HomeMy Public PortalAbout20071218_PC_mtg_min
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher
Demery Bishop
Charlie Brewer PLANNING, ZONING & ECONOMIC
Barry Brown, Chairperson DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Sandy Chandler Brannyn G. Allen
Bill Garbett
John Major
David Postle CITY ATTORNEY
Chuck Powell, Vice Chairperson Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
December 18, 2007 – 7:00 p.m.
Vice Chair Chuck Powell called the December 18, 2007, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were: Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, John Major, and David
Postle. Chair Barry Brown and Charlie Brewer did not participate at this Planning Commission meeting because
they would begin serving as City Council members in January of 2008.
Vice Chair Chuck Powell asked for a motion on the Minutes of the November 12, 2007, Planning Commission
agenda meeting. Bill Garbett moved to approve and Sandy Chandler seconded. The vote was unanimous. Powell
then called for a motion on the November 20, 2007, Planning Commission regular meeting Minutes. Demery
Bishop motioned to approve. John Major seconded. The vote was unanimous.
Jay Maupin of Maupin Engineering presented a Site Plan Approval petition for Sheldon Solomon at 802 First
Street, PINs 4-0019-02-010 and 4-0019-02-036, Zone C-2. The request was for a commercial addition for First
National Bank to an existing commercial building. Vice Chair Chuck Powell opened the Public Hearing. Maupin
explained the location and concept of the plan. John Major asked about the drainage plan. Brannyn Allen said
that Staff and the City’s engineer were satisfied. Bill Garbett asked when it was submitted. Maupin said it was
submitted the day after the agenda meeting. Garbett asked Downer Davis to comment. Davis said that Maupi n
had a few construction details to elaborate on but the site design would not change as a result of any
clarifications that Maupin made. After discussion, Garbett said he was inclined to approve with the stipulation that
the final drainage plan be approved by the end of the month. Garbett asked if the parking was adequate and if it
was based on the entire structure. Allen said yes to both questions. Powell asked if anyone from the audience
liked to speak for or against the project. Powell closed the Hearing and called for a motion. Garbett moved to
approve contingent on an approved drainage plan by the end of the month. Libby Bacon seconded. The vote was
unanimous. The motion to approve contingent on the applicant having an approved drainage plan by
the end of the month passed. Powell told Maupin it would be before City Council on January 10th.
Paul Theron presented a Site Plan Approval petition for Ronen Navon at 211 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-08-
004, Zone C-1. The request was for a two-sided billboard on a vacant lot. Vice Chair Chuck Powell opened the
Public Hearing. Theron referred the Commissioners to a letter from an electrician regarding the lighting of the
billboard. Bill Garbett asked if an engineer needed to say that the sign would withstand the wi nd pressures.
Theron said that the engineered drawings submitted for the permit would show that. Garbett said he thought the
Planning Commission needed that information before approving. Theron said a permit would not be issued
without plans certified by an engineer. Brannyn Allen said that this was Site Plan for the location, and a permit
would not be issued until the City had stamped plans from a licensed architect or engineer. Demery Bishop asked
how far the sign would be from Third Street. Theron said it would be 135 feet from the vee of the sign to Third
Street. The location of the billboard was discussed. Sandy Chandler asked how the lights would be shielded.
Theron said that the electrician explained that the lights would have adjustable covers to foc us the beams and
that they would be about 15 feet off of the ground, and that only the light on the signs would be seen. Garbett
said that the electrician gave his opinion but when the lights hit the signs they would be reflected up into the sky.
He discussed alternatives for the lighting. He said he was not satisfied that they have investigated the lighting
and the engineering. David Postle asked if it would come back with the documentation. Allen said no, it would not
2
come back before the Commission. Postle said that they continue to tag amendments onto motions. He asked
why they could not wait until all the documentation they needed was in. Libby Bacon confirmed with Theron that
the three existing signs on the lot would be removed. Bacon then spoke about the lighting. Powell asked if
anyone from the public wished to speak for or against the project. Mary Ann Bramble, 215 Lovell Avenue, said
that she had serious issues with how the lot had been built up in the last 25 years. She discussed concerns about
drainage in the area and she said that until the drainage issues had been addressed we can not let a billboard set
up on a filled lot that she had issues with. She said that there was a chain link fence around the property. She
said that the billboard was going to be higher than the fence and she commented about how gorgeous that was
going to look. Referring to the drawing, Bramble asked about the property line on Third Street. Powell said that
the proposed billboard would be located in the center of the lot, not close to Third Street, and that the drawing
was not to scale. Bramble and Powell discussed the location of the billboard. Bramble told the Commissioners that
they could not vote until how the lot had been filled had been addressed. She said that if the y voted on this Site
Plan they were opening the door to anything else that might come up on this lot, which had serious issues.
Powell asked if the Site Plan required a drainage plan. Allen said that technically all Site Plans do, and that was
one of many, many glitches in our Code. She said that she did not think they needed a fully engineered drainage
plan to look at a billboard. After conferring with John Major, Powell said that Major pointed out that according to
the Code they needed a drainage plan in order to approve a Site Plan, even if it was just for a billboard. Powell
asked Downer Davis if he thought that was correct. Davis said he had never known of, drawn, designed,
reviewed, or heard of a Site Plan that involved drainage for a sign. He said tha t if there were not a land
disturbing activity proposed, a drainage plan would not normally be required. After Bramble said that they could
not vote because they were going against the Ordinance. Powell closed the Hearing. Demery Bishop read an
editor’s note from Article 6, Sign Regulations, “No sign shall be constructed, altered or maintained within the
corporate limits of the city except in conformance with the requirements of this article.” Bishop said that he was
not sure if from a legal perspective that would negate the necessity of a drainage plan as part of a Site Plan
Approval or not. He said that was another glitch to overall Site Plans and drainage plans and the other
requirements of the Code. He said it might exempt drainage plans from being submi tted for the purpose of
“constructing, altering, or maintaining a sign” as long as it was in conformance with Article 6 of the Land
Development Code. Garbett said that Article 6 did not say to exclude all the rest of the Land Development Code.
Bishop said that he respectfully disagreed. After further discussion of the Code, Garbett said they have made a
point in the past of requiring a scaled drawing for every project submitted. He referred to the drawing from the
agenda meeting and the one submitted for this meeting, and he said they did not have the engineering data, and
he was not satisfied with the response to the methods of lighting. He recommended continuing the petition.
Powell saud that if the sign was allowed to be erected on the site, no other sign s would be allowed; no signs
advertising parking could be put up. Bacon said she had issues with the lighting. She said that Allen was telling
them that it was Staff’s responsibility to look at the engineering of the sign. Allen said that the Code says tha t
signs shall be compliant with the International Building Code when it comes to wind pressure and that was looked
at any time a building permit was issued. Bacon referred to building plans for a house not coming to the Planning
Commission; Staff checked that. She said that she had concerns about requiring a drainage plan for a billboard
and drainage plans are expensive. Bacon said that she did not like billboards but it was asking for too much to
require that someone pay an engineer to come up with a drainage plan for three posts. Major spoke to Allen
about the Site Plan Ordinance. He said that he agreed that a drainage plan for a billboard was not reasonable.
Allen said that the Land Development Code also does not make provisions for temporary structures o r conceptual
plan review. She said she hopes that in the very near future they would be working from a very different
document. Garbett and Bacon discussed the drainage plan requirement. Allen reminded the Commissioners that
they did not require a drainage plan for a temporary structure, which has a substantially greater impact on a site
than a billboard. Chandler said it does not need a drainage plan nor an engineering plan. He said his main
concern was the lighting. He said that Bramble’s concern did not have a thing to do with the issue at hand. Bacon
recommended to Theron that if the petition was tabled that he come back with a diagram of the lighting. Powell
called for a motion. Garbett moved to continue. Postle seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to
continue passed. Powell told Theron that it would go to City Council on January 10th if he would like.
Vice Chair Chuck Powell said that the next item on the agenda was not a Public Hearing. He said it was a
Coastal Protection Ordinance Subcommittee subgroup report. Below is the text Libby Bacon used for the
PowerPoint presentation.
3
Our subcommittee group consisted of David Postle, John Major, Christian Arden -Joly and myself. Our
assignment was, and I quote: To study Tybee’s and Georgia’s existing codes (how it is written, who it
affects, how many lots it affects, how the line affects them, etc.)
Slide
1
We were given this assignment on February 23rd of this year and were asked to respond to the Planning
Commission in time for a recommendation to be made to Council by March 8th. Council had
recommended that we modify our shoreline protection ordinance to requiring a setback of 25 feet from
the landward toe of a dune and that we include certain species of plants recommended by Councilman
Pearce.
Slide
2
In order to understand all that is involved in this issue we met six times, including once with Tybee’s
mayor, twice with members of City Council, twice with representatives from Georgia’s Department of
Natural Resources and once with Dr. Clark Alexander. We met and walked the beach three times and
looked at every lot that borders the beach.
Slide
3
We reviewed the Georgia Shore Protection Act and the Tybee Island Ordinance as well as the history of
how we got where we are. We attempted to see wher e our current shore protection line works and where
it appears flawed. We did internet research to try and understand what other coastal states do to protect
their resources.
Slide
4
We attempted to understand the science behind the State law and the science behind any changes we
might make, assuming that substituting one scientifically flawed ordinance with another won’t accomplish
anything.
Slide
5
Tybee’s current ordinance begins with the State of Georgia Shore Protection Act, which was made into
law in 1979. The Act states unequivocally that our coastal sand dunes, beaches, sandbars and shoals
make up a vital natural resource system which act as a buffer to protect property and natural resources
from damaging floods, winds, tides, and erosion.
Slide
6
Our sand dunes, according to the act, are the most inland part of this sand sharing system and are easily
disturbed by actions that harm their vegetation or inhibit their natural development. It calls our beaches
an unparalleled natural recreation resour ce that is important not just to the coastal area but to the
economy of the entire state.
Slide
7
Because this natural resource system would be costly or impossible to rebuild once it is affected by
people, the act says that it must be conserved for all o ur citizens and visitors, not just for today but for the
future as well. In order to provide the protection needed for our sand sharing system, the state has
adopted a policy to allow only those activities and alterations of our dunes and beaches that are
considered to be in the best interest of the state and don’t impair the sand sharing system.
Slide
8
It is also the state’s policy to authorize local governments to regulate these activities, but says that if the
local governments fail to do so, the state will do it for them,
Slide
9
The state defines its area of jurisdiction – that is the area where they require a permit before any building
activity can occur – as the dynamic dune fields on the barrier islands of the state. The dynamic dune field
is defined as that area of beach and sand dunes, varying in height and width, with an ocean boundary
that extends to the ordinary high-water mark and a landward boundary where we find the first live 20 foot
tall native tree or a structure that was there on July 1, 1979. The landward boundary is the line that
connects this tree or structure to any other such tree or structure, as long as the distance between them
is less than 250 feet.
Slide
10
A structure is defined in the State Shore Protection Act as an instit utional, residential, commercial or
industrial building,
Slide
11
All the steps required to get a permit to build within the area of operation are spelled out in the Act. These
include, just to make application, the applicant’s name and address, a descrip tion of the project, the
construction documents including methods proposed, the identification of any dynamic dunes affected, a
deed or other proof or ownership, a plat showing the boundaries of the project, the names and addresses
of all adjoining property owners, an application fee of up to $1000, site plans that show streets, utilities,
buildings and any other relevant structures, any other relevant data to assure that the application meets
all the requirements, a statement that the proposed site is suitable for the proposed project and last but
perhaps most importantly, a certificate or letter from the local government authorizing the project.
Slide
12
The applicant has to make sure that at least one third of the property he wishes to build on is retain ed in
naturally vegetated and topographical condition. The structure he wants to build has to meet hurricane
standards. Construction activities must be kept to a minimum and the topography, when he’s done, must
be restored to at least what it was before he started.
Slide
13
The act allows local governments to be certified as the permit-issuing authority as long as the local
ordinances meet or exceed the requirements of the DNR. If the local government is not certified, the state
will be the issuing authority. If the local government attains certification, the state will periodically review
its compliance and may revoke the authority if requirements are not being met.
Slide
14
4
The Act provides for state grants to local governments for construction and mai ntenance of boardwalks,
dune stabilization programs, beach restoration and beach renourishment, to purchase rights of way to
beaches and to assist in the removal of shoreline engineering activities. We thought there might be some
opportunities for us in this section of the act.
Slide
15
DNR also will provide resources to assist a local government in drafting our own shore protection
ordinance. Keep this part in mind as we continue. Let’s consider what we have here on Tybee at present,
and how it might be improved.
Slide
16
We’ve heard quite a few folks state that “we should adopt the state’s shore protection act”. Actually, that’s
not an option. We’ve got the state’s shore protection act whether we want it or not. The question is
whether we feel we need to go any further than just having an area of operation that requires a permit to
build in.
Slide
17
We all know the history of our ordinance. We started out with just having the state line. Then we decided
we needed something more so we adopted a setback line and said we’d run it from structure to structure
along the beach instead of tree to tree like the state. The problem was, we didn’t use the state’s definition
of a structure, we used one from our own code which defines a structure as pretty much anyth ing set in
concrete. So after a builder used a gazebo as a structure we decided we’d better tighten that up so we
modified it to say dwelling instead of structure.
Slide
18
So if you stand on the beach on an empty lot, how much you can build on that lot, or whether you can
build on it all is determined by what your neighbors decided to do. If the two lots on either side of you are
vacant as well, but the lots behind those are built on, you have to draw the line between those two
dwellings, so your lot becomes green space.
Slide
19
In areas where the houses run in a nice straight line, sufficiently back from active dunes with a few empty
lots along the way, this works pretty well. Where there are empty lots or where the houses are set back
considerably, the line drawn under our ordinance becomes a problem. And there are definite cases
where a lot that would otherwise be reasonable to build on becomes unbuildable because of where the
neighbors built or didn’t build.
Slide
20
A frequent complaint raised against our current ordinance is that there is no science behind it. So we
went looking for some. We didn’t have to look any further than Savannah, Georgia, where 22 years ago
the second Skidaway Institute of Oceanography Conference on America's Eroding Shoreli ne was held.
The report that was presented at this conference is still considered to be one of the most significant US
documents defining how to plan for the future for our retreating shores. Dr. Clark Alexander reviewed this
document with us and confirmed its continued scientific value today. The report defines the science
behind shore protection like this: Our sea levels are rising and our shorelines are retreating. Early US
history stressed industrial and economic development without regard for the impac t this development had
on the environment. Our economy depended heavily on our harbors and navigable rivers and coastal
resources. Making sure that industry had access to US ports involved dredging and deepening rivers and
coastal inlets and the construction of jetty systems or other protective structures. This, in turn, led to
unpredicted erosion and other adverse effects on beaches and shorelines. Today we’re seeing the
results of these early actions and we can no longer ignore these increasingly expensiv e shoreline
problems.
Slide
21
A hundred years ago, people started to risk large investments along the beaches. They believed that
human brainpower could tame any natural force so developers built closer and closer to the ocean. As
they did so, they built groins, jetties, seawalls, revetments and bulkheads, all known as hard stabilization.
Over the years we learned that halting the receding shoreline with these protective structures benefits
only a few but destroys the natural beach and its value for the m ajority.
Slide
22
According to the Skidaway Conference Report, individual property owners tend to prevail on the
community at large through local, state or national taxes to bear most of the cost of protection for their
property. The staggering costs of irrational decisions to fortify the beaches have forced many beach
communities to depend on federal subsidies.
Slide
23
Among the recommendations of this scientific study was to establish building set -backs that protect
natural beaches and primary dunes and that prohibit permanent structures in threatened areas.
Slide
24
So, do we need our own shore protection ordinance beyond what the state requires? Slide
25
We need to add to the shore protection act because it does not do several things which are prop osed in
the scientific study referenced here. It doesn’t specify that no building can be allowed in the sand dune
area, only that it be permitted. It has no provision for halting further advancement toward the sea and it
does not require any setbacks. Unofficially, DNR imposes a ten foot setback from dynamic dunes when
their other criteria won’t work, but that’s not in the Act. Having our own ordinance and becoming the
Permitting Authority will make us eligible for grants for construction and maintenance o f boardwalks,
Slide
26
5
dune stabilization, beach re-nourishment, and much more. The financial benefits to the City could be
substantial. Having our own ordinance and being the Permitting Authority can streamline the process for
our property owners. Since most of Georgia's beaches are undeveloped and protected it makes sense for
a beachfront municipality to have it's own ordinance with more specific guidelines for development than
the broad language of the GA Shore Protection Act.
While there are only about 18 vacant lots that would be directly impacted by any changes in our setback
line, our ordinance needs to address other issues such as the ability of an owner to tear down a couple of
small dwellings and rebuild a much bigger one over combined lots. We need to address what we will or
will not allow in the event of storm or other damage to a home that is currently built within the DNR area
of operation or on a nonconforming lot. And we need to incorporate a comprehensive hurricane build -
back program into the ordinance.
Slide
27
We recommend that we enlist the resources available to us through the DNR to assist in modifying our
ordinance so that it will incorporate the scientific principles provided in the Skidaway Institute Conference
report, stop further advancement seaward, and provide absolute protection for the dynamic dunes by
prohibiting any building within a specified distance from the landward toe.
Slide
28
With the assistance of DNR we can define our shore protection requirement so that the inte rests of
property owners are protected in that a lot that is reasonably buildable will not be excluded from building
while ensuring the protection of our state’s vital sand sharing system.
Slide
29
Following the presentation the Planning Commissioners and other members of the Coastal Protection Ordinance
Subcommittee discussed the issue further.
Vice Chair Chuck Powell said that the Planning Commission terms of Barry Brown, Charlie Brewer, Sandy
Chandler, and Bill Garbett would end on January 31, 2008.
The meeting adjourned.