HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110816_PC_mtg_min.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan
Henry Levy
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the August 16, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John
Major, and Tyler Marion. Zoning Specialist Dianne Otto and the City’s consulting engineer, Downer
Davis, were also present.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the July 19, 2011, meeting. Henry Levy moved
to approve. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Monty Parks opened the Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval with Variance for 407 First
Street, PIN 4-0003-14-015, Zone C-2. The petitioner was Applepeel Properties, LLP, with Carrie Efird
representing. Dianne Otto described the property as long and skinny, and said the applicant would like to
convert the existing structure to a private laundry to be used only by Tybee Vacation Rentals. She
described the restrictions of the lot and the building. Otto said the exterior changes that would be needed
were propane tanks on the north side, installation of an overhead door on the west for loading/unloading,
and trash containers on the east end. Rob Callahan asked how the use was allowed by right. Otto said
within the private laundry there would be an office; this would be an extension of the location that
Applepeel operates at 1010 Highway 80. She said the same employees will be working at this location.
Callahan said laundry was not listed as allowed by right in C-2. Otto said professional and office building
was and within the laundry there would be an office which would be an extension of the rental business.
Callahan asked if Otto was considering it an office and not a laundry. Otto said yes; if it was a laundromat
open to the public she would not be as convinced but this is a private laundry and an operation that would
be a component of the existing business. She said it would not be licensed as a laundromat; it would be
licensed as a business operation. Callahan asked about a loading zone that was discussed in the Staff
Report. Otto said that would not be the loading/unloading area she had referred to a moment ago which
would be on Miller Avenue; the loading zone would be installed on the right-of-way of Highway 80 and
would be used by all the businesses in that area, similar to the two loading zones at the south end.
Callahan and Otto discussed the loading zone. John Major asked about the permitted use and if a small
office allowed a business to be there contrary to what was specifically permitted for a zone. Otto said it
was not contrary; it was a private operation. Otto said if Efird was a publisher printing magazines she
would still have an office and that would be her function but we would not add a use to the zone of
publisher. Major asked how big the office was. Parks said it was 8-feet by 12-feet. Otto said the laundry
equipment was secondary to Efird operating her business. Parks said because Efird was not taking in wash
for other people and there was no money transacted, it was her internal business. Otto compared it to the
2
operation of Mogo’s Scooters which has an office and rents scooters. She said the rental of scooters is not
on the list of uses allowed in the C-2 zone. Major said that C-2 has a 6-foot side and back setback. He said
the propane tanks would be within the 6-foot setback and he asked if that was going to be an issue. Otto
said they would be treated as mechanical units are, a component servicing the structure that would be
allowed in the setback. Major, Otto, and Callahan discussed the tanks. Parks asked if there was an
estimate for water usage for the laundry. Otto requested the question be asked of the applicant. Parks
asked if it would be licensed by the Health Department. Otto deferred the question to the applicant. Parks
asked if there would be a curb cut/indentation for the loading area. Otto said she did not know what it
would look like; the City Manager was interested in offering that and felt in front of this location would
be an appropriate place for it so trucks could service all of the businesses in that area. Demery Bishop said
this was being reviewed as a private laundry facility. He asked if it was determined at a later date that it
could feasibly serve as private and portions of it as a public laundry facility would that require further
action by the City. Otto said if it was to be open to the public, yes. She said if in Efird’s business plan she
opted to provide a service to other like industries it would still be considered a private operation. Bishop
and Otto discussed. Callahan asked about the impact on traffic at the intersection of Miller Avenue and
First Street. Otto said the applicant could speak best about that. Callahan said there was a lot of activity
around that intersection which is unsignalized and is close to other intersections on a fairly high speed
roadway. After further comments from Callahan, Otto discussed that the same could have been said of the
business that recently vacated the building. Callahan asked if there would be employees working strictly
at the laundry. Otto said that was her understanding. Callahan asked where they would park. Otto said that
was the Variance portion of this Site Plan; the building does not have off-street parking and the
employees would be parking on the streets. Callahan asked if a loading zone was put in front for the other
businesses in the area would there be any parking for the employees. Otto said there was other public
parking in the vicinity. Marianne Bramble said a delivery zone was needed in that area. She asked if the
zone would be used for unloading the laundry and a delivery truck would not have the space to park. Otto
said that was a possibility and it certainly occurs in other loading zones as it is first -come, first-serve.
Bramble asked if it was limited to marked vehicles. Otto gave an example of a private vehicle using a
south end loading zone for picking up pizzas to be delivered. Bramble asked if Tybee had commercial
stickers for loading zones. Otto said no. Major asked if it was known how the neighbors felt about the
traffic, the propane tanks, and the other activities that would be involved. Otto said the property was
posted the prior Tuesday and letters to the adjacent property owners would be mailed tomorrow. She said
she had not received any phone calls. Major commented that two palm trees would be removed. Efird, co-
owner of Tybee Vacation Rentals, introduced herself. Major asked the water usage at maximum
operation. She said the laundry was a byproduct of the housekeeping department. She said the business
manages about 150 properties and currently outsources the linens. She said the vendor delivers the linens
to the office at 1010 Highway 80. She said the cleaners then pick up the linens and take them to the rental
units to change out. Efird said they are having service provider issues; they cannot keep up with the
volume. She said they are not going into the linen business. She said they do not want to wash the linens
in the units for a lot of reasons including water usage and electricity. She said the focus of the business is
vacation rentals and they are not expanding to create a linen service for anyone outside their organization.
Efird said they would move their housekeeping managers to the loc ation. She described the proposed
interior of the building including the office, storage, and laundry areas. She explained that during peak
season they should be able to wash all the linens in three to five 8-hour shifts or 40 hours per week. Efird
said they are investing in high velocity, low water consumption machines and in an ozone system so they
can wash in tepid water for 80% to 90% of the linens. She described an instant hot water heater for
rewashes and stain treating. She said they could put a lot of linens in a 60- to 75-pound machine versus all
the cleaners at every property doing little bits, so water consumption would be far less. Major asked what
the propane tanks would do. Efird said they were for the dryers because electric dryers were considerably
more expensive to operate because they use a lot of energy. She said the tanks would be set on a slab and
3
anchored. She said it abuts a residence and they want to put in an 8-foot privacy fence. She described the
proposed improvements on the north side of the building. Efird emphasized this would be their
housekeeping department, a function of Tybee Vacation Rentals, and they have no intention of owning a
laundromat. She said they requested to take out the two palm trees surrounded by concrete so the cleaners
could easily get in and out. She further described the drop off and pickup areas, the parking situation, and
dry floodproofing of the structure. Efird said there was not a curb cut on the Miller Avenue side. She said
when the DOT added the ADA ramps it continued the curb around. She said in meetings with the City
and Joe Wilson, Director of the Public Works Department, they sanctioned cutting the curb back to have a
proper apron so it showed that it was a driveway. Efird explained that in peak season there would be two
to three people working in the building so the impact on parking would not be significantly different from
the uses that the building has had. She said for two-thirds of the year there may be one person occupying
the building during business hours. She said they purchase parking decals for most of their staff that are
not residents. She said they would know they have to choose a public space and not sit in the loading zone
all day. She said they identify their cleaners and housekeeping inspectors with bright pink signs in the
windshields. Tyler Marion asked what kind of chemicals would be within the building and would all the
housekeeping be centralized to the location. Efird said it would be both locations because there are
different functions at the primary office such as payroll. She said the cleaners do not spend a lot of time at
the office; they are in and out. Regarding chemicals, Efird listed soap and bleach. She said the machines
are not like home machines and there would be wall dispensers for the soap. She described that the type of
soap requires less water and less chemical because of the ozone system. Efird said they have janitorial
supplies at the office now which would be glass cleaner, degreaser, household -type chemicals. Major
questioned if the facility would be using less water from the island than the water that was currently being
used on the island. Efird said there only other option would be to do the laundry in the private homes and
there were some rental companies that do that. She described that they have been going to the public
laundromat to launder excess linens because the supplier cannot keep up with the demand. Major asked if
it would increase the amount of water from Tybee that was being used. Efird said she would have to
calculate if they were to do it in residential homes. Major said now it was going off Tybee and it was not
using any. Efird estimated that 70% was going off Tybee. Major said 100% would be done on the island.
Efird said they have a couple options: continue to try to outsource it or launder it in the properties. She
said this way it would be a more efficient operation. Major asked if the waste water would go into the
City’s sewer system. Efird said yes. Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, said we are not doing
a conventional drainage plan with topo because the size of the project does not warrant it. He said it was
an unusual shaped property and the roof drains from [First Street] to the north and has great slope on it.
He said the concrete pad for the propane tanks would add an accelerator to propel the water toward the
house to the north so to mitigate the impact of concentrated water at a higher rate the engineer ha d
proposed to divert all the water off the splash pad towards Miller Avenue. Davis said the size of the pad
was about the size of one-third of a parking space. Parks called for public input. There was none. He
closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Major confirmed with Otto that the only variance was
for parking, it was a substandard lot of record, and an irregular lot on the basis of narrowness or depth,
and did qualify for consideration of a variance under Section 5-090, there were not any other variances
requested or contemplated in the future, the use of the facility was within the defined usage for C-2, and
there were no issues with propane tanks within the setback. Callahan moved to approve and Major said he
seconded if everything he had said was true. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve the Site
Plan with Variance passed with a 6-0 vote. City Council would consider the request on September 8.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Article 13, Zoning Map Amendment. The petitioner
was the City of Tybee Island and the request was to remove E-C, Environmental-Conservation District,
from a lot and portions of other lots in the Brewer’s Landing vicinity, and replace it with R-1-B,
Residence District. Dianne Otto said if any of the audience was there to speak to this topic it was
4
necessary that they complete a Disclosure of Campaign Contribution form located on the back table. She
noted the Zoning Map was in the room. She said the Zoning Map has a boundary line that places portions
of each of the nine lots in the E-C zone. Otto said Staff has been aware for years that this needed to be
corrected and has begun that process by bringing it to the Commissions’ attention. She said all the
property owners had been notified by letter of this Hearing and of the Hearing that will be held September
8 before City Council. Otto said this was strictly a movement of a line on the Zoning Map; it does not
change any DNR restrictions, influences, or jurisdictions. She discussed various maps being shown
onscreen. John Major asked if there was currently a structure at 8 Brewer’s Landing. Otto explained that
the lots she had numbered as 1 and 7 did not have structures and all the others did. Major, Parks, Otto, and
Rob Callahan discussed the rezoning proposal and that the area had been developed with the current
zoning. Otto read Section 4-040 which addressed when a zoning line divides a lot. Callahan asked why
the C-2 zoning was being kept on the lots along old Highway 80. Otto explained that Council requested
the entire C-2 corridor be examined and zoning of those lots would be addressed at that time. Major asked
how a lot could be zoned two ways. Otto said the least intense land use was what the code directed. Major
and Otto discussed the minimum lot sizes and setbacks of various zones. Callahan asked about posting of
Public Hearing signs. Otto said the individual property owners were notified by letter. Parks asked if
anyone from the public would like to address this. There was no response. He closed the Public Hearing
and asked for a motion. Callahan moved to approve and Marianne Bramble seconded. The vote was
unanimous. The motion to approve the Map Amendment passed with a 6-0 vote. It would be heard at
the September 8 City Council meeting.
Chair Monty Parks opened the Public Hearing for Section 3-165, Greenspace. Dianne Otto reminded
them that Planning Commission and City Council had recently dealt with all sections of Article 3, General
Provisions. She said Section 3-165 had come back for clarification for Staff purposes in advising property
owners on “vegetative state.” She said it implied that only things planted in the ground would be allowed.
Otto said folks liked to put beddings of mulch or pine straw around trees or shrubs so they are not
mowing so close to their plantings. Downer Davis, the City’s consulting en gineer, said it was already
required under state law that there be a vegetative establishment in the ground to have root structures that
secure the soil and keep it from eroding but as the economy has fallen and budgets are tighter we are
getting an increased amount of people trying to throw down straw and mulch. He said that adopting this
will shorten his conversations with them and expedite things instead of t rying to tie together various
regulations. He said it clarifies that you cannot just put down mulch. Davis said in the state’s Green Book
mulch is a temporary groundcover for use for up to six months. Davis concluded his comments. Rob
Callahan discussed buffers and a need to ensure that when it matures it is covered mostly by plant
material and not mulch. He suggested setting a limit. Davis said different plants have different root
structures and he described a previous plan that had been rejected. He said he did not know how to
quantify it. Callahan asked if the wording of Section 3 -165 gave enough ammunition to put in more
plantings. Davis said yes. He said it read to him that if the mulch extended beyond the drip line it was not
around the root structure of the planting. Callahan suggested adding that. The wording was amended to
include, “not to exceed the limits of the drip line.” John Major questioned if “vegetative state” was the
right term. He said it was not in the Definitions. Demery Bishop agreed. Davis said vegetation cover s the
ground and if it is in the form of shrubs there will be some bare spaces beneath them to put mulch to
replace the forest litter that would occur naturally. He said the Green Book talks about vegetative state.
Bishop said it needed to be defined in Section 3-165. Parks suggested working that into a motion. Tyler
Marion asked how this would apply to a yard that the owner wanted to make all gravel. Davis said based
on the recommendations they were going to put in a definition of vegetation. He said rock is not a plant; it
is a mineral. He said rock is considered landscaping but it is not vegetation. Otto read the original Section
3-165 as it was prior to recent changes. It had spoke of “permeable surface.” She said vegetative was
inserted because rock was being used. Parks asked if anyone from the audience wished to address this.
5
There was no response and he closed the Public Hearing. In response to Parks’ call for a motion, Major
moved to approve with the insertion of a definition of “vegetative state.” Callahan suggested adding, “not
to exceed the limits of the drip lines.” Bishop recommended adding a definition of “vegetative state” to
Article 2, Definitions. Major restated the motion. Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
With a 6-0 vote the motion passed to approve the Text Amendment as written but with the insertion
of a definition by Staff of “vegetative state” in Section 3-165 and in Article 2, and with the last
sentence modified to, “As used herein, vegetative state shall allow areas of mulch, pine straw, and
other such permeable ground covers placed arou nd trees and shrubs not to exceed the limits of the
drip lines.” It would be considered by the Mayor and City Council on September 8.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Section 9-030, Building Permits. Dianne Otto said this
request was coming from the Staff of the building and zoning office. She said when Article 9 was adopted
October 28, 2010, on Second Reading a sentence was inserted that has caused Staff to have a difficult
time working with people who are or are not applying for building permits. She said the sentence that had
been struck within the paragraph was contrary to other statements in the paragraph and was contrary to
the International Building Code that the City of Tybee has adopted. Parks asked the history. Otto said at
the Second Reading of Article 9 by City Council there was discussion that people should not have to get
permits for painting, new carpet, and items such as that, and Staff agrees with that, however, when there is
a comprehensive gutting of a house and a full rebuild of the interior those are permitable items; not the
painting, but the building code requires there be a floor covering. She described people using the sentence
to want to permit only the electrical of a kitchen remodel and stating the other parts of the work are repair
and maintenance. Otto said if the sentence is taken out of context from the other sentences in the
paragraph nothing would require a building permit; everything is repair and maintenance on a structure
that exists. Marianne Bramble asked how the City enforced inside remodels. Otto described that there is
now a code enforcement officer who is off two days during the week so there is someone looking for
unpermitted work on weekends. She said they get tips from neighbors, from the Public Works facility
where people take their debris, and from Staff and others driving around, but work certainly does happen
after hours and on weekends. She said they try to educate through the back of the water billings and
Channel 7 to try to get the word out that permits are required. Otto said they are available to answer
questions. She related that people say somebody told them they did not need a permit and instead of
asking Staff who knows the answer they are relying on a non-expert to answer the question for them. John
Major asked if he had a 9-unit condo and was going to paint would he need a permit. Otto said no, but for
FEMA purposes if it was a project that was being monitored because it was approaching the 50% rule,
FEMA does include paint as a component of improvement. After further discussion but no public input,
Parks closed the Hearing and asked for a motion. Major moved to approve. Tyler Marion seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 9-030 passed with a 6-0 vote. The
Amendment would be heard by City Council September 8.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Article 7, Tree Removal Regulations. Dianne Otto said
this item was sent to the Planning Commission by City Council. She said they requested only three
particular items within Article 7 be reviewed. She said the first was whether or not to add pine trees to the
significant species list; the second was that the fines be reviewed to see if they are still appropriate; and
revisit the mitigation fee of $50 per inch. Otto said there were other sections within Article 7 that would
be coming to the Commission at a future rewrite of the entire ordinance. John Major said when they went
through Article 5 and maybe Article 3, everywhere the word “significant” joined wit h the word “tree”
they took out “significant.” He asked if it was still relevant. Otto said in this context significant species
means a tree on the list that requires mitigation. She said palm trees, for example, were not on the list and
if a resident chose to remove palm trees their only requirement was to meet the minimum density; they are
not required to pay inch for inch or replant inch for inch a palm tree. She said a significant species does
6
require mitigation and in that same situation with an oak tree they would be required to pay $50 per inch
for removal or plant inch for inch. She said where they removed “significant” in other sections it was
referring not to the list but to a large tree. Rob Callahan said it was diameter, not circumference. Otto s aid
he was correct. Callahan asked if they were saying that a developer could take down any tree he wanted as
long as he paid the fine. Otto said that has always been the case as long as they meet the minimum
density. She restated the options of mitigating financially or with replantings. Callahan asked if she was
okay with that. Otto said she was. Demery Bishop discussed research he had done that said pine trees are
one of the largest and most available tree species anywhere in the world and they are one o f the most fast
diseased species of mature trees. He asked if they wanted to list a pine tree that was large in number and
variety as a significant species. Callahan said there were a lot of different kinds of pine trees. Bishop said
we have one particular species which happened to be mentioned more routinely than others. Major asked
if they were given any guidance on revisiting the $50 an inch. Otto said revisiting only. Major asked how
long that had been in place. Otto replied 2005. Parks asked if there was any discussion about the
Commission forming a subcommittee to investigate this and come back with a recommendation at the
next meeting. Otto said there was not. She said she had asked because there were other areas of the
ordinance that needed to be addressed. She said the three were the only topics they wanted addressed at
this time. Major said it seemed if they added pine trees to the list of significant trees and do not do
anything to curb cutting down trees it would raise more revenue for the City but would not save any trees.
Parks said the minimum density rule does keep trees in place. Otto agreed. Major asked what if he cut
down more trees than allowed; they cannot be put back. Otto said a lot has to meet the minimum density;
it was not an option to not have the minimum number of trees. Major asked how many per 4,500 square
feet. Otto said three but they do not have to be significant species. Major asked if they had to be 6 -inches
in diameter. Otto explained that when mitigating a significant species the replantings must be at least 2-
inches in diameter. Major said all the trees on a lot could be cut down and three 2-inch trees planted and
pay the fine. Otto said the mitigation fee. Marianne Bramble said Council was leaving it open for them to
discuss raising the fine. Parks said the mitigation fee. Bramble said they should raise the mitigation fee
per inch for removing any tree. Bishop asked why. Bramble said greenspace. She said the developers have
used that it is cheaper to mitigate and take out what is significant. She described a huge oak tree on Jones
Avenue and that they had paid the mitigation fee and it was a one-hundred year old tree. She said it was
easier for them to pay and move on with their work so they might think about it more if it wa s a higher
mitigation fee. Callahan asked if it was permitted. Bramble said there was major discussion about it. Otto
said she was not recalling the tree Bramble was speaking to. Bramble said they took a tree down in the
center of the lot to move a house onto the property. Parks asked if the mitigation fee set in 2005 was
based on other municipalities. Otto said she did not know. Parks asked what other municipalities are
charging. Otto said she did not know. Major said he liked the idea of having a couple p eople do some
research and see what other communities are doing. He said if their only tool is a fine they may not be
doing anything environmentally although they may do something fiscally. Parks asked for public
comment. Carrie Efird, 613 Second Avenue, said the lot of the first house she and her husband built had a
large oak tree right in the middle of the buildable footprint. She said if you create a code in a punitive way
where you are just punishing folks when it is within their right to develop the property whether it is for
them or whether it is to sell, there has to be relief from the code that is reasonable. She asked if the end
goal was that someone is going to sit on the lot to forever conserve greenspace or are they going to
potentially mitigate it, potentially replace the tree on their lot. Efird said the goal in mitigation was to
provide towards a tree fund to help replenish greenspace in other areas, maybe not necessarily on that lot
but somewhere within the City limits. She said they did take out a very large live oak which they replaced
with two species that were 4-inches in diameter because that was all they could afford. She said they put
them where they could continue to grow and they are quite large now but they paid more for those two
species than what they would have paid in mitigation. She said it was in their best interest to have shade
trees on their lot and that was why, as a personal choice as the property owners and as they should be able
7
to, they decided to replace rather than to mitigate. She said they barely would have met the percent at that
point because they had only palm trees remaining at the rear of the lot. Efird summarized that a code
needs to apply and not be punitive and it needs to be reasonable. She recalled that it ma y have been $40
per inch. She suggested the fee could be on a sliding scale. Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer,
said the Efirds went out of their way to try to save the tree; they hired an arborist that produced a report
showing how close the building could go. He said there was a front yard variance asked for to allow them
to move closer to the street because if they held the front yard setback and protected the tree they would
have a house that was really not livable. Davis said the Planning Co mmission made the motion to deny
the variance but also included in the motion a recommendation that was seconded and approved to waive
the fees because the Efirds spent quite a bit of money on an arborist and then they had to replace the tree.
Davis spoke further about that petition and commented that imposing ordinances can lead to variance
requests to seek relief. Otto referred the Commissioners to Section 7-060 which speaks of removal of
significant trees. She explained that subsection (B)(2) does allow mitigation of significant species with
others that exist on a property. She said that was a third option. Parks closed the Hearing and asked for a
motion. Tyler Marion asked if $50 was reflective of today’s economy and environment. Parks said he
would not mind seeing what two or three other municipalities charge. He suggested somebody volunteer
to come back to the Commission with that. Marion volunteered. After discussion, Bramble moved that
Marion research mitigation fees and tree ordinances of different municipalities and coastal communities.
Major seconded the motion. He asked if a building permit was required for tree removal only when the
person developing the property was taking the number of trees to below the specified limit. Otto said no, a
tree removal permit was required anytime a tree was going to be removed, even if it was dead. Major read
Section 7-040, Building Permit Required. The vote was unanimous. The motion that Tyler Marion
research mitigation fees and tree ordinances of different municip alities and coastal communities for
the next Planning Commission meeting passed with a 6-0 vote. Parks requested that the PowerPoint
slide of the three items in Article 7 that City Council wanted reviewed be emailed to Marion by Otto.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a proposed ordinance to be Article 18, Lighting. Dianne
Otto said the foundation of what was before them came from Ethan Imhoff who was the Planning and
Zoning Manager. She said it had been reviewed by Downer Davis, the City’s consulting engineer, and by
the City Attorney. She suggested they rely on Davis to interpret some of the finer points. Davis said the
goal of Tybee was to have fully shielded lights and the source of the light not be visible. He related that
fully shielded can have a number of definitions. He said because of being a coastal community and the
concern for wildlife, number 5 on the first page said eliminate glare, not reduce glare. Davis suggested
adding “and the bulbs and globes not visible” to C on page 1. He said the verbiage would clarify that
“fully recessed” means the globe or bulb is not visible. He commented that for comparison a lot of places
deal with 3 foot-candles at the property line rather than 0.1 foot-candles beyond the property line as stated
in the proposed ordinance. He said 0.1 is achievable but it may be a more stringent than other places. John
Major asked if under our current sign ordinance marquee-type signs were allowed. Otto said animated
signs were not allowed. Major asked if that was addressed under the Lighting Ordinance. Otto said it was
not. Major noted that item F on the first page dealt with signs. Parks asked if it would be appropriate to
reference the sign ordinance of the Land Development Code. Otto said she would review the two for
compatibility. After discussion, Henry Levy said a good, restrictive lighting ordinance says that signs
shall be black with white writing. Otto said that was not in our sign ordinance which was adopted in May
of 2010. Major said in Section H(1) it referred to applicants. He said the ordinance did not say what was
being applied for, when an application was required, what kind of permit was required. He asked if that
was something they should address like in other ordinances. Demery Bishop said they should consider
digital billboards and how that would impact the foot-candles at 10-feet beyond the property line. Otto
said the current sign ordinance prohibits digital billboards. The terms animated and digital were
discussed. Bishop referred to the subjectivit y of E on the first page and asked how “a narrow cone beam
8
of light that will not extend beyond the illuminated object” is measured and questioned if that was
realistic. Davis responded that a fixture can be round, rectangular, square; the goal was to have the
lighting towards an object so that it does not go around the perimeter of what you are illuminating. After
further explanation Davis suggested adding “or around” after the word “beyond.” Bishop gave an
example of a flag or a statue which he and Davis discussed. Marianne Bramble asked if illuminating was
the wattage. Davis said no, we measure light by the effect on the ground, the amount of foot-candles it
produces. He said by shielding and making the globe not visible so when you walk around the perimeter
of a property you see a light fixture and see the light coming from it but you do not see that bulb or globe.
Davis said that was the goal. Bramble asked about addressing the wattage. Davis said if he has a bare 60-
watt bulb beneath his garage it may be obnoxious to the neighbors looking and seeing that glowing bulb
and bulbs on commercial places are 1,000-watt so they need to be shielded. He said he was not so sure
that wattage was as much concern as controlling the foot-candles at the ground level. Davis said recently
on a project they eliminated the foot-candles from reflecting higher than 30 foot-candles anywhere on the
site and that was not in the ordinance but this was really great work and it was a very abbreviated
document. He said there may be other things that need to be added but Imhoff did a lot of work in a short
period of time on this. Parks asked if anyone from the public would like to address this. Carrie Efird,
owner of Tybee Vacation Rentals and a full-time resident on Second Avenue, asked if this was applicable
to just commercial lighting or would it apply to residential. Otto said there was no distinction between the
two. Efird said she understood the fully shielded lighting to eliminate glare and containing the bulb within
the canopy but she did not think they could really address wattage because of varying types of bulbs.
Efird said it was the light and how direct it was and the fixture, and maybe if Staff does have
recommendations as to fixture types and things like that that they could guide people but the bigger
question was how was this going to be enforced and would it be enforced retroactively. She said you can
buy low wattage compact fluorescents that emit a greater wavelength that is harsher light than a 100-watt
standard incandescent bulb so she would like to see more clarification and how it was going to be applied
to older fixtures in homes and when it is retroactively enforced, would it be complaint driven where
people are complaining of light pollution and how was that going to be measured and applied evenly. Otto
said it was not retroactive. She said the statement within the document was, “All outdoor light fixtures
installed and hereafter replaced shall comply with the requirements.” Efird and Otto discussed. Efird
asked if it applied island wide and how it would be enforced for residential. Otto said for new
development in addition to other sheets with the building plans there would be a lighting plan. She said
otherwise it would be as we receive permits to replace lighting fixtures. Efird said this would mandate
when a light fixture ceases to work to get an application or a permit to replace those lights. Otto
responded yes. Efird asked if there was a fee. Otto said it is the standard electrical permit; $50 on the first
$1,000 of the cost of the project and $5 on each additional $1,000. She said that should already be done.
Parks closed the Public Hearing. Major commented on the number of things that needed clarification.
Otto thanked them for their input and said no action by the Commission was needed.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for Section 5-156, Survey Requirements. The petitioner
was the City of Tybee Island. Dianne Otto said the section was currently titled As-built Drawing
Requirements. She said Council requested that Staff work on a requirement that at the foundation stage of
new construction the contractor/builder/owner submit to the City a foundation survey showing property
lines and the distances from those lines to the foundation. She said the intent was to prevent after-the-fact
variances. Otto said with that guidance Staff had drafted and inserted into the existing Section 5-156 the
proposed ordinance. She noted the section was now divided into three subsections where previously there
were two but they ran together. She related that (A) was entirely new, (B) was the previous as-built
drawing requirements, and (C) was height certification which was previously the last sentence of the
paragraph. Otto said City Council requested, unlike the other parts of Article 5 that the Planning
Commission has been working on, that Section 5-156 come back to them at the September meeting along
9
with Sections 5-040 and 5-041 which the Planning Commission had already considered in prior meetings.
John Major said had this been in place it could have avoided some problems in the past. Otto said she was
less optimistic; at the foundation stage there is not have enough information to prevent what was going to
ultimately happen anyway because the stairs, the insulation, outb oards, and the siding are not there. She
said it would hopefully encourage folks to not cut it so darn close that they are not allowing for those
things to happen. She said there had been numerous instances of stairs and this was not going to pick up
stairs; it was too early in the construction. Parks said there was a case that came for an after-the-fact
where the foundation was almost 18-inches into the setback. After discussion, Major asked if there was
something else they should do to solve the problem. Otto said this was a step in the right direction. She
said the onus has always been on the builder and not the City. She said when they build setback to setback
there are going to be those tenths of a foot that are beyond where they are supposed to be. She discussed
portions of structures which hang beyond the piers that would not be picked up by this requirement.
Major shared that it seemed if the designated City official reviews the foundation survey and sees that the
footer is right up against the setback line they can probably judge that there is going to be insulation and
siding, and they are going to be into the setback. He said at least a judgment can be made and this was a
good step in the right direction. Otto agreed. She said she did not want to gi ve any false impressions that
after-the-fact setback encroachments were not going to be. Major said it the ordinance stated that it does
not guarantee that an as-built survey was going to be approved and the applicant needed to know that this
was not the final approval. Rob Callahan said one thing you could do which, of course, lays an extra
requirement on the builder would be take the foundation survey as drawn by the surveyor and have the
architect overlay the plan on top of it and then you could see exactly where the outline of the building and
the stairs and everything else was going to be. Otto said that would help. She said she did not know what
expense would be involved in that. She said she did not want an acceptance by Staff of the foundation
survey to be a guarantee to the builder. She said there was so much more that goes into play for the actual
as-built at finished construction that will not be addressed by the foundation survey. Downer Davis, the
City’s consulting engineer, said the builder was the one responsible for his product. He said the architect
is given a drawing and he does not remember ever people finding the architect’s drawing flawed and that
was the reason for the setback encroachment. Davis said the licensed general contractor is the same as
engineers, surveyors, and architects; their word is worth something; they have expertise. He said let them
give a certification letter saying here is the [foundation survey], I have reviewed it and hereby certify that
it has been compared to our plans and find it to be conforming to the approved plans and completion of
this project according to the approved plans should not lead to an encroachment into a setback. He said to
let the contractor be responsible for something. The suggestion was discussed. Major suggested additional
wording for the end of the section that in all circumstances it was the responsibility of the contractor to
satisfy setback requirements. That wording was discussed. Major made a motion to approve with the
additional wordings that had been discussed to be added by Staff. The motion was seconded by Callahan.
The vote in favor was unanimous. The motion to approve Section 5-156 with additional wording by
Staff passed with a 6-0 vote. The item would be placed on the September 8 City Council agenda.
The final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Chair
Monty Parks said on August 14 a draft ordinance was presented to Bubba Hughes, City Attorney, and to
Dianne Otto. He said it was currently under review for presentation to Council.
Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn and Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and
the meeting adjourned.