so the fact they didn’t have to have any required parking and parking is not required, they just happen to have a parking lot and the fact that they reduced what they had there, as I understand it, the City had no control to govern that. The parking lot was existing, and they had no parking requirement is how I understood it; it was allowed to remain in its current state. These people do have parking required. If they were within the distance that Tybee has determined is where you get a waiver of all your required parking, if none of this was required parking then it would just be grandfathered in, but that is not the case, they need this parking, they are not close to public parking. Mr. Parks – Do I have any other questions for applicant at this time? Mr. Major – I’ve heard talk about drawings that don’t have everything and there is references in some of the staff report about things that are missing. What haven’t these folks submitted what the City still feels they need going forward? Could you enumerate those? Mr. Hughes – The location of the bike rack would be one thing, the signature of the engineer would be another, to mark the six parking places that are shown in the west corner, the southwest corner of the property was just mentioned has not been delineated. You can’t get 6 there without using the right-of-way. The diagram should be made to conform to the right-of- way so that the parking is not using it. They’ve got room to do that as far as the handicap place, they showed on the diagram, they are a couple of feet into the right-of-way, they can move it all to the north and they won’t have that problem and there is plenty of room at number 9 to do that. 24 Mr. Edenfield – If I understand the process, even if you recommend site plan approval, the engineer still has work they need to do. Under any circumstances, they would be doing it and that is where we would be at that stage. Mr. Parks – Would you repeat that please. Mr. Edenfield – If I understand the process, if you were to recommend approval of the site plan time scale tonight, there are still certain technical matters that your engineer and our engineer have got to address such as location of the bike rack and delineation of those parking spaces. I think that happens even if there was no disagreement about the site plan. Mr. Hughes – Actually, ordinarily, all of that is taken care of before you get here. Mr. Parks – I guess I’m kind of spoiled because it usually all comes to us. We usually do not have Mr. Hughes here. Mr. Hughes – Well, it is usually finished before it gets here has been the practice. The one other item that should be shown on the drawing is a specific square footage for the dining area. Right now it says 1200 square feet plus or minus and that may not be a big issue but we don’t know. Mr. Major – Should the site plan show a buffer on the on the north side? Mr. Hughes – It should. Mr. Parks – Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Bishop – When all this began for the renovation, why was any of this construction begun without site plan approval, building permit, plans by design, professional or general contractor? Would not all of this had been alleviated and resolved if that had been followed? Mr. Edenfield – He should have applied for a building permit. Mr. Bishop – My questions is, was why. Mr. Edenfield – Ignorance is all I can say. I wasn’t in the process at that stage. It was certainly a mistake – a mistake he rectified and a mistake for which he was penalized. But t he building permit would not have resolved the issue as to whether or not yo u needed a site plan that has always been the disagreement between the applicant and the City as to whether or not the site plan was ever a necessary requirement of the code. No, he should never have hit the first nail without that building permit. 25 Mr. Bishop – That issue of whether or not a site plan approval, whether that was or was not required, that is still your contention? Mr. Edenfield – It is still a contention that we’re trying to get past. Mr. Bishop –Mr. Hughes that is not an issue that this Planning Commission would discuss. Mr. Hughes – That is correct. M. Bishop – We are attempting to address issues that I have listed here and numerous items that I think will be in the form of a motion, at some point, could have been alleviated or resolved, if in fact, other LDC requirements, regardless of whether you feel they apply or do not apply, had been followed i.e. a site plan, building permit, and approval had been – those regulations and procedures had been followed. Is that right? Mr. Hughes – That’s right. Mr. Bishop – Thank you. Mr. Edenfield – Although we would still be here because we have basic disagreements on what your regulations require, but we would still be up here in front of you. I agree it should have been done different. Mr. Parks – Questions for applicant? [There were none.] Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the commission at this time? [There was no one.] I’m going to close the public hearing for this piece of business. I’m opening the floor for a motion or discussion. Mr. Hughes, I understand, and I’m assuming that a motion could be that there is not sufficient information and it has to come back. Mr. Hughes – Yes, I think it has been advertised for public that it is going before the Mayor and Council (short discussion with Ms. Otto), no, it has not. The sign has been posted that would indicate that it was coming to a public hearing but it has not been published in the paper. There is still time to do that. Mr. Major - There are numerous areas of contention, things that haven’t been resolved. Would it be reasonable for us to ask that the City and the applicant resolve what is required or what is not required so that, as our Chairman said, we are used to seeing the site plan and it has accurate drawings, and shows the parking spaces, buffers, and bike racks. Would it be reasonable to get these things resolved because we’re ruling on them by saying yes you can do that and no you can’t do that? We’re throwing away either behind one position or the other based on what we recommend; I’m not totally comfortable doing that. Mr. Hughes – Ordinarily what happens before it gets to you is the applicant’s engineer communicates with the City’s engineer or representative to get past these sorts of issues to the 26 extent they can. There may be some that are still remaining to be resolved like the bike rack, for example, its location would be one of those. The square footage on the interior of the dining, the handicap parking could be others that could be cleared up before you got here and hopefully the two of them could agree on what the actual number of parking spaces available is and what the aisle width is. I’m not optimistic that it would resolve all the issues between the City and the applicant. Mr. Major – If we recommend, and Council agrees, for example, they don’t have enough parking spaces, their aisles are too narrow, are we putting them out of business? I’m never comfortable with recommendations like that when we’re supporting small business. What is their alternative? If we say no you have to have 26 parking spaces without City right -of-way, and you have to have 24 foot aisles – it can’t physically be done. Mr. Hughes – They could remove the expansion, one thing that could be done. Mr. Major – Deconstruct it. Mr. Hughes – That is one thing. Perhaps leave it and have it configured in a way where it was not available. Had they not expanded the deck, none of us would be here. Without going through the normal procedures, we’re dealing with what we’ve got. As far as I know there hasn’t been much in the way of issues or problems operating under the conditional CO but we need to get past that issue. They don’t want to live in jeopardy of the CO being yanked, so to speak, and the City hasn’t wanted to do that because of the impact it has on their business. That’s as good an answer as I can give you but, no, it wouldn’t put them out of business, they would continue to operate as they have. Mr. Parks – I would really like to, just as a citizen, to commend the City for issuing a conditional even though as it is pointed out, there is no room for issuing a conditional and for being flexible enough to do that. I think it is important that these people get up and running and I appreciate the City bending over backwards to do that. I’m not aware of Vicki’s having missed a day of operation due to all of this. I don’t know if that has happened but if it has I certainly apologize for that but we’ve got to get out of this CO status. I’m not sure what we are being asked to do in regards to variances. If somebody here can put this in a form of a motion, I would be glad to hear that. Mr. McNaughton – I move that the applicant return at a later date with a site plan and that includes those items the City said are missing. Mr. Parks – I’ve got a motion on the table, do I have discussion on this? Mr. Bishop – Along those lines, being a former resident of the area where Vicki’s currently is, I was very happy to see some viability back in that building and I think we’ve got to support our businesses. Following through, in with your motion, if I could add some conditions, I hate to leave it so open ended. If we allowed them to stay in business, with site plan coming back to us 27 with specificity, such as to resolve the question of the DOT regulation issue, public safety and compliance, to resolve the issue as to the buffer to the residential area north, to ensure compliance with the LDC, to resolve the issue concerning the 24 feet depth allowing for a ninety degree parking ingress/egress spaces to resolve the questionability of that, to determine the exact location of where a bike rack would be located and if that does and will meet the LDC and City of Tybee requirements for adequate parking spaces. If we appended those questions to your motion, and others perhaps that this Commission would want to ask, would that be reasonable as far as coming back to us with specificity? Mr. Parks – Although I can’t make a motion, I would like to somehow settle the number of required parking spaces. Mr. Bishop - I think that would be part of the discussion concerning DOT regulations with regards to parking on the west end and the total number of required spaces consistent with the LDC. Mr. Parks – Thank you. Mr. Hughes – To answer your question, I think that is reasonable and it could include when we come back, we need a time in which this should happen for the applicant’s sake as well as the City. Any issues that are still not resolved be identified and be provided to you in written form. Mr. Bishop – That’s reasonable. I would agree with the timeframe that this Commission feels, with input from staff and yourself, what is reasonable. I don’t want to set this thing open ended ninety days or six months; I don’t know what is reasonable here. Mr. Callahan – By the time of our next meeting is reasonable to me. Mr. Bishop – Thirty days, that seems to be reasonable, I would add that to the motion. Mr. McNaughton – I would accept those conditions to my motion. Mr. Parks – We’re going to have to restate the entire motion. Mr. Hughes, as a point of order for the meeting, is it fair for me to ask any representative, if a 30-day delay affects the business to the point where it negatively impacts them – is it fair for me to ask at this point? Mr. Hughes – Actually October 16 would be the next meeting you have but the staff needs the information by October the 8th to get the packets together for you so that isn’t quite thirty days. Mr. Parks – Basically I have closed the public hearing on this but what I’m asking is can I reopen it or can I ask them an additional question? Mr. Hughes – Yes. 28 Mr. Parks - Is there a negative impact to coming back at our next meeting? Mr. Edenfield – As long as he is allowed to continue operating under the conditional CO and the same circumstances he has been operating, no, there would be no negative impact. Mr. Major – Does that CO have an expiration date on it? Mr. Parks – Does that conditional have an expiration date on it? Mr. Hughes – That conditional has a date that there would be a site plan application back – seven calendar days I believe but that didn’t happen. Mr. Edenfield – All we need is assurance that he is allowed to stay open while this process is going on. If you’ll tell me that I’ll take it at face value. Mr. Parks – I don’t want damage coming to a business and I want to be business oriented. Mr. Hughes – We wouldn’t be in this position if we did either but we have got to have an end to this. Like I said, the conditional said by May 1. Mr. Parks – Can I get a restatement of the motion that is on the table? Mr. McNaughton – I amend my motion to move that the applicant be required to return at our next Commission meeting with a completed site plan that addresses the issues of the parking spaces on the west side, including delineating the places, indicating where the bicycle rack would go, and would include a buffer on the north side. Mr. Bishop – As long as we make sure with regards to the west side parking that the DOT regulation issue and the public safety issue, with regards to compliance, is explained. Mr. Parks – Does that cover the 24 foot? Mr. Bishop – The 24 foot depth and the 90 degree parking that our engineer raised that needs to be addressed as well and that would be wrapped in the parking issue I believe. Mr. McNaughton – Do I need to add that? Mr. Bishop – If I may just add that as part of the motion. Mr. Hughes – We had that and location of the bike rack, the square footage of the actual dining area, and I think that covered it, the handicap space if there is one. Mr. Major – A signed copy of the engineer’s report. 29 Mr. Parks – Mr. McNaughton, your motion is in play, do I have a second? Mr. Major – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion that is presented, please indicate. [Vote was unanimous.] Mr. Hughes – Just so everybody is on the same page, if it doesn’t happen by that date, that CO is subject to whatever remedies would otherwise exist. TEXT AMENDMENT – ARTICLE 18 - LIGHTING Mr. Parks - Our last item of business is a text amendment , Article 18 – Lighting. Ms. Otto – There has been a subcommittee of the Planning Commission that has been working the past several months on a lighting ordinance; it would become Article 18 within the Land Development Code. The version before you was tweaked a little bit but as it came out of that subcommittee with some additional definitions and clarifications and cross checks, I do feel that there is additional time needed for further input from the city attorney and from the City’s consulting engineer before we would want to act on this. I am glad that we’ve got it on the agenda and hope if there is any feedback from public, we would start receiving that at this point as well, but I would ask that this return next month for action by you. Mr. Parks – We don’t need a motion on this per say. Ms. Otto – No, but if there is any other public input, please consider that but otherwise I would like to work on this some more and bring it back to you next month. Mr. Callahan - Several of us have participated in the meetings that Dianne was referring to but two or three of us have not. Could we have them speak now on any questions or concerns at this time – if they have had a chance to review the information? Ms. Otto – I would welcome that input as well. Mr. Parks – Is there any discussion among Commission? Mr. McNaughton – If the Commission passes it along, and the Council approves it, is there a process within the City to enforce it? Ms. Otto – Yes, at plan review for the new construction, it would now become a requirement that a lighting plan be submitted just as we are currently receiving drainage plans, erosion control plans, and building plans. A lighting plan woul d come in that would be reviewed and approved and for that site would be required to be compliant with the ordinance as adopted. 30 Mr. McNaughton – What if I replaced an outdoor light on my house? Ms. Otto – Other than a bulb replacement, that fixture would need to be brought into compliance as well. Mr. McNaughton – And how would it be enforced? Who is going to be there to check on my house to be sure I did it right? Ms. Otto – Like any internal changes, the City is not able to see what occurs in somebody’s house but the law would require a building permit for that work and if it was identified that one was not issued, it would be subject to the same penalty as any construction project that would occur without a permit. Mr. McNaughton – Thank you. Mr. Parks – Other questions or discussions. [There were none.] So we’ll see this again next month. Ms. Otto – You will and I appreciate your devotion to seeing this through. Mr. Parks – Can I get a motion for adjournment? Mr. Callahan – So moved Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – It’s unanimous. Thank you for your time. This meeting is adjourned. Minutes prepared by Jerris Bryant