HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100615_PC_mtg_min
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Randi Bryan PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER
Jay Burke, Chair Jonathan H. Lynn
Rob Callahan
John Major, Vice Chair CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Jay Burke called the June 15, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Planning
Commission members present were: Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Randi Bryan, Rob Callahan,
and Monty Parks. John Major was absent.
Chair Jay Burke asked for a motion on the Minutes of the May 18, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.
Demery Bishop moved to approve. Monty Parks seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous.
Chair Jay Burke asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Regarding a Text Amendment to Article
3, General Provisions, Randi Bryan disclosed that her home borders a C-2 district and she has a relative
that owns property on Laurel Avenue.
Chair Jay Burke explained that the Planning Commission would postpone hearing a Text Amendment to
Article 3, General Provisions. Demery Bishop motioned to table the Text Amendment for a workshop to
review. Monty Parks seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Special Review at 21 Officers Row, PIN 4-0002-20-014,
Zone R-1. The petitioners were Ann and Jurgen Last. The request was for special events for up to twenty
people at The Savannah Beach Inn, an existing residential bed and breakfast. Jonathan Lynn said that the
request had been heard by the Planning Commission on April 20, 2010, and the Commission voted in
favor of tabling it. He said that they needed certification of the property owner living onsite and an
updated plan. Lynn said that those items had been provided. He referenced letters that had been received
expressing objections which had been placed at each Commissioner’s chair. Lynn said that he and
Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, visited the site and Davis could answer questions about
parking. Demery Bishop asked if each event would require Special Review. Lynn said no, one Special
Review approval would give them unlimited events. Monty Parks said that this was to be a family
residence used as a bed and breakfast, but it was held by an LLC. He asked if that had any ramifications
on this. Lynn said that he did not believe it did because one of the members of the LLC was the resident
of the property. Bishop asked if Last would be using non-permanent lighting. Petitioner Ann Last said just
whatever they already have. Bishop asked if there would be any additional lighting fixtures at any event.
Last said no, the people that they have there that come for a wedding and that was it. Parks asked if there
were six rooms. Last said there were seven. Parks said that if there were two people in each room, that
would be fourteen, and that would allow six additional guests to bring it to twenty. Last agreed. Parks said
that one of the main functions was weddings. Last said that was all, mainly because they do rent the house
to stay in even though they do weddings on the beach and weddings other places but it would be nice if
they could all have breakfast together in the morning or whatever. Parks asked if it included a band. Last
said no bands, absolutely not, they would not even like it. Parks asked if it had been their history to have
2
bands. Last said no. Marianne Bramble asked if Last considered having guests park at North Beach and
shuttling them. Last said that they have had people park at Jaycee Park and at the beach because they have
their weddings at the beach. She said that it would be nice, even if they did not have any extra parking, to
have them be able to bring six extra people into the Inn for breakfast or whatever. She said that sometimes
they invite guests to have people they know come over for breakfast. Lynn noted that the narrative from
the applicant stated that overflow parking would be at Jaycee Park. Bramble asked if the City would give
parking passes to them. Lynn said that Jaycee Park was free parking. He said that he was not at liberty to
grant parking at North Beach; they could work that out with the Parking Department maybe. Parks asked
about the trip that Lynn and Davis made to the site. Davis said that they accessed the driveway, went up
and tried to make a left to park perpendicular to the front of the building. He said that the plan did not
show the air conditioning unit, a palm tree, or the planting beds. He gave dimensions of the area and said
that it was extremely difficult to understand how to get six cars in there. Davis said that the previous
month it was chained but it was now open. He said they drove up, slipping the whole way; it was not a
stable surface and he did not know how that could be remedied. He noted that he did not have 4-wheel
drive. He said that his three issues were that the plan did not clearly show all of the obstructions and
limitations of the lot, the plan did not clearly define the two parking spaces indicated to the north side, and
there was no clear understanding if the seven spaces shown along Cedarwood Drive were on the property
or in the City right-of-way. Bishop, Davis and Randi Bryan discussed the parking. Last said that they
submitted drawings that were City-approved that showed there were six in the front and they have two on
the side so they can easily get eight there. She said that it was City-approved for the hill and that was how
the Inn became an inn, and they probably would not use the hill; they would park them at Jaycee Park.
Referring to the street, Burke said that it was narrow both ways. He also noted that City right-of-way may
possibly be in the parking spaces. He said that they did not want to create a situation where it was going
to be a safety issue. Last said that they have never had a citation for that and have been very careful.
Bishop asked Last if there had been any neighborhood concerns voiced to her since the last Planning
Commission meeting. Last said no. Burke opened the Hearing for public input. Peter Bannon, 19 Officers
Row, said that they have lived next door since the building was a single-family residence and they had a
terrible parking problem just for the few people who were living there. He said that the parking was on the
right-of-way and also intruded in the Officers Row common driveway. Bannon said that for emergency
vehicles and garbage trucks and other access, the parking interferes with that now. Referring to parking on
the hill, Bannon said that the first owner of the Inn could not use it and Last had it blocked off until the
last couple of weeks. He spoke further about the hill and the street. Dottie Kluttz, Officers Row, noted that
when this residence was petitioned in 2001 to be a B&B it was for four bedrooms; in this petition it said
there were six bedrooms, and then Last said that it actually has seven bedrooms. She said that Officers
Row was 110 years old and was not built for things like this. She said that they all have to communicate
and cooperate with each other to get up and down Officers Row. Kluttz said that they were approved for
parking on the berm only and that berm has not been used. She said that the eighth parking place was
parallel to Officers Row so when a car parked there you could not get out of the berm. She asked the
Commissioners to think about the events which could be every single night. Kluttz spoke about music,
alcohol and the number of guests, and she asked who was going to enforce this. She said that in the
ordinance it clearly states that food service was limited to breakfast guests only. Kluttz said that Last had
already admitted that she has people come in for breakfast; Last was already doing what she was not
supposed to be doing. Kluttz summarized her views of the request. Jim Kluttz, Officers Row, asked if
parking had to be provided onsite. He said that ten or twelve years ago he was part of the committee that
wrote the bed and breakfast ordinance. He said that residential B&Bs are a very positive thing for the
island. He said that they are not talking about that tonight; they are talking about special events. Kluttz
referred to the bed and breakfast ordinance, and spoke about enforcement, alcohol, the effect on residents,
and parking. Lynn clarified said that the ordinance did not mean there cannot be alcohol; no alcohol
license can be issued. He said that if the person having the wedding wanted to bring alcohol and give it
3
away there was nothing the City could do about that. He said that in terms of enforcement, the City would
depend on neighbors calling the Police Department. Dan Akins, 11 Wrenwood Drive in Seashore Colony,
said that their whole subdivision was against this and there are several places on the island where they can
have special events. He said that he likes the bed and breakfast but as far as having special events, they
have had several weddings where they have parked in the Seashore Colony subdivision and there had
been music at a wedding or two, and there had been alcohol because he picked up beer cans on the street.
Akins said that they would like to keep their neighborhood residential and as quiet as possible. Jill
Schaire, Wrenwood Drive, said that there was not sufficient parking and there would be guests parking on
Wrenwood Drive. She said that parking on Wrenwood Drive narrows the street to one lane. She spoke
further about vehicles and about pedestrian traffic to the beach. Schaire said that they would like to keep
their neighborhood more residential and not have a bed and breakfast offering wedding events. She said
that the bed and breakfast itself was fine. Kathy Kilday, owner of Tybee Island Inn, said that she went
through this not long ago. She said it took her two-and-a-half years to get approval at the Tybee Island Inn
so she was compassionate with Last about the situation. She said that the ability to hold an event at a
residential bed and breakfast was now an ordinance; it did require special approval and that was what Last
was asking for, but the vote was not as to whether it was permissible because it is permissible under
Tybee ordinance. Kilday said that the fact that Last organized as an LLC: you must do that for liability
purposes if you own a business to protect yourself by a legal means. She said that they did own Savannah
Beach Inn and they got the original parking approval and they did park up on the deck all the time. She
said that it was designed by an engineer and they paid to have the slopes determined. She discussed the
parking on the hill, the parking requirements, music, weddings, alcohol, and the Guard House operated by
the City. Bryan asked if the original permitting was for four bedrooms or six. Kilday said that it was four
bedrooms and one owner’s but Last remodeled her basement and added additional space. Bryan said that
the requirement was one parking space for each bedroom and two for the owners. Kilday agreed with that
for the bed and breakfast. She said that as far as the special events were concerned, for the last six people
it was one per four. Bryan and Kilday discussed parking on the hill. Last said that the parking was
challenged at one time and Chuck Bargeron, City Marshal, attached a diagram of how their parking
should be and that was exactly the way they do it. She spoke further about the parking. Last said that she
has never had a citation over parking. Burke closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Bryan
motioned to deny. She said that it was not appropriate for the area. Parks seconded the motion. Bramble
said that Tybee was picky about parking, Last would be disappointed with any parking on the hill, and
that Last needed to rethink the parking issue. Bishop cited the engineering aspect of the parking and the
concerns with reference to the feedback they have had with regards to the unreasonable interference with
the residential uses of abutting neighbors. The motion to deny passed with a 5-0 vote. City Council
would hear the request on July 8.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code Section 5-
090(F), Compliance with Ordinances. Jonathan Lynn said that this was a Staff-level request related to
variance requests. He said that Staff was getting a lot of requests for variances dealing with new
construction that was done improperly, then the property would be foreclosed upon and the bank would
have to take over and then try to get their Certificate of Occupancy and they realized that it was built
wrong and they needed a variance to fix it. Lynn said that the City did not have a provision to allow that
person to apply for a variance. He said that this provision would allow for something like that to be
applied for and then be heard by Planning Commission, and Mayor and Council. He said that it does not
give freewill to build something and then come back for a variance; it would ask for detailed information
of how it was created, who created it, when, and why. Lynn said that it would be his recommendation to
allow something like this because Staff is getting a lot of requests from properties that were built,
abandoned, someone else has taken over, and they cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy to move forward
to sell that property. Marianne Bramble asked if it was like what was coming up next. Lynn said that it
4
was. Rob Callahan said that the phrase “for the condition on which the variance unless” needed the words
“is sought” after the word “variance.” Lynn agreed. Callahan asked if a sentence from the old text,
“Property must be brought into conformity with existing ordinances in order for an application to be filed
and processed or for a variance to be granted” was proposed for deletion. Lynn said that was correct. He
said that allowed for variances to be asked for that have already been created through no fault of that
owner. Callahan said that it was a strong statement that Lynn was deleting. Lynn said that was at the
request of the City Attorney. He said that from what he gathered it was something that has been thrown
about for several years; this was not the first time that this came upon us, but the requests are starting to
get more and more given the current economic state and he did not think this was going to be the last time
they heard something like this. Lynn said that getting with the City Attorney they thought it was best to
go forward with this ordinance to allow for those errors to be fixed and properties to be moved. Demery
Bishop said that the last sentence said that, “No variance may be granted which retroactively excuses a
prior violation of an ordinance.” Bishop asked, if this became an amendment, could no variance be
granted retroactively. Lynn said that this was not his language. He said that what it details is not going
back and excusing something, but giving a variance that today it is good; we accept this property the way
it is, so it still has to be built to current code and, if it is being fixed, it has to be fixed to current code. He
said that we would just allow that variance to say okay they have 18-inches or 24-inches or their fence is
5-feet into the setback, it would allow stuff like that to move forward. Bishop said that it was extremely
gray and if you have an ordinance such as this you potentially open yourself up to concerns where if
someone else can come and say: a precedent has been set so why is it not being applicable to me as well
in a retroactive manner. Bishop said that a code is a code for a reason, and public safety being one of the
issues involved in codes and variances it should follow the letter of the law where there is an absolute
necessity. Monty Parks said that this almost allows somebody to go back to the 35-foot ordinance and
say: I would like to be exempted from that. He said that there should be a legal term for this type of
phrase that forgives the past and brings it up to legal standard in the current. He said that it sounded like
boilerplate language where in the past something was done outside of code, we are going to forgive that
so that the property can be sold. Randi Bryan said this was done because there were some builders who
did something and they said, oops, can we be forgiven for this so then they put this after-the-fact variance
in there. She said that they needed to leave it the way it is; it would open the door for that kind of thing to
go on again. Bishop said that you get to a point in the due diligence period, whether you are the
prospective purchaser or the builder. He said that you have a responsibility under the existing code to
comply. He said that this, perhaps, would be the jumping off place to seek numerous variances for
whatever reason it may not comply with the code. Bishop said that this negates responsibility. Callahan
said that the sentence proposed for deletion looked like it would take care of those kinds of problems. He
recommended not deleting that sentence. Lynn agreed. Callahan said that it was saying that you have to
bring it up to snuff before you can even apply. Parks asked if they were putting property sales in jeopardy.
Lynn said that it would affect properties that a bank cannot get their Certificate of Occupancy to sell until
they either bring it up to code or they seek a variance to allow what was done by a previous builder who
has since defaulted. He said that they had a request many months ago, a foreclosure, somebody bought it
and the house was built into an access easement; we do not allow after-the-fact variances so now that
property is sitting there because they cannot get the CO. Lynn said that Staff is not aware of them until it
receives an as-built drawing showing where the actual construction took place, where the setbacks are,
where the rights-of-way are. Parks said that yes, we could be interfering with quick passage of title. Lynn
agreed. Bishop said that it would not be a legal title issue; it is in regards to the issuance of a CO. He said
that they were talking compliance with an ordinance which may prevent a CO from being issued. Lynn
said that it could affect the sale of the property. Burke asked for public input. Barry Brown said that he
was one of the co-writers of the ordinance and at that time they were getting nailed with so many
renegade contractors and builders doing work on weekends for individual homeowners and the City
Marshal was catching them then they kept coming for variances, so they created an ordinance where if a
5
contractor did scope of work outside a permit being issued they were to remove that part of the
construction and then come for a variance. He said that what they were seeing now was a whole different
animal; banks are inheriting properties, they have got problems when they get the as-built. Brown spoke
further and then said that what they are doing is holding up the COs and preventing banks from being able
to sell property but the person responsible is the original builder; that is the one that ought to be held
accountable. He said that if you can find a way to fine them or penalize them that was one thing. Brown
said that it was not done to punish the purchaser; it was done to get a grip on the contractors that were
violating the setback laws and the height. Burke closed the Public Hearing. Bryan said she agreed with
Brown but they should have a way to continue to have control because of someone that could be
unscrupulous. Callahan moved that the rewrite include the sentence that had been deleted and the words
“is sought” as mentioned earlier. He read the sentence that had been deleted: “The property must be
brought into conformity with existing ordinances in order for an application to be filed and processed or
for a variance to be granted.” Bryan seconded the motion to approve as amended. Parks asked if it would
be possible to put this into the workshop and have the City Attorney present. Lynn said it could be asked
that the City Attorney attend. Parks asked if this was his wording. Lynn said yes. Bishop said that adding
the sentence did give some additional credence to the proposed amendment; however, he did not want to
create an issue where renegade contractors have a blank check. The motion and the second were
withdrawn. Parks motioned to table for discussion at a workshop with the City Attorney present. Bryan
seconded. Voting in favor were Bishop, Bramble, Bryan, and Parks. Callahan voted against the motion.
The motion to continue passed with a 4-1 vote.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 1403 Solomon Avenue, PIN 4-0022-01-
375, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Steve Day acting on behalf of the owner, BB&T. The request was for a
setback variance at a newly built single-family dwelling. Jonathan Lynn said that the property was
acquired through foreclosure proceedings. He said that the as-built showed that the front stairs and pillar
under the deck encroached into the required 20-foot front setback by approximately 18-inches. He said
that BB&T did not want to incur the incredible expense to remove the pillar and stairs. Monty Parks asked
the location of the encroachment which Lynn pointed out. Demery Bishop asked what determination had
been made as to how to rectify this without a variance. Lynn said that they were given the option to
remove the stairs and part of the deck which would be a complete redesign. Marianne Bramble asked how
it got by inspection. Lynn said that the inspector is only the building inspector; he does not do zoning
inspections. He said that the as-built drawing is when we get the information to determine where the
project has ended up in terms of the setbacks. Bramble asked if that was after it was completed. Lynn said
several years after it was completed. Bramble said that it should have been caught years ago. She said that
the City of Tybee is paying inspectors. Lynn said that we do not have surveyors on Staff; the onus is up to
the builder and the property owner. Bramble asked who the contractor was. Lynn said that he did not have
that file with him. Bishop asked if the bank would not have required a CO before financing. Lynn said
that the owner at the time was the contractor. Parks asked if the house had ever been lived in. Lynn said
no. Bishop and Brown discussed the property. Barry Brown spoke about years ago the contractors pulling
strings on the piers and property lines, and the head of the Zoning Department and the City Marshal
would inspect them before footings were poured. Lynn explained that at the time of construction of this
structure the City Marshal was still in the department. Ronald Weller, representing BB&T Bank, said that
the bank was the current owner of the property by virtue of foreclosure. He said they had no involvement
in construction; they were just the lender. He said that they made a construction loan in 2008 to John
L’Moure and Nancy Maine, and L’Moure was the general contractor. Weller said that they have had no
contact with them in over a year. He said that the loan went into default, BB&T foreclosed in June of
2009, and at that time the house was substantially completed on the outside, the only thing that was not
completed was the interior. He said that in addition to the money they lost in the foreclosure they have
spent in excess of $100,000 completing the interior and they have done everything that was required of
6
them. Weller went on to speak about the setback encroachment which he said was structurally prohibitive
to make into compliance. Bramble spoke of a previous setback encroachment variance request and asked
how these things were happening. Lynn spoke to her question. Weller summarized the request. Burke
closed the Public Hearing. Bryan said that we have definitely had a breakdown in our process and that in
today’s economy, it was 18-inches, and they should do it. Burke called for a motion. Bryan moved to
approve. There was not a second. Burke called for another motion. Bramble moved to deny. Callahan
seconded. Voting in favor of the motion to deny were Bramble and Callahan. Opposed were Bishop,
Bryan, and Parks. The motion to deny failed with a 2-3 vote. Bishop motioned to approve recognizing the
inheritance of the issue and to not penalize BB&T and so the property could be lived in. Parks seconded
the motion. Bryan asked how that was different than to approve. After discussion, voting in favor of the
motion to approve were Bishop, Bryan, and Parks. Opposed were Bramble and Callahan. The motion to
approve passed with a 3-2 vote. It would be heard by City Council on July 8.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 1619 Chatham Avenue, Lot 5-D, PIN
4-0010-05-016, Zone R-2. The petitioner and owner of the property was George Hammond. The request
was for a front setback of 10-feet rather than the required 20-feet for a new single-family dwelling to be
built on a vacant lot. Jonathan Lynn said that this was heard at the last Planning Commission meeting and
was recommended for approval 3-2. He explained that at the June 10 City Council meeting they
recommended that it come back to Planning Commission for further clarification about what the variance
was approved for. Lynn explained that the applicant had provided an additional drawing for the Council
meeting. He explained the drawing and said that the applicant requested to be put on this agenda given
that if they waited they would lose a contract on the property. Rob Callahan asked what Council’s
confusion was. Lynn said that it had to do with the motion including no heated or cooled space in the
setback area and no stairs. Marianne Bramble said that they changed the original packet. Lynn said that
the drawing was the only addition. Harold Yellin, representing the petitioner, summarized the request and
showed documents related to it. Bramble asked if the deck would be enclosed or open. Yellin said that
they did not have building plans ready; he suspects it will probably be an open deck. Monty Parks said
that was not the impression he got from the discussion at the Council meeting. He asked the motion that
the Planning Commission had approved. Demery Bishop said that the motion was to approve the 10-foot
front setback variance being used for a deck only. That motion, the City Council meeting, and the request
were discussed. Yellin described that there would be more in the front area if it were a deck only as
opposed to what would be there if stairs were allowed. He said that it made more sense to say deck and/or
stairs with the provision that it should not be heated or cooled. Randi Bryan asked if it would be only the
stairs encroaching into the setback. Yellin said that he did not know how long the stairs would be; it could
be stairs and a little bit of deck. Parks asked if Susan Wylly was the selling realtor. Yellin said that she
was a neighbor and the broker. Parks said that he understood wanting to be in line with the neighbors but
if he understood the City Attorney’s comment from the Council meeting, the lot was not the same shape
so the 200-foot rule did not apply. Yellin said that he did not see an exception for a differently shaped lot;
it was distance from the street. Yellin and Parks discussed. Parks asked if this was based on a hardship.
Lynn said yes, the shape of the lot. The group continued to discuss the request. Burke asked for public
input. There was none. Burke closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Bishop motioned to
approve a variance of 10-feet in the front setback contingent on it only being used for a deck and stairs,
and heating and cooling not being allowed. Callahan asked if since the drawing showed the proposed deck
and stairs in line with the two existing homes, should Bishop also stipulate something about it being in
line. Lynn said that they could not control the design, only the setback location. After discussion, Bryan
seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Bishop and Bryan. Opposed were Bramble, Callahan, and
Parks. The motion to approve with conditions failed with a 2-3 vote. Parks motioned to approve
contingent on the 10-foot front setback variance being used for a deck only, no heating/cooling. Bramble
seconded the motion. Bryan said that if the stairs were not in there it was going to look odd. She said that
7
it made sense to have the stairs and the deck. After discussion, Parks withdrew his motion and Bramble
withdrew the second. Bishop motioned to approve a variance of 10-feet in the front setback contingent on
it only being used for a deck and stairs as represented in the drawing submitted on June 10, 2010, and no
heating or cooling being allowed. Parks seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion to approve
were Bishop, Bryan, and Parks. Voting in opposition were Bramble and Callahan. The motion to
approve a variance of 10-feet in the front setback contingent on it only being used for a deck and
stairs as represented in the drawing submitted on June 10, 2010, and no heating or cooling being
allowed, passed with a 3-2 vote. City Council would hear the request on July 8.
Demery Bishop moved to adjourn. Monty Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous and the meeting
adjourned.