Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140121_PC_Packet.pdf PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Tom Borkowski Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Tyler Marion, Vice Chair Dianne Otto, CFM David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. for City Council Meeting February 13, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order B. Minutes 1. Meeting of December 17, 2013 C. Disclosures / Recusal Appeals D. Business 1. Text Amendment – consideration of amendment to the historic preservation ordinance Sections 14-030 & 14-050 – Historic Preservation 2. Variance – consideration of height variance request Roy Ogletree 13 T.S. Chu Terr. Zone C-1 PIN 4-0009-04-006 3. Text Amendment – consideration of change to copper wiring requirement Section 9-050(B) – Technical Codes Adopted, Copper Wire 4. Text Amendment – consideration of amendment to parking required for special events Section 3-060(A)(9) – Bed and Breakfast (Residential), Parking for Special Events 5. Text Amendment – consideration of amendment to buffering ordinance Section 3-160 – Protective Screening of Adjacent Property 6. Text Amendment – consideration of a new ordinance Model Wind Ordinance for Wind Energy Facilities E. Adjournment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Tom Borkowski Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Rob Callahan Dianne Otto, CFM Tyler Marion, Vice Chair David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Vice Chair Tyler Marion called the December 17, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tom Borkowski. Mr. Marion made an announcement about openings on the Planning Commission. Mr. Marion – The first order of business is the minutes of the November 19, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Mr. Callahan made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Bishop seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Mr. Marion – Do we have any recusals or disclosures? Rob Callahan recused on 1701 Butler Avenue, 3 Thirteenth Lane, 1518 Fifth Avenue, and Lot 10 Robinson Avenue. Mr. Bishop recused from 1701 Butler Avenue. Text Amendment – Article 8 – Flood Damage Prevention Ms. Otto – This item was considered at your November meeting and it was requested that Jimmy Brown come to the December meeting to assist with questions you had. There are a large number of documents in your packet related to this. If you have any questions, hopefully between Jimmy and me we will be able to answer those tonight. The Text Amendment proposes increasing the current 1-foot freeboard to perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The intent is to increase the Community Rating System credits to at least maintain the current rating of a Class 7 community or improve it. At the last meeting I provided some recent history on developments where they were complying with the current 1-foot and in many cases exceeding it. Mr. Brown has provided a PowerPoint for you. Mr. Marion – Do we have any questions for staff at this time? [There were none.] Mr. Brown, would you come up to the lectern please. Jimmy Brown came forward and introduced himself. I am the Emergency Management Coordinator and CRS Coordinator for the City of Tybee Island. What I have for you is a short presentation on the NFIP/CRS program which is the same that I presented to City Council. It will give you an introduction into what we are asking for in freeboarding and how it fits into the overall points that the City needs for their cycle visit in April of 2014. In 2013, a new CRS manual was published which recalculated how points are obtained for determining flood ratings. Legislation, known as Biggert- Waters, came into effect changing how flood insurance policies are written and for many homeowners increasing their premium. Because of these factors, the City Manager requested that I make recommendations for CRS activities that could preserve or improve our CRS rating. Those recommendations include: Activity 420, Preservation of Open Space; Activity 430, Higher Regulatory Standards; Activity 432, Protection of Critical Facilities; Activity 530, Flood Protection. Tybee is a Class 7 community and property owners receive a 15% discount on their flood insurance policies. A community recertification is required annually and a cycle visit every five years and both are required as part of the CRS 2 program. Our next cycle visit is scheduled for April 16, 2014. A Class 10 is 0 to 499 points; Class 9 is 500 to 999 points; Class 8 is 1,000 to 1,499 points; and a Class 7 is 1,500 to 1,999 points. Tybee Island has 1,504 points, barely a Class 7. We are a Category B, Repetitive Loss Community, with 9 properties on the current repetitive loss list. Repetitive loss properties have 2 or more with claims of more than $1,000 that have been paid by the National Flood Insurance Program within any 10-year period since 1978. With the new manual, we are losing points in some areas where we were high at the last cycle visit in 2009. Mr. Callahan – How many total activities are there? Mr. Brown – The manual is classified as a group in 100, a group in 200, a group in 300, up to 600. Each section of the manual has different activities. There may be 10 in one and 20 in another. Mr. Callahan – It could be as many as 100 total? Mr. Brown – There wouldn’t be that many in each activity. Activity 330 is a community outreach project and there are many activities inside that. One of those is how we distribute our community outreach projects which are done by including it in the water billing twice a year. Also you could do an ad in the paper like Chatham County does. Mr. Callahan – I was trying to get a handle on how many total possible activities we could participate in. Mr. Brown – You could say roughly 20 sections in each activity. There is a separate section for each activity. Mr. Callahan – This list that you are showing, are those the only ones we are participating in? Mr. Brown – We are getting 1,504 points based on those activities. Mr. Callahan – Why are we not participating in the other 50 categories? Mr. Brown – These are my recommendations to maintain a Class 7. Activity 430 is Higher Regulatory Standards – freeboarding. At the present time we require 1-foot of freeboard which gives us 100 points. That says you build 1-foot above base flood elevation and presently is required by the ordinance. We did not receive these points in the 2009 cycle visit; we saved it for this time and we are good for 100 points. Two feet of freeboard is 225 points; 3 feet of freeboard is 375 points. One of the other activities is 420 - Open Space which is preservation of City property. We are in the process of having mapping done on the City’s open space. The new manual is pushing towards two things and the first is to elevate and the other is to preserve open space; there are almost 1,000 points. These are the activities that I recommend the City look into because these are maintenance free. This is not something you have to have a committee meet every quarter, take minutes, have a log sheet of who attended, and what your discussion was. These are built into the system like the 1-foot of freeboard is now. Once the Mayor and Council declare what is open space, we can get credit for some of the sand dunes and marsh areas. It has to be declared, in writing, and has to be voted on by the Council. At each certification we just prove that the property has not been built on and there are no changes. Mr. Callahan – You said there was a possible 1,000 points with open space? Mr. Brown – Up to 1,000; that doesn’t mean you are going to get it. Mr. Callahan – Do you get it by virtue of the number of acres? Mr. Brown – No, for example, we are getting some points for the open space at Memorial Park. You get it for the open area but you would not get it for the pavilion or for the roofed areas in the park. That figure is calculated and mapped. Mr. Callahan – You said it was by the acre. 3 Mr. Brown – It is by the parcel. When you do the dunes or the park you take out certain areas and then calculate it. Moving to the slide “Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium,” I don’t know how many of you made it when the FEMA representatives were here talking about Biggert-Waters. This is one of the slides that they showed interest in. On the furthest house on the left, [referring to PowerPoint] at 4 foot below base flood elevation, the premium is $9,500 per year. At base flood elevation the premium is $1,410 a year. At 3 feet above base flood elevation the premium is $427 per year. I had my insurance agent give me a couple of bids on the residence I just completed. We capped it at $250,000, which is the maximum you can get on a structure, and figured a $1,000 deductible. At base flood elevation, it would be $985. At 1-foot, the premium would be $505. At 2-foot, the premium would be $360. At 3-foot, the premium would be $317. This is an AE-11 with 15.4 finished floor. If we maintain a Class 7 and Biggert-Waters goes through, they are basically saying slab on grade houses are not grandfathered anymore and you don’t get that premium break you used to get. If the City can maintain or improve our Class 7 CRS rating, we can guarantee our citizens they will get the 15% discount. I said earlier that we were 100 points to the good on the freeboard but the manual changed and we don’t get as many points as we used to for the Community Outreach project. We lost 60 points on what they call a dam levee, which was a point system where they gave you 60 points if you didn’t have a dam or a levee. We made 100 here but lost 60 here. We picked up a few points on the Fourteenth Street drainage project. We conserve the open space and we feel that will give us enough points so all of Tybee can benefit and maintain our Class 7. I called the City of Griffin, Georgia, today because they have the best rating in the State as a Class 5. My question to them was do they restrict fill in their floodplain because I know that came up at the last meeting. This email was from Jeff Stanley, the Public Works Environment Engineer Analyst for the City of Griffin, and he does their CRS coordinating. He states, “We do restrict fill in our flood plain. We recently updated our floodplain management ordinance to ban all fill material in the FEMA 100-year floodplain. I asked the Planning people and we do have height restrictions that vary in different zone designations. I have not run into a situation where our 3-foot above base flood level elevation requirement has caused a conflict with any zoning type restrictions.” They are a Class 5 because they prevent fill and have a 3-foot freeboard. If it was adopted in April 2014, we would get 375 points because we require a 3-foot freeboard. Mr. Borkowski – We would end up being a Class 6 if you took the 375. Mr. Brown – If we get close to a Class 6, we will look at other alternatives and file a modification. I’m working to maintain our Class 7 because we are so close to the borderline that I want to do everything we can to make sure that we get a solid Class 7. Mr. McNaughton – The lower the number of the class the better the rating, correct? Mr. Brown – Yes. Mr. McNaughton – Do vacant lots count as open space or only public property? Mr. Brown – The City has to own the property unless the citizens of Tybee, and this would be a legal issue, deeded the property to the City. My understanding is that would work. Mr. McNaughton – What are you recommending for freeboard? Mr. Brown – I’m asking for 3 feet. If we get 2, I feel we’ve accomplished something. Mr. McNaughton – There is obviously some benefit if we prohibit fill. Mr. Brown – I didn’t get into the fill part until I read the minutes of the last meeting. I don’t know enough about not allowing fill that I don’t feel like I should make a comment about it. Over 90% of the houses are already building up to get the drive under the house and most houses are already incorporating that freeboard. 4 Mr. Marion – Dianne, do we have any statistical data on how many houses we have that would be impacted by this? Ms. Otto – I don’t carry forecasts on future development. If this is adopted, it would only apply to future new construction and future substantial remodels to structures that are not compliant. Mr. Marion – In regards to the open space, do we have any land trusts existing on Tybee that is not City owned? Ms. Otto – There are some conservation areas on private properties. Ms. Bramble – For a slab home built prior to 1979 like mine that would be impossible to raise to the freeboard level. If the City remains at a Class 7 and because we were grandfathered prior to Biggert-Waters, would we still be eligible for the 15% discount? Mr. Brown – Regardless of what Biggert-Waters does, as long as Tybee gets the Class 7, you will get the 15% on your primary residence. Mr. Marion – With this we should not see any undue hardships levied upon Tybee citizens if this is adopted. Is that a fair thought? Mr. Brown – You may see a hardship here or there because in every instance where you are going to build there may be a hardship. I can’t stand up here and say you are not going to see it. Sometimes you have actions that are going to be for the whole community. Ms. Otto – If you are talking about financial hardship to property owners, from the statistics I gave you last month, there were a couple of those that only met the 1-foot or the 2-foot. At the back of your packet I have provided a study that documents how much additional building cost is required to meet the 3 feet. I would see that as an additional cost or hardship for those that did not intend to build as high as the new requirement could be if this 3-foot was adopted. Mr. Brown – That is on page 46. Mr. Bishop – You mentioned compensatory storage as one of those areas that could provide additional points. Mr. Brown – I believe that was brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting. I didn’t say that. All I have talked about is 2 or 3-foot of freeboarding, open space, and the 2 other activities that I was recommending we do. Ms. Otto – That came from our discussion last month. In the table of available credits, page 34, compensatory storage offers additional points if you require it. Mr. Bishop – Are we currently receiving points for compensatory storage? Ms. Otto – No. We are not requiring it. Mr. Bishop – Would that be an area we could explore that would also give us additional points? Ms. Otto – It is intent to offset if you are going to provide an elevation on your property, you would need to provide compensatory storage area for the displaced water that can’t go where the building was. Mr. Bishop – That is an area we could explore for potential additional points. Ms. Otto – Yes. 5 Mr. Brown – I have not suggested that. Mr. Callahan – We don’t we just prohibit fill for even more points? Mr. Bishop – Exactly, but they go hand in glove. You mentioned deed restrictions. Does that go along with the land trust aspect? Ms. Otto – That is the open space. Mr. Bishop – How many current land trust deed restrictive items do we currently have where we get points for? Ms. Otto – We are currently not receiving any credits for open spaces. Mr. Bishop – I had a number of calls asking if we rise to a 3-foot freeboard, what impact would that have on a prospective builder and/or owner with regards to our 35-foot height requirement. Mr. Brown – I’m pushing the recommendation of freeboarding. I’m not stating that we should go any higher than 35 feet. My opinion is, most lots on Tybee, you can build nice homes and stay within the 35-foot. Ms. Otto – The 35 feet height limit is measured from the average grade of the pre-developed property. If this were adopted that they have to build 3-foot above base flood, that still doesn’t change the average ground level. What we see on most properties is they do elevate higher than the 3 or more to get the parking under the structure. For those that don’t want to park under and only want to meet that 1-foot because they don’t want stairs or they don’t want to deal with an elevated structure, it would cause some hardship. We do occasionally have projects that just want to meet the minimum elevation because they want the lower cottage look or just meet the 1-foot. If they are required to meet 3, it takes more stairs and more land because the stair runs are longer. For those folks it would be an impediment. Mr. Brown – Of course this would include the ductwork to go with that to get those points. Ms. Bramble – We have a large group on Tybee that wants a community pool. If the City of Tybee donated land for a community pool, that would not be very good for our points scale, would it? Mr. Brown – I can only say if you put it in an open space that you are trying to get points for, it would depend on how big it is, how much cement is involved, and other things. I’m not going there. Mr. Marion – Are there other questions for Mr. Brown? [There were none.] Dianne, does this require a vote? Ms. Otto – There is an ordinance before you with the option of maintaining the current 1-foot, increasing it to 2-foot or 3-foot. Council sent this to you for your consideration. If you have the information and are able to make a decision on that, a motion would be in order. Mr. Marion – Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion? Mr. Borkowski – This is affecting future construction so this doesn’t affect anybody other than somebody that wants to do a major improvement on their property. Without making a motion, it seems like we should take full advantage of the points to try to get to the next level and in my opinion we should try to go for the 3 feet. Ms. Bramble – Dianne, when you are considering substantial improvements to a home, is that when you’re given a dollar amount you can improve up to? Is substantial considered that top dollar amount or is substantial considered $25,000 or $30,000 worth of improvements? 6 Ms. Otto – The value of the structure is looked at. Let’s say we have a $50,000 structure value. Anything below 50% of that, which would be $25,000, would not be considered a substantial improvement. They could do those projects over a 5-year period. If what they wanted to do was a $75,000 project and it is a $50,000 building that would be a substantial improvement and they would need to bring the structure into compliance with currently the 1-foot freeboard as part of doing all the other work they want to do. Mr. Callahan – I move that we make the adjustment of the freeboard to 3 feet. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Marion – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Special Review & Site Plan Approval – Beachview Bed & Breakfast - 1701 Butler Ave. Rob Callahan and Demery Bishop recused Ms. Otto – Before you tonight is both Special Review and Site Plan Approval for the property at 1701 Butler Avenue, the Beachview Bed & Breakfast. The proposal for this property is the construction of a pavilion on an existing slab as well as Special Review and Site Plan Approval for special events within that facility. Also, pavers are proposed for the parking area. In your packets are renderings of the proposed structure. There are a couple of storage areas on two sides of this structure. The current parking plan is for 7 [Ms. Otto incorrectly stated there were 7 parking spaces. There were 10 spaces.] parking spaces on the property. Those meet the needs for this inn as they have 8 guest units and have 2 spaces provided for the owners. The addition of the pavilion triggers additional parking requirements. Based on the square footage and the calculation that the ordinance requires, 16 additional parking spaces are needed. The applicants have not proposed any additional on-site parking spaces. The ordinance does allow agreements for off-site parking. For example, if there was an adjacent or nearby property owner that was willing to accommodate them by letting them use their lot or parking area that would be an option. This particular ordinance, which is Section 4-050(E)(5)(b), allows for, ‘A parking plan’ as used herein, may include off-site parking arranged by the applicant or owner subject to the approval of the department of building safety and regulatory services; parking must accommodate one place for four persons as determined by occupancy. We have had that arrangement at other special events facilities. Mr. Marion – Do we require the other party to present some type of plan? Ms. Otto – They are required to provide a written agreement to the City. There are a couple of different parts to this request if you need to break it down. We’ve got the construction of the pavilion, which is a Site Plan Approval item, and we’ve got the consideration of the special events which is both Special Review and Site Plan Approval. Mr. Marion – Let’s start with the Site Plan. Ms. Otto – The proposed square footage of this pavilion is approximately 947 square feet. That is the open area and does not include the storage areas. The 947 square feet is how the parking requirement is calculated. The ordinance requires outdoor seating to provide parking. They have modeled the Fresh Air Home’s pavilion with the two additional storage areas on the south and west sides. For the parking calculation, you take the square footage divided by 15 and then divide by 4 to get down to the 16 required parking spaces. Buffering would be required for this type of project. Mr. Marion – The buffering would be on the adjacent side where the two buildings are in the back? Ms. Otto – We are going to have this ordinance before us later in the agenda. The current ordinance on required buffering is in your packet. It states when a commercial abuts a residential use, buffering or protective screening is required. For this property there are residential uses to the back, to the south side and across the street. The ordinance does specifically state that a street, sidewalk, or other improvement is not considered a buffer. What we have seen on prior site plans is vegetation or fencing at the entrance to block the view for the residents 7 across the street. This came up when the private laundry on Pine Street had proposed vegetation adjacent to each side of the driveway so the residential use in front would not have full view into the commercial use. Mr. Marion – In that area, is it zoned commercial? Ms. Otto – To the east, to the south, and to the west are all commercial [Ms. Otto incorrectly stated commercial. The adjacent uses are residential.] uses. The ordinance doesn’t speak to zoning, it speaks to uses. Mr. Borkowski – Another issue would possibly be the parking lot, the pavers or using crushed glass. Ms. Otto – The development of that parking lot, because it is a commercial lot, will require a drainage plan. T he materials are not restricted in a commercial lot like they are in a residential driveway. Mr. Marion – You stated the square footage of the storage was not factored, does that increase it more? Ms. Otto – I don’t consider that occupiable space. You start with the square footage and calculate down to the number of occupants. Since the storage areas won’t be occupied by people they didn’t fit into that category. Mr. Marion – Do we have an applicant that would like to speak to this? Karen Kelly came forward and introduced herself. I think there are some misconceptions . I purchased the Hunter House in 2011. I purchased it to operate the same kind of business that the Hunter House was operating, basically a restaurant and a bed & breakfast or an inn. My restaurant wasn’t going to serve the public on Tybee because I didn’t want to work 8 or 12 hours every day doing that. We do weddings, special events, and parties, and I’ve been doing that since 2012. We are very, very good and at 10:30 when I ride my bike, I quieten everything down. I’ve already planted an oak tree because years ago there was a house where this pavilion was and an oak tree in the middle of it. I want you to know that I am not opening a new business. If you look at all bed & breakfast sites, everybody does weddings. I’ve never told anybody that I was not going to do anything different but improve the property. I was told by the Cit y Manager that with my beer and wine license, this was reconfirmed after the second year, and with my entertainment license, I was covered because no new site plan was needed because I was opening the same type of business. We just hosted the Girl’s Night In for Tybee Island and raised $3,800 for the food pantry that feeds 110 for 6 months. I have been doing weddings and like a wedding smaller than 50 but I have done one for 75. The Fire Marshall told me that was a good number. I can seat 65 people on my porches. If you have ever visited my bed & breakfast, it is mostly rooms just as it was because I restored it historically. It doesn’t have a dining room; my guests eat on the porch. When I have a wedding, reception, or baby shower, the porches are utilized and sometimes the yard. We are not talking about doing anything different. I think I used the wrong terminology when I said extra seating. I just want to have a place that people can sit and enjoy. I could build a house and meet all the setbacks and make the whole thing be less green but I decided to build a pavilion to enhance the place. Sometimes I tell too much information because I talk too much so it’s always best for Frank to talk. I’m not opening a new business. If you look at my website since I opened in 2012, I have been a bed and breakfast that hosted weddings, parties, and special events. I was told I was licensed and legal. Ms. Otto wanted me to have a new site plan when I opened but I didn’t have to because I was re-opening the Hunter House under a different name. This pavilion will just add beauty to the property. As far as the pavers, that was just an idea to be green because you were so worried about pavers and the runoff. Frank thought, and we haven’t agreed on it, pavers with gravel or crushed glass, just because that is a cool idea for Tybee and would be green. I don’t want to compete with the chapel; it’s an amazing place that can host big, big events. My events are small and parking has never been an issue. We have parking lots within 1,000 feet of us, all around us. One time I had a party and they actually brought in a shuttle from Savannah and parked on the north end and shuttled over. We do have neighbors that may let us do some parking but I don’t want to say that without being sure. How do businesses open on the Strand with zero parking? I feel like we are being punished; it is commercial property all around us. Frank Kelly came forward and introduced himself. We use the term b&b but actually it is an inn because it is commercial property. We are rated as an inn or small hotel. We estimate we are probably either the 4th or 5th highest grossing hotel on the island. It’s a big business from that standpoint. When we do a wedding the whole inn is rented by the family for 2 nights; it is part of a package. For us to be told that we have to have parking for them and parking for people who may be in the gazebo area, they are the same folks. Curly, who is our neighbor 8 across the way and unfortunately he is on vacation, has allowed his yard to be used on special occasions by some of our other neighbors and we most likely could set up an agreement with him. We do have that but there is so much open parking on our street at 18th at Butler with over 42 parking spaces with a pay and display. The storage was dearly needed and also there will be space for 16 to 20 bicycles. Some of those are for our guests and for people who would bicycle over. We will probably end up removing 1 palm tree, possibly 2, as one is actually rubbing up against the inn ruining the new roof. Replacement of plants is no issue, in fact, I think a City Councilman in the past questioned that Karen was planting too many plants around the property. On the front she has fruit trees coming up and has historical palm trees. Those palm trees came from the old Tybee Road that is around that whole block and go back some 40 odd years. The Fire Marshal, when he gave the C.O., said it could hold up to 75. I don’t see that number going any greater because you lose the intimacy of an operation like that. On the parking lot, we are looking at innovative ways for the runoff. The crushed glass is a new way of doing things. When we started this at the end of October, it was at the 11th hour that this side of the application came up so we withdrew until we could figure out what the rules were and we are still trying to figure them out. Our goal is to meet those rules but also understand we are not bringing in an additional 63 people onto the property. It is just like any type of hotel, this is part of the services that you offer. It would be like saying you have a swimming pool and you can put 50 people around the pool. Do you need 12 parking spaces for those people around the pool? Mr. Marion – I like the plan. With the pavilion itself, it is simply a space outside where you have a roof over your head. In the way of landscaping, any ideas for buffers for the front of that? Ms. Kelly – Yes. If you are looking at the front I have already planted 2 pear trees and have 4-6 fruit trees around the property. I have already planted an oak tree in the back. In the corner is a rental and it is pretty trashy so I really need to do a buffer and it will be beautiful. Mr. Marion – Can you tell me about the structure and any lighting? Ms. Kelly – We have not completed this but everything will be ecofriendly. We will have Big Ass fans under it and most likely put some type of dim lighting in. I will put some spotlights on the corner that faces the b&b but I’m not sure about anywhere else. That is why we put the storage in the back just as a buffer for my neighbor. I already have a fence down one side and down half of the other. We will fence so no lighting will go in the back. There would be lighting on the side that faces the b&b and lighting under. Mr. Marion – Dianne, for this type of structure, what is the minimum light requirement that the City would expect to see? Ms. Otto – We don’t require electrical in accessory structures. If they choose to do so, any outlets would be elevated above design flood elevation. Ms. Kelly – I’ll most likely put some type of solar panel on the back. It is not in the drawings because I’m not sure we can afford it but we are looking into it. Hopefully the solar would run the electricity the pavilion needs. Mr. McNaughton – Dianne, the buffer requirement, what is the required fence height? Ms. Otto – Eight feet. Mr. McNaughton – The back fence is 6 feet. Mr. Kelly – The back fence along the house is 6 feet. At the present time there is no fence where this area is going in and we can raise that to meet the 8-foot fence which is around the other corner. The 6-foot fence, there is so much bamboo there we could always rebuild that but it may do more damage to the bamboo which is 12 feet. Mr. McNaughton – The requirement is 8 feet. Ms. Kelly – My neighbor put the 6-foot fence in 20 years ago but I’m good with changing it to 8-foot. 9 Mr. Marion – Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address this? Ron Garner came forward and introduced himself. I do want to say that sometimes at night I will ride by their bed and breakfast/hotel just to see how it looks because it looks great. It is so much better than the previous business that was there. I know Frank and Karen and I saw that drawing today and it is great. Just about everytime I have company at Tybee, one of the places that I take them is the pavilion at the Fresh Air Home. That is a fantastic structure. When I saw this plan today, I was blown away because it looked so good. As far as lighting is concerned, there is no better looking place at night than their hotel that they have now. I just wanted to give you those thoughts. Mr. Marion – Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak to this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion? Mr. McNaughton – I move that this be continued to give the applicant the opportunity to come back with a parking and buffering plan. Mr. Borkowski – Other than the buffering, parking, and the 8-foot fence, what else beyond the norm are we considering? Are the hours of operation standard for a commercial bed and breakfast? Ms. Otto – There is no standard; there are requirements for this Special Review and Site Plan of special events that the hours be discussed but there is no standard they have to meet. The noise ordinance is in effect at all times. Mr. Marion – Dianne, I would like to ask for clarification. We have a quorum and I do have the ability to vote and make a motion. I would like to incorporate what you suggested into a motion to approve the Site Plan contingent on the applicants providing notification from the individuals saying they are okay with the parking arrangement. I would also like to have the applicants work on providing a buffer proposal. Mr. McNaughton – I would rather see the plan rather than saying you have to make a plan. I think it is reasonable for us to have a parking and buffering plan in front of us and then there is no possibility of a misunderstanding. Ms. Bramble – I thought we were discussing the Site Plan for the pavilion. Ms. Otto – The Site Plan Approval for the construction of the pavilion triggered the parking. The special events also have a trigger for parking. Mr. Marion – With that said, that is the motion I want to make but I may retract it off the table for just a moment. Mr. McNaughton – I move that the application for approval of the pavilion be continued until next month to allow the applicant to provide a buffering plan and a parking plan. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Marion – I have a motion to continue with a second. All those in favor please signify. [Marion, McNaughton and Borkowski approved / Bramble was opposed] Ms. Otto – Your consideration for Special Review is code Section 4-050(E)(5)(b) that requires dwellings or structures to have Special Review and Site Plan Approval. Mr. McNaughton – In this case for the special events, are we in effect considering the same issues, the parking and the buffering? Ms. Otto – The parking is definitely a component of this. You are also looking at consideration of hours of operation. You can impose any restrictive requirements. You would be addressing the use of live entertainment or amplified sound equipment, lighting, signage, and buffering. 10 Mr. Borkowski – Aren’t they already doing this? Mr. Marion – There is some redundancy but let’s have staff walk us through it. Ms. Otto – Without having gone through the requirement here, the City Attorney did feel that this was necessary despite having an entertainment license. A number of businesses receive those for indoor entertainment. One of the examples I gave was if they had a piano inside and had a pianist, they would need an entertainment license to provide live entertainment within the building. That entertainment license does not grant special event approval. Yes, they have had an entertainment license since they opened but they have never had approval for special events. Mr. Borkowski – But they are having special events. Ms. Otto – That has come to our attention. Ms. Kelly – This might not be in order, but that is not true. Mr. Marion – Karen, bear with me for one minute as we haven’t opened this to the public yet. Dianne, would you continue. Ms. Otto – As Mr. Kelly stated, this did get pulled prior to your last meeting for this reason. There has been a lot of discussion over the ensuing weeks that their position was, because they were already having special events, they were ‘grandfathered in’ because the Hunter House had special events. After weighing their input and staff’s input, the City Attorney did determine that this venue does need approval under this ordinance for special events. Mr. Borkowski – It seems like the parking is a real ticklish situation from the way we did the other one on North Beach. Ms. Otto – This had been the Hunter House and it had been closed for a time. They did not go through Site Plan Approval as there was a commercial business going back into the building. The Hunter House had sleeping rooms in addition to the restaurant and Site Plan Approval was not required at that time. When the application came to build the slab, that was approved because it was considered a patio for the bed and breakfast. When this particular application came in to build the pavilion and have special events, that triggered a new use at the facility that this business did not previously have approval to be doing. Ms. Bramble – The special event request for the last bed and breakfast was in a residential area and this is in a commercial area. Ms. Otto – The ordinance I’ve been referring to is in Article 4 which is the zoning districts and it is specific to C-1. Mr. McNaughton – Since we are considering the other ordinance later, if the Special Review was continued because of the same issues, would they be subject to the new proposed ordinance if it were approved or to the existing ordinance? Ms. Otto – They are currently subject to the current ordinance. The other one you will be considering later, which is item 8 on the agenda, if you moved forward with it tonight it would go to Council in January but not have second reading until February. Ms. Bramble – If it comes up in January again, it would still be under the current ordinance, correct? Ms. Otto – Yes. The new ordinance, if it is approved, won’t be until February. Mr. Borkowski – Would you state again why the City Attorney made the issue. Ms. Otto – Why he took a position on this? 11 Mr. Borkowski – Yes. Ms. Otto – The Kellys were not in agreement on the application of this code to their situation. He received their input along with City Hall’s input, and wrote an opinion letter that this did in fact need to have Special Review and Site Plan Approval if they want to have special events despite the fact they had openly disclosed that they were already doing so. Mr. Borkowski – The license that they have, what are they allowed and not allowed to do? Ms. Otto – What they currently have is an entertainment license . A number of businesses have entertainment licenses. If you are providing live entertainment, usually it is bands or DJ’s, you are required to have an entertainment license. They have had that issued to them the last couple of years. Those are subject to City Council approval annually. An entertainment license does not allow this Special Review; this section requires Special Review approval. They could use their entertainment license they have now to entertain guests of the inn, a piano player or somebody sitting on the porch strumming a guitar, which is what the entertainment license covers. Mr. Borkowski – I understand what you are saying, but in all fairness to everybody, it seems like the restaurants have special events with entertainment licenses and they don’t have Special Review to have a special event, do they? Ms. Otto – No, and that was part of the City Attorney’s opinion letter, that he recognizes that maybe there needs to be a change. This particular ordinance was adopted specifically for dwellings or structures rented for special events. Another example, the Chapel is a good one where they don’t have a business like a restaurant where everybody goes and eats and there is entertainment. The special events are invited guests for an event unlike The Rockhouse that has bands on Friday night. That is part of their venue and what they do, they are a bar/restaurant with entertainment. This is an added component to the inn that they are operating and has not yet received approval to have special events where outside people are coming for a wedding, receptions, and things like that. Mr. Marion – With that statement, there are wedding services that do weddings on the beach and they may have a guitar, do we require these types of individuals to have the same type of license? Ms. Otto – Those types are required to get what is called a beach permit for that activity on the beach. Mr. Marion – They don’t have to come before anybody to say we are having a gathering of 50 people on the beach? Ms. Otto – No, there is a separate ordinance for beach permits. Mr. Borkowski – Any of the restaurants here locally having a wedding reception or get -together, which I know they do, they rent a part of that for an evening aren’t required to have a special event permit, correct? Ms. Otto – Correct. Let me read his letter. It is dated November 25th and the second paragraph reads, “My interpretation of the Code presently is that any C-1 property owner/occupier who wants to use the property and/or erect “buildings or structures . . . for the land uses” including “dwellings or structures rented for special events,” (that is defined as “a facility used or available for hire for festivities, parties, receptions, weddings, ceremonies and similar activities or occasions conducted on the property”) must first go through Special Review. It is very difficult to interpret the Code any other way.” Mr. Borkowski – The fact that they are having special events right now just seems like sort of a gray area. I like to be black and white as much as possible and without having to make exceptions for things all the time. It seems like this is a real gray area when you take all the other businesses, restaurants, and bars into effect for the same type of function. I don’t want to see anybody get hurt over a crappy ordinance. Ms. Otto – I rely heavily on the legal opinion of the City Attorney on this. Had he ruled the other way we wouldn’t be here tonight. We don’t have the benefit of his presence here unlike the Council will have when they 12 hear this. I can only communicate to you what his opinion was having heard all the Kelly’s input and the City’s position on it. Mr. Marion – Dianne, can you read that again? [Ms. Otto reread the paragraph.] Mr. Marion – Would the applicants like to speak to this? Mr. Kelly – I would like to say that you brought up a very good point about the rule as written. The City Attorney gave us 2 options. One, wait until the City rewrites the rule because the rule is wrong or pay the $500 on top of the other $500 and get this through. He even sees the Tybee bar church should be closed down based on this rule because it is in violation. We have copies of the first report that was given until they came up with this rule and I would like to hand this out to everyone if I may. Mr. Marion – Dianne, is that okay? Ms. Kelly – While he is handing that out, Bubba actually said that this rule is wrong but it will take about 6 months to get it changed and to pay the $500 and go through the Special Review. The thing I disagree with is I don’t do special events. A bed and breakfast, an inn, does weddings where they have guests and they get married, that is what we do. We have families that rent the whole place. I’m not doing special events; I’m doing my day-to-day operations. I was told when I bought it that because it was commercial, that I was okay. After one year of operation, I called and asked what is this entertainment permit and why did I have to pay for it. The City Manager looked at it and said that I needed the entertainment permit to continue having the parties and events. I have been operating for 2 years under what the City Manager told me was legal. It was the Hunter House Restaurant that changed the name to the Beachview because its name was Beachview Hotel years ago. My wedding receptions are not special events. That is my day-to-day business. I had over 50 brides this year. The clientele I bring in, they pay a lot of money for their rooms and they love Tybee Island. Ms. Otto – The Staff Report that was just distributed was the one that was written prior to your November agenda when this item was pulled because we did not have the special event approval to move forward with the construction of the pavilion. Mr. Kelly – Yes, she sent an email at 8:00 the day before everything was due for us to give answers back by 3 o’clock the next afternoon. We are a hotel/inn. Hotels and inns rent rooms and spaces; that is the definition of a hotel. We are adding a space that is sorely needed because it did not exist for people to go and enjoy themselves and at times use that for possible seating. To do the fence on the back side, we will take out the bamboo and enlarge the fence that is no big area. I understand the City doesn’t understand how we can put things on the front because our building was built in 1910 and one side of our building sits 3 inches off the City right-of-way. On the front side, almost where the fountain is, is the end of our property and the rest is City property. Karen has spent thousands and thousands of dollars putting in plants. We will increase putting in the plants there but it is not our property. There is an issue right of where do we put it. Do we put it right up against the front of the house? The bushes that are growing will grow taller but if we need to bring in larger plants we’ve got no issue with that. It is very clear on the plans where our property ends and where the City property begins. Our sidewalk on the front part of the building is the end of our property. We’re not going to change anything on the signage. We will work with whatever the City requests regarding hours. We are not worried about night time parties. If people want to do that they can go down to the bars on the street. We can definitely get parking worked out. If you’re going to have that type of buffer, than the people building new buildings on Tybrisa should have to have that same type of buffer in front of their buildings which you can’t do because logic won’t allow it. Ms. Bramble – I know you and Karen have always been advocates to try and find a solution for parking problems during the season on Tybee. Would you and Karen be willing to add a taxi plan to park the excess vehicles in the City lots as part of it? It is just an idea. Mr. Kelly – We also have 5 parking spaces at our house around the corner. If we have rented the inn for a wedding and it is 30 people and 24 are staying at the inn, how many spaces do we need? If we put in a pool with seating and wanted to have parties around that pool, would we have to meet the requirement of parking spaces for every pool chair because it is for the guests? I realize by putting in this special event it has now 13 triggered the parking issue. We will work with whatever needs to be done on the parking issue. I know where every secret parking space is on the south end. To get that or a trolley or even have people who are on the island picked up and not even worry about having their cars there. Mr. Borkowski – I know that there are a lot of establishments with liquor and entertainment licenses that have special events that don’t have a permit but are conducting them. I think, this is just my opinion, this is a gray area because you have Fannie’s and North Beach Grill that have get-togethers where they have a party of people that reserve it, and they don’t have to have any kind of special parking requirements. If this was a residential, I wouldn’t have any problems saying no. I just think that these people ought to be able to operate the way they are operating until that issue is clarified. Ms. Otto – There is more in this letter from the City Attorney that addresses exactly what you are asking. Would you like me to read it as well? Mr. Marion – Please do. Ms. Otto – This wasn’t in your packets; this was an opinion issued by the City Attorney. “The Kellys contend that any hotel or motel should be allowed to conduct special events, but the Code does not currently allow that practice. In his email of November 19, 2013, Mr. Kellly says that “we are in C-1 which allows all the uses we currently are asking for” but I would disagree with this in that the zoning classification itself does not provide for the uses they are asking for without special review. Even prior to 2010 before the Kellys owned the property, it was a restaurant with some rooms, which could be approved under site plan approval only. It is my opinion that these sections 4-050(E)(5)(b) and (F)(2)(b) have a purpose and that is to ensure that any of the uses by right, such as hotels cannot be utilized for “special events,” which could be a rather expansive use in comparison to a hotel or even a service station, as is a use by right in C-2. Subsection (b)’s language lists as factors things such as capacity, parking plan and noise. It would seem to me that the purpose is to ensure that noise and parking for these special events do not negatively impact the neighboring properties and/or overburden the City’s right of way. There clearly is a distinction between a B&B and a B&B that hosts events. There is also a distinction between a hotel and a hotel that hosts events, although some “events” are incidental to an ordinary hotel.” “The thought has been advanced that the Kellys may be subject to “grandfathe ring” of the special events use. But, the facts do not support a grandfathering under these circumstances. That being said, this opinion is based upon emails and correspondence presented to me and my opinion is subject to change with additional information and/or contrary information. In March of 2013 the Kellys got site plan approval for the installation of a concrete patio on the property. Now, the Kellys seek to install a cover above the patio with two attached storage spaces. As for grandfathering, the heart of the issue is that the property the Hunter House operated as a restaurant while the Kellys seek to use the property as a venue for weddings, birthday parties and small groups. While restaurants are clearly allowed within this zoning district, a venue for weddings, birthday parties and small groups is not explicitly laid out in the Code as a use by right after site plan review, rather it must go through special review. Further, the Kellys have announced intentions to construct the new area spe cifically for possible location for weddings. This appears to be an expansion of the use that would trigger the buffer requirements (3 - 160).” Mr. Marion – What is the date on that correspondence? Ms. Otto – November 25, 2013. Mr. Marion – It sounds like the City Attorney’s letter is saying that he is of the opinion that it should be opposed based on everything he has in front of him? Ms. Otto – It should be that this does require Special Review approval to have special events based on the information as provided by the Kellys and staff. He weighed the two and came to that opinion. Mr. Kelly – At the very first part of that letter, he states the rule is wrong. Mr. Marion – Frank, your business is a hotel primarily? 14 Mr. Kelly – Yes. Mr. Marion – Obviously you have space and people gather there but your primary business is a hotel. Mr. Kelly – And taking care of our guests, yes. Mr. Marion – You may have an art showing like an open house? Mr. Kelly – We may have a fundraiser for the Rising Tyde. Mr. Marion – These are things that hotels consistently do, like the Westin in town. W e have established primary reason for the business is to be a hotel. Mr. Kelly – That is correct. Mr. Borkowski – I want her to read the paragraph that he is referring to and have my own interpretation. Ms. Otto – He may be referring to the opening paragraph. “The issue raised by the Kellys is that the Code, specifically LDC 4-050(E)(5)(b) and 4-050(F)(5)(b), is too onerous and would require any of the hotels, motels or restaurants otherwise allowed under only site plan review to undergo special review if they want to host a special event. There are a couple of issues that the Kellys raise, one is that they should be “grandfathered in” since the Hunter House, the predecessor to the Kellys’ B&B, was allowed to be used in the way they seek. One issue with that is that it appears not to be the case. In fact, the Kellys point out that the use as a special events venue is inconsistent with the prior use of the Hunter House. Secondly, the Kellys ask that the Code be changed and I propose a few suggestions below on how we can allow places like hotels, motels and others to use their space for “special events” as a right without having to go through special review. An alternate approach may put the City and staff in a difficult position since the reality is that many of these places are hosting special events anyway and, without a change to the Code, we will simply be left with an ordinance that does not reflect enforcement.” Mr. Marion – Frank, thank you for your time. Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak to this? [There was none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Is there discussion or a motion? Mr. McNaughton – I am sympathetic to a degree on this issue particularly with a requirement for a buffer on the street. I wouldn’t want to put one there. I think that as long as it is code we have to follow code. The applicants are free to submit to City Council a proposed amendment to fix the problem they foresee. In the meantime, we have some issues that aren’t addressed and required by code. We’ve got the parking and buffer issues and should be continued until they come back with a plan to shuttle people, or whatever, but it doesn’t make any sense not to continue one and not continue the other because in effect they have the same issues. Mr. Borkowski – Maybe there could be a temporary permit until the issue is resolved . I don’t have a problem with what you suggested or your motion about parking in relation to construction of the pavilion. They should be required to do that but at the same time I think there is a real gray area in the application of the ability to have a special event in a commercial enterprise when right around the corner there are other commercial enterprises that have the same licenses that don’t have to have a Special Review for special events. Mr. Marion – Dianne, is there anyway we can approach it where the Kellys aren’t penalized in anyway until the continuance is met and they come back? Ms. Otto – With Council approval that would be doable. I don’t think Planning Commission has the authority to do that. Mr. Marion – We wouldn’t want to impede their operation in any way until there is absolute clarity. Ms. Otto – If you move this forward to the January 9th meeting, they could make that decision that night. Ms. Bramble – I move that we approve the special event application with a special request that they submit a parking/shuttling contract for each special event. 15 Mr. Borkowski – A parking plan? Ms. Bramble – A parking plan or shuttling plan. I make a motion to approve the special event application with the requirement that they submit, for each special event, a parking/shuttling plan for excess guest parking. Mr. McNaughton – What is excess? Ms. Bramble – Over and above what is required. Mr. Borkowski – The only other thing I would add is that they have to meet the buffering requirements within 60 days. Mr. Marion – Marianne, do you choose to amend your motion? Ms. Bramble – I will amend it to approve the special event application with requirements with each special event that they have a parking/shuttling plan for excess parking and within 60 days they have completed a buffering plan. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Marion – I have a motion and a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Variance – Ken Grainger - 3 Thirteenth Ln. Rob Callahan recused Ms. Otto – This is a Variance request for 3 Thirteenth Lane. The owner is Ken Grainger and he is the applicant. The request is a setback encroachment variance on 2 sides for the addition of a third story above the current residence. This was received after your packets went out [handout] and was at your chair tonight. This is a petition type document signed by three adjacent owners that was provided by the applicant. In your packet is the survey of the current structure and what is proposed is a third story addition. Because the ground level of the structure is non-conforming on the north and west sides, the third story would continue or expand that non- conformity by having structures above it. This is in an R-T zone. In the R-T zone, the required setbacks are 20 feet front, 20 feet rear, and 10 on the sides. The structure currently has setbacks that are 9.13 feet on the west side and 7.7 on the rear. The east side is conforming; it needs to be at 10 and is at 13.35. The front requirement of 20 is also exceeded. There is a little confusion that this survey provided doesn’t reflect a Variance that was granted in 2010 for additional work on the north and west sides. Mr. Marion – Do we have the information on the Variance from 2010? Ms. Otto – The minutes are in your packet from that approved Variance. Council approved it on September 9th of 2010. Planning Commission had a tie vote in August 2010. Mr. Bishop – The current north setback with the previous Variance is at 3 feet. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Bishop – The western setback with the previous Variance is 4 feet and 7-1/2 inches, is that correct? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – This application doesn’t actually seek to change that, is that correct? Ms. Otto – No, this would be vertical construction above that. Mr. Bishop – How is going up considered a Variance? 16 Ms. Otto – In Section 3-020, there was a change to this in 2011 that a non-conforming can be expanded and enlarged beyond its ground footprint without a Variance as long as no further encroachments into any setbacks are to be created. Because this is vertical construction, that is an expansion or extension of the non -conformity. Mr. Bishop – If I read this correctly it says, “May be expanded, enlarged beyond its ground footprint without a Variance as long as no further encroachments into any setbacks are to be created so long as all other provisions of the ordinance are complied with.” Since that has already been approved as a Variance, how does this constitute another Variance or an additional encroachment? Ms. Otto – What that ordinance means is, if Mr. Grainger chose to extend forward because he has 24 feet on the front, he could come out 4 feet and not need a Variance because he is not creating additional encroachments. Because the areas where he is planning to construct are already non-conforming, portions of them, he is further expanding the encroachments by adding another level, vertical construction, above that. Now, the second floor living space and the ground floor space, those are already encroaching into setbacks. By creating a third level, he is expanding that. Mr. Bishop – That it is going vertical and not into any of the other setbacks. Ms. Otto – Correct. We have had this with other situations. If the alternative had been to expand into an area that is not going to be in setback violation, no Variance is required. The expansion of the non-conforming area with another level is subject to a Variance. Mr. Bishop – He is going up into a non-conforming varied setback. Ms. Otto – He is expanding this non-conforming. Mr. Bishop – Even though it is not going out any further and he is not adding to or seeking additional footage into the previously agreed upon Variance, but going up is considered an encroachment. Ms. Otto – He is expanding his encroachment. Mr. Bishop – You indicated in our report you had discussed with the applicant various options for a third story addition that would not require approval of a Variance. Where did that lead? Ms. Otto – It led to not meeting Mr. Grainger’s goals with this expansion. If he would have chosen to not begin the third story until he was 20 feet off of the rear property line, he could have come out to a 10-foot setback on the side. He could have come forward 4 feet up in here [referring to PowerPoint] and any of that would not impede the required setbacks and would not have required a Variance. He could have stayed in the footprint but could have extended the footprint over to 10 feet on this side, 20 feet here, stay 10 feet off that side, and stay 20 feet off the back – none of that would have required a Variance. Mr. Marion – Do we have the petitioner here this evening? Jeff Cramer came forward and introduced himself. I am an architect here on Tybee and Mr. Grainger and his family hired me to do an addition to their house. I just wanted to explain the architectural compo nents of it and the zoning. The lot is zoned R-T which occurs very seldom in the City of Tybee; there are a few little pockets of it. This property is surrounded by R-2 and C-1 zoning. The difference between R-T and C-1, if we were building in a C-1 zone, you go to the R-2 setbacks which are almost what this house was designed for. There are 3 houses that are zoned R-T on that street. Behind it is R-2 and in front of it is C-1. There is another little strip of R-T/S-E in front of it but both of them are like 80 feet deep. The two other houses and this house don’t meet any of the setback requirements in the R-T zoning. I didn’t measure every one of them but I can see they are lined up in the back. This lot is a substandard lot in an R-2 district. A single-family lot in an R-2 district is 7,000 square feet; this lot is 4,800 square feet. This house was designed for R-2 and somebody at some point made it R-T. When I looked at it originally, I thought the house was fine because it has good setbacks. I noticed it had a 2-foot overhang and I added that so it knocked one of the setbacks out for R-T. I was trying to make sure everything was correct before we did anything. You need that 24-foot front to get in and out of the lane; that is part of the access to the oceanfront lot in front of this house. The obvious solution for an addition was go up. 17 Mr. Marion – Is this their permanent residence? Mr. Cramer – Yes, it is. Mr. Marion – Dianne, is it indeed a substandard lot? Ms. Otto – It is a substandard lot size for the R-T zone. Ken Grainger came forward and introduced himself. I purchased this property in 2009 for a vacation home. We liked it so much we moved in year round and this is our permanent residence. We’re asking for a Variance so we can have room for our family. We have 13 people in our immediate family. My rear neighbor is Annette Andre and there is a road between our properties. She is not even close to my rear property line. My house is smaller than my neighbors even if the addition is approved. I’ve gone over this with all my neighbors and they have no problems with what I’m trying to do. Mr. Marion – How much living square footage do you have in your house currently? Mr. Grainger – 1,600 square feet. Mr. Marion – This home is for you and your spouse. Mr. Grainger – That is correct. Mr. Marion – No other extended family members. When they are coming to visit, you are just looking for extra space to accommodate them. Mr. Grainger – That is true. I have two grandchildren but they live with me about half the time. Mr. Bishop – The various options that were discussed with staff on being able to add the addition without a Variance, would you elaborate on why that was not acceptable? Mr. Cramer – The 20-foot setback just doesn’t work on the house. You would have to demolish the existing house. If you want to add inside the front you have to put foundation in there. What works so nice now is you have that 2-foot overhang around the perimeter of the house that I can add columns and foundation to and not exceed the existing footprint. It can be added to the top without having to tear the existing house to pieces trying to put foundation in the middle to hold it up. When you do a remodel you try not to destroy what was there. If you go back 10 feet and drill holes for the foundation it gets ugly real quick. Ms. Bramble – Where are the mechanical units going to be placed? Mr. Grainger – The outside units? Mr. Bramble – Yes. Mr. Grainger – Where the stairs goes up and to the left. Ms. Bramble – Are those going to be raised off of ground level? Ms. Otto – This house is not FEMA compliant. There is habitable space on the ground. This is not to be a substantial remodel; it will not be required to be brought into FEMA compliance. Mr. Marion – Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak ? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Is there discussion or a motion? Mr. Borkowski – I agree with Demery’s original interpretation of that 3-020(B)(1) as far as reading to be able to go up. I think he should be able to go up. Aside from that, we made a Variance on the home over on North 18 Beach where they built up above that and from what I understand earlier in the summer a similar thing was done for Wistar Lewis down south where it was built vertically. Based on that precedence, I feel like we ought to be able to do this. Mr. Bishop – I think historically the Variance that came before this Commission and Council previously approved still stands. I recognize that it is a vertical improvement that would be very costly to change. With the setback already having been approved, I think this does not in any way cause a negative impact on that neighborhood or change the setbacks that are currently approved but would be a benefit to the homeowner. Mr. McNaughton – I move to approve the Variance application. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Marion – I have a motion to approve with a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Special Review – Leuveda & Ron Garner - 1518 Fifth Ave. Rob Callahan recused Ms. Otto – This request is for Special Review in the R-2 zone for a residential bed and breakfast at 1518 Fifth Avenue. The applicants are here this evening. In your packet is the history of the prior approval for a cottage to be constructed. It was originally a shed and became a habitable space. They did pull a permit and ultimately received a Certificate of Occupancy for the cottage. The owners, within the past few months, applied for a business license as a vacation rental which was denied ba sed on the minutes and approval of the cottage that it could only be for family use. With the recent action that was taken for the uses permitted in the R -2 zone, they are now coming forward to request a bed and breakfast for that cottage which would be an allowed use in the R- 2 zone. The issue focuses primarily on the status of that cottage as granted previously and whether the cottage can be used as a rental income rather than for family use. Mr. Marion – Prior to this new development, had it been used as a revenue generating structure? Ms. Otto – Before the Garners came forward, it had been identified as a vacation rental. The records show that it was built as a storage shed. It had been converted without permits to habitable space and was being rented. Mr. Marion – Is the applicant here? Ron Garner came forward and introduced himself. My wife, Luveda, and I live at 1518 Fifth Avenue. We have been here about 17 years. When we received the approval to have the cottage remodeled and brought up to code and FEMA standards, we were elated and very glad to get that space back. We were pretty much content to go that route. That was a route we did not agree with what had happened to us. Our opinions of the code did not match the City Attorney’s opinions of the code. My wife knows the code as well as anybody on Tybee. She has been vindicated a little bit since there was a lot of confusion. We had originally asked for a caretaker’s cottage and there were a couple of reasons for that. The code doesn’t say anything about renting a caretaker’s cottage. We thought we could sneak in that way and be legal because the code does not say that you cannot rent a caretaker’s cottage. The code does say you cannot rent a guest cottage. We thought that would be okay to rent and the second thing was my wife said I’m not so sure we can have a guest cottage in an R-2. You can read that prior to the Text Amendment that was just done and you can get two different opinions on that. We were at a small social event on the north end of the island in January of this year. A friend of ours mentioned that she had seen something on the Planning Commission about someone who had a similar situation to ours was applying for a bed and breakfast for her cottage. We came to that City Council meeting in February and they approved that. We didn’t jump in right away with any request because we were basically happy to be where we were at that time. After a few months, we decided to go that route and approached a City Council person to get advice. He told us he had spoken with the City Attorney and City Manager and said that everything looked good. We submitted an application in September to apply for a bed and breakfast . We turned our money in and then it was discovered, or an opinion was made, that you can’t have a bed and breakfast in an R-2. We were offered the opportunity to go forward and spend another $500 to get a Text Amendment to go along with the $500 for a Special Review. We declined to do that and pulled it back. I made a call to that same City Council person and some meetings were held and the City decided to go forward. The reason we went forward for a business license 19 was we knew of several situations very similar or identical to ours that were being rented with just a business license. There were four within four blocks of us. We were refused because of what staff just mentioned, that this cottage cannot be rented, it is only for family use. We got a call from the City Manager telling us that the work was going forward on the Text Amendment and she gave us the dates. She said to come in and turn your request in for a bed and breakfast and that is why we are here. Mr. Marion – Dianne, in reading of the findings, the space becomes an issue, correct? Ms. Otto – The cottage? Mr. Marion – Yes. Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Marion – Are there alternatives that were discussed with the applicant? Ms. Otto – This is not a Variance, this is Special Review. The facts are before you if you choose to grant the privilege for this to be a bed and breakfast, which is your prerogative. I did provide the minutes of the meeting where the City Attorney at that time stated, this is on page 3, “neither a guest cottage nor a caretaker’s cottage can be rented out to other people.” That is why this consideration is before you. For the business license, it could not be approved that way but they are here under Special Review . If the action is contrary to the understanding that was made back when the shed was agreed to be allowed as a guest unit for the family use only, that is your prerogative. Mr. McNaughton – I understand the agreement that was made. Do you know if that was because you could not put a bed and breakfast in an R-2 at that point? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. McNaughton – Is it an entirely separate issue? Ms. Otto – You cannot have a second habitable structure on a lot unless it is a cottage for family use only. Mr. Marion – In that four block area that the petitioner mentioned, do we have any bed and breakfasts that are licensed? Ms. Otto – Within that vicinity, yes, but they are within the primary structure, they are not a separate structure. Mr. Garner – There is one that is not. She may not know about that but I understand that has been operating about 8 years. I don’t know how that even got there since they were not allowed in R-2. Mr. Marion – Are there any of record that we know are existing? Ms. Otto – I believe he was referring earlier to one on the north end. She had purchased the property and there was a unit above the garage that she asked for bed and breakfast status for, more related to her utility account than anything. She had purchased this property and it never went through the cottage status approval. It was built as an office and when she bought it, it had already been converted to living space. Ms. Bramble – Where are you going to park the guests? Mr. Garner – It’s on the survey. Ms. Otto – There are two spaces here for the cottage and two for the primary structure. Ms. Bramble – Where are you going to serve the breakfasts? Mr. Garner – We’re just going to leave some pastries or something like that in the cottage for our guests. 20 Mr. Bishop – Dianne, does this piece of property, as it currently sits, meet the letter and intent in 4-050(C)(2) after the second reading which was bed and breakfast allowed in R-2? Ms. Otto – As it currently exists, no, because it has not been approved to be such. Mr. Bishop – If we approve that it be recommended, would it meet all of the requirements? Ms. Otto – Yes. Their narrative addresses the various points within that code as far as providing meals, parking requirements, and buffering. Mr. Bishop – That is their narrative. Ms. Otto – Yes. The problem is that based on the granting of that space it was never to be used for rental purposes. It was for family use only. That the unit exists, that there is a separate habita ble space on their property, this guest cottage was with the understanding that it was for family use only and could never be rented. Mr. Bishop – The decision for family use only and not to be rented was prior to the allowance of a bed and breakfast facility in an R-2. Ms. Otto – It was but it doesn’t change that it couldn’t have existed. You could not apply to build a separate unit on your property and call it a bed and breakfast. Mr. Borkowski – Was it built after the other structure ? Ms. Otto – This structure was built as a guest cottage or caretaker cottage and cannot be rented. The only change was that now there is an ordinance that allows bed and breakfasts in R -2 but that is not related to the fact that this structure only exists because it was allowed to be a guest cottage. No one else can build in their back yard a habitable space without getting guest cottage or caretaker cottage approval. Y ou have to go through the Special Review process to have that in your back or side yard. It is not a use allowed by right. Ms. Bramble – Originally this came up in 2010 when they had advertised it online for rental , is that correct? Ms. Otto – Yes, it came to the City’s attention that there was a vacation rental being advertised that did not have a City business license. That led to the discovery that the building was built as a shed and had been converted to habitable space without permitting. When they came to get approval for that building to exist and to be habitable space, they were approved to have that for a guest cottage for family use only. Guest cottage or caretaker’s cottage, I use those interchangeably because the City Attorney’s opinion is neither one can be rented; they are for family use only. Ms. Bramble – You haven’t rented it at all? Mr. Garner – No. Mr. Marion – What I’m hearing is there is no way to utilize this structure in the fashion they wish based on the current ordinances that we have, correct? Ms. Otto – Not as it was approved in 2010; for family use only. Mr. Marion – Do we have anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion? Ms. Bramble – I move to approve. Mr. McNaughton – Second. 21 Mr. Marion – I have a motion to approve with a second. All those in favor please signify. [Bramble, McNaughton, Marion, and Bishop voted to approve / Borkowski was opposed]. Variance – Mack Kitchens - Lot 10 Robinson Ave. Rob Callahan recused Ms. Otto – This request is in an R-1 zone and is a vacant lot on Robinson Avenue. They had been granted a Variance that expired on December 13th. The applicant is here to renew the same request. The lot is in R-1 with the required setbacks of 20 feet front and back, and 10 feet on the sides. Within that property there is an old building foundation and the request is to maintain that foundation as the setbacks for future construction of a single-family home. The setbacks that exist are approxima tely 18 feet on the front rather than the 20 that is required, 9.5 feet on the rear which is the north side rather than the 20 feet required, on the east is 11.7 which exceeds the 10 feet required and the west side setback is 5.3 feet rather than the 10 feet required. This property is bounded by two unopened areas one being on the east side and the other on the west side. To the north there is an adjacent property. To the south is Robinson Avenue which is opened. Mr. Marion – This is a substandard lot of record. Ms. Otto – Yes. The minimum lot size in the R-1 zone is 12,000 square feet. This property is 3,445 square feet. Mr. Bishop – Subsequent to this Commission reviewing this in November of 2012, have there been any substantial changes? Ms. Otto – No, this is an identical request. It is simply economics. They have delayed progress on development and because the Variance has expired the applicant would like it renewed for another year. Mr. Bishop – A timing issue. Ms. Otto – Twelve months longevity on a Variance. Mr. Marion – Is there someone that would like to speak to this? Mack Kitchens came forward and introduced himself. I live at 146 South Campbell Avenue. This is my partner, Billy Bremer. Billy Bremer came forward and introduced himself. I live at 844 Wilmington Island Road. Mr. Marion – I remember when you came before, so it is simply coming down to a timing issue, correct? Mr. Kitchens – Everything remains the same. The slab is historical and it dates back to the forties. The request is the same, just to use the slab and the footprint that is already there. Mr. Marion – Are there any questions for the applicants? [There were none.] Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Marion – I have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Text Amendment – Section 9-050 – Technical Codes Adopted Ms. Otto – At your chair this evening is a corrected ordinance. The one in your packet did not include the approved swimming pool code. It is a list of the various 13 codes that the City has adopted. What is not currently in this ordinance is many of those codes have what are called Georgia Amendments. The Department of Community Affairs 22 comes out for each of these different code books with Georgia specific requirements. For the most part they are just for clarity, more specific to the building in Georgia than the International Code that is adopted nationwide. Just to clarify that we do in fact, and for many years, follow the Georgia Amendments to these many code books. It is requested that you consider for approval that one line entry, “The following codes as currently amended by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs are adopted.” This is to clarify that if there is a Georgia Amendment that supersedes what is in these code books the Georgia Amendment prevails. Ms. Bramble – Motion to approve. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Marion – We have a motion to approve with a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Do I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Callahan – I make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Borkowski – Second. Mr. Marion – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Meeting ended at 10:22 PM Minutes by Jerris Bryant