HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111220_pc_mtg_min.pdfPLANNING COMMISSION
Demery Bishop
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan
Henry Levy
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion
Monty Parks, Chair
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2011— 7:00 p.m.
CITY MANAGER
Diane Schleicher
PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Steele Knudson
CITY ATTORNEY
Edward M. Hughes
Chair Monty Parks called the December 20, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John
Major, and Tyler Marion.
Chair Monty Parks asked for consideration of the Minutes of the November 15, 2011, meeting. Henry
Levy moved they be approved. Marianne Bramble seconded the motion. The vote to approve the Minutes
was unanimous. Parks said he would like some mention made that the presentation on the Conservation
zoning did not match the packet. Steele Knudson, Planning and Zoning Manager, said okay. Parks said he
would like an insertion of that just so that if in the future there is some discrepancy or discussion that this
Commission is covered and we are all good. Knudson said he thought that was a very good idea.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks said he could not help but notice that Dianne [Otto] was not there and that she was not
at the last meeting. He asked Steele Knudson to fill them in on that as they really are sentimentally
attached. Knudson said we are redefining some of the duties and going through and it is an evolving
process in our department and he anticipated she would be at the next meeting. Parks said okay, so we can
look forward to January. Steele said yes. Parks said we miss her; it is not that we do not love him to death
it is just that we do miss Dianne. Steele said she is a whole lot nicer to look at. Parks said yes.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Site Plan for 1114 Highway 80, PIN 4- 0026 -11 -011,
Zone C -2. The petitioner was Stayce Jarrell and the location was the Tybee Wedding Chapel. Steele
Knudson said the applicant is proposing to amend the Site Plan that was approved in February of this
year. He said they are going to enclose the bottom portion and increase the parking on the adjoining lot.
He said they will lose a number of parking spaces under the building but they more than make up for it.
He discussed an onscreen photograph of the building with some stacked parking underneath and a post -
construction elevation rendering showing doors enclosing that section with windows. He said it will have
all the required hydrostatic vents to meet code. Referring to the onscreen plan of the ground floor of the
building Knudson said it was interesting enough to note that occupancy for the building is set at 180 and it
will not change. He said the fire marshal went over this plan and noted that to get to the bottom floor you
have to leave the building, go out the exterior stairs, and then go back in and it is anticipated that with
events the same group is going to be on either floor, it is not separate groups, so the actual occupancy
would not change. Knudson said the previous parking plan from February has a very limited number of
spaces and includes some spaces under the building. He said in our parking requirements in our ordinance
for off - street parking restaurants and nightclubs have a certain calculation at 15 square feet per person
plus their employees, their maximum seating capacity is calculated and that is what the engineer did on
the plans in front of the Commissioners. He said the way we calculated it is according to the off - street
parking requirements for theaters, auditoriums, gymnasiums, and other places of assembly which requires
one parking space for each four seats of the main auditorium or you can calculate it 50 square feet so the
fire marshal sets occupancy at 180 total; the Chapel's seating capacity is 150 so under the formula you
divide that by 4 you get 37.5 parking spaces required or if you did it by square feet you get 36 spaces
required. He said the new parking plan shows 40 spaces with all of the handicapped spaces, the aisles and
drives, and the ramps as well so they are actually over - parked under our ordinance by 2 spaces or 2 -1/2.
Henry Levy asked if there were sufficient parking spaces. Knudson said yes, there are, in fact according to
the calculations there are either 2 -1/2 extra spaces or 4 spaces depending how you do the math. He said he
tended to go with the higher number so 2 extra spaces. Parks asked if that was the presentation. Knudson
said yes. Parks asked if there were any questions for Staff. John Major asked about the offsite parking.
Knudson said the adjacent lot is leased. Referring to a document, Major said this says parking is
accommodated on the adjoining lot as well as offsite. He asked what is the offsite that is other than the
adjacent lot. Knudson referred the question to Stayce Jarrell. She introduced herself and said it was
imperative last year when they got their business license that they had an adjoining lot for parking spaces.
She said that agreement with Elk Properties continues and she did not think they need any parking spaces
other than what they have between the Chapel site and the adjoining lot. She said they do have valet
parking so they are allowed, if they need an additional space or two, to stack parking because at every
wedding or every event they have people there that are present to handle that. Major said both the first
slide and the Staff Report say adjacent lot and offsite parking, and he wanted to make sure he knows what
it is they are being asked to approve. Knudson said the offsite is taken from the original plan to say we
need additional spaces. He said they are sufficiently parked between their lot and the adjacent lot and then
they would also have overflow; there is street parking in that neighborhood on both sides of the street.
Major stated we are not expanding the footprint or encroaching. Knudson said there is no expansion; they
are simply enclosing the bottom space and then reconfiguring the parking so that they have enough
spaces. Parks asked if there were any questions for Staff. Rob Callahan asked if the bottom floor of
buildings like this and his house and most peoples' houses out were left open because of FEMA
requirements. Knudson said under the FEMA requirements when you enclose this you would either have
to have breakaway walls or hydrostatic vents; because of the FEMA zone it is in hydrostatic vents are
sufficient. He said he went through this whole plan with the building inspector; they went onsite to check
and make sure that it could be enclosed under the rules. Callahan asked what a hydrostatic vent was.
Knudson said there are A zones and V zones and when you need breakaway walls the entire wall will split
off if there is a flood event; with hydrostatic vents it is just a vent for the water to flow through. He said
we anticipate less water and so it is only a vent required rather than the entire wall breaking away.
Callahan asked if that was included in the design. Knudson said it is; when they go to get their building
permit and submit their final engineering, etcetera, it will all be on there. Callahan asked if that will
satisfy the FEMA requirement. Knudson said yes, it will. Callahan said okay. Demery Bishop asked, in
reviewing the FEMA guidelines as well as the Tybee LDC [Land Development Code] on floods and flood
requirements, would it be hydrostatic vents incorporated into breakaway walls or just walls with the
hydrostatic vents. Knudson said walls with the hydrostatic vents will be sufficient for this flood area
under the FEMA rules. He said it was not necessarily how close to the beach you are; it is elevation.
Bishop said because it is an addition to an existing structure and is in a flood zone the city engineer would
be ensuring along with Staff all of the FEMA requirements. He asked about additional electrical. Jarrell
said they are very fortunate; there was no additional electrical, no additional plumbing. She said it is
basically just a way to keep the area cleaner, neater. She said they have not had a person park under this
building in 4 months. She said they have had 32 weddings. Jarrell said basically what happens is the
average wedding guest will come and sit down downstairs and wait for the wedding and then when the
wedding occurs they go and if the gnats are bad they are sitting downstairs, if the gnats are not bad they
2
are out on the lawn or they are looking at the marsh but they are basically trying to get out of the sun. She
said a lot of times our guests during the changeover, because we have a little period of time in between
the wedding and the reception, they may just be on the patio but if it is raining we need a place for our
guests to get out of the rain and also it seems that they like to come early and they just sit around
downstairs. She said it is crazy but it is good crazy. Bishop spoke of the existing HVAC and asked if there
would be new ductwork. Jarrell said no, they are not asking for any HVAC at all. Bishop asked if it would
not be air conditioned space. Jarrell said no. Major asked if there would be electrical fixtures added
downstairs, even switches on and off. Jarrell said they do not need any; they are done. She said basically
they could do something very unattractive like garage doors; they would like to do something more
attractive like french doors because the Chapel in and of itself has become kind of an icon for our area and
even when they had their first funeral and memorial service everyone was downstairs and it became
apparent that they needed to at least have an area that was a social gathering place even though it was not
heated or aired. Major asked if it would be lighted. Jarrell said it is already lit. She said she would like to
invite everyone on Tybee Island to please come and look at this facility. She said it is amazing. She said
free breakfast will not get you there; she does not know what to do. Parks asked if there were further
questions for Staff. Marianne Bramble asked if they did not have a couple of months ago something about
valet parking and stacked parking. Knudson said yes, we had that for a hotel that was proposing valet
parking in a situation that is a condo/hotel where individual owners might be blocked in by the valet
parking. He said it was not an event center like this where everybody arrives and then everybody departs.
Parks said it was a restaurant/bar that wanted to count valet parking as additional parking spaces to meet
their headcount versus parking spaces and they were taking away parking spaces with the addition and
they wanted to count valet. Knudson said the result of that is they are going into an existing space that
used to be a restaurant. Jarrell said we have an agreement with the city that we will have onsite staff for
valet parking because people, when they come to a wedding, do not park very well and that way we
already have provision for stacked parking but it is under the direction of our staff who will be there.
Parks called for closing questions for Staff. There were none. He asked for any additional questions for
the applicant. Bramble said she thinks the place looks wonderful; it is beautiful. Parks asked if anybody
from the public would like to take the podium. Gerald Schantz, owner of the property directly across the
street from the Chapel, Gerald's Pig and Shrimp, said he thought it was an absolute brilliant use of the
space. He said he is there all the time, sees how they care for their property, how they park, and it is just a
logical step and he certainly was in favor of it. He said he thought it was a good use of the neighborhood.
He said the people are either upstairs or downstairs. Parks added that the Pig and Shrimp looks very nice
lately. Bramble agreed. Park closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Major moved to approve.
Levy seconded the motion. The vote in favor of the motion to approve was unanimous. The motion to
approve passed with a 6 -0 vote. The request would go to Council the 12th of January.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Site Plan for 506 Jones Avenue, PINS 4- 0004 -21 -001
and -001A, Zone P -C. The petitioner was the City of Tybee Island and the project was a bicycle path in
Memorial Park. Steele Knudson said the idea is to pave the bike path from Fourth Street to Fifth Street
which would complete the island -wide bike path that comes down Second Avenue, goes through the park,
and then continues. He said the path as it exists is very close to what is being proposed in the master plan
for the Memorial Park; it follows almost the exact same line only we correct some sharp turns, have to
move a little close to the fence to make the path a little more safe and a little more operable. Knudson
described an onscreen map and plan. He said we have a gravel path through Memorial Park but over in
Jaycee Park there is a paved path that is wide enough that one bicycle can pass another without anybody
having to ditch into the grass. He further discussed the onscreen plan. Referring to onscreen photographs,
he said starting at the north end you enter from Second Avenue to the park, there is a small culvert that
you cross over that drains the picnic shelters to the east; this will remain and probably will be extended.
He said the path continues past the volleyball and picnic shelters and you get to a point where you cross
3
the road. He said there are stop signs for the bicycle path. He said the plan is to add some sort of marking
when the road gets paved so that cars know to yield to the path; there are a couple of signs there saying
bike path. Knudson said he would like to make that much more obvious but it is incumbent on the people
on the bike path to stop; they do not have the right of way here. He said the path continues across, goes
past the cemetery. He said as you are all well familiar with this area to the east we do have some drainage
issues; after a large storm the rain tends to puddle up for a few days. He said this will be corrected in the
engineering for the total park. He said at the fire station you get to the fence and you come around this
corner and it is sort of a sharp turn to the school and then around the fence and beyond the school there is
kind of a tight squeeze. He said in the plan that turn will be smoothed out and made more gradual; the
fence will move. Referring to trees located between the old school and the fire station administration
building, Knudson said to put in the path you are going to have to cut down into the ground some of the
surface roots but the trees will remain healthy and viable. He said this is where the path joins Fifth Street
and then it continues up the block around the Georgia Power station. Continuing to refer to onscreen
photographs and to the sharp turn, he said to come the other direction on the plan you can see where this
fence will move slightly so that the bicycles do not have to make a right angle turn. He said in order to do
this they are going to have to scrape down about 4- inches, they are going to lay about 4- inches of
aggregate, they will probably reuse all of the existing aggregate that is there, there will be about 2- inches
of asphalt. Knudson said it has not yet been determined whether this will be pervious or impervious; there
are pervious. asphalt, there are pervious concretes that are available, they are about three times the cost
and they tend to fail after a certain amount of time if you do not get an industrial vacuum out there to suck
out all the voids that get filled with grit and grime and then become impervious. He said some of the tree
roots will be cut but all of the trees will remain healthy and viable and the limbs above will be trimmed so
that bicyclists do not have to duck as they come past the school. Henry Levy asked if the paving is going
to be permeable. Knudson said that is going to be determined at the engineering phase and then the cost
will be calculated and the decision will be made at that point on whether it will be pervious but this
Commission can certainly made a recommendation. Levy said it was previously said that all paving shall
be permeable. He said he does not see why the city cannot comply with it because they made private
enterprise comply with it so the city should comply with it. John Major said he had that same comment.
He said in one of their later things they are going to review tonight they talk about what materials are
appropriate for paving and we changed gravel, crushed coral, oyster shells, and to pervious materials
designed to manage stormwater. He said, as he was sure Knudson did, he looked at the internet for
pervious bike trails and there is a ton of stuff available and he saw the cost was 10% to 40% more
expensive than asphalt but he thinks Mr. Levy makes a great point; we impose this on private residents
and everybody else and he does not think we set a good example if we do not follow our own regulations.
Levy said he thinks they are in violation of the law. Major said that too. Parks asked Knudson if he would
like to address that. Knudson said it is going to be a cost analysis and he was sure the City Council was
going to weigh in as well and then this body can definitely make the recommendation that it be pervious
and he was sure the City Council will definitely take that into consideration because they give a lot of
weight to what this Commission says. Major asked if this was already discussed at Council. Knudson said
what happened was at our last Council meeting the bike path came up and everyone was sort of anxious
for us to get moving on the pavement because we have had some people fall into the gravel. He said it is
not the most comfortable path and if you are going too fast, especially at that turn, and you try to cut
around that corner you are going to kind of skid out and it is has been the subject of some concern and so
in looking at our ordinance, for the Planning Commission we can move forward on a Site Plan before we
have the final engineering. He said for the City Council we have to have all of the final engineering and
drainage plans in place. He said he walked this with the city engineer and with the Director of Public
Works to discuss where the drainage would go to figure out what the problems were. He said he outlined
some of those problems in the photographs of the trail. Parks said he thinks the answer is yes. Major said
that was what he kind of heard. Demery Bishop commented he rides his bike from the north end to the
4
south end, east and west, as many of you know and many of you do, and on four different occasions this
late spring/early summer he helped individuals on that path because they had fallen, two children and two
adults at different times, and had lacerations on their knees and on parts of their hand. He said one other
instance a group from North Carolina were actually detouring around the park and onto Jones Avenue to
avoid a similar incident that they had witnessed because of the gravel that was there and the wearing and
tearing of it and, of course, it is a little difficult to navigate with small children that happen to have,
whether this is good, bad or indifferent, training wheels. Bishop said be that as it may, he thinks that this
is an excellent idea and does need to be addressed and he wanted to make sure he made that editorial
comment. Marianne Bramble said she walks this area several times a day and if we are going to spend this
money on the bike trial, which needs to be done so she does not think they should put it off, but there
should be another entrance guiding over to the bike trail like off of Fourth [Street]. She said people are
coming down Lovell Street, not just Second Street, to come onto the bike trail because you have little
bitty signs and most vacationers are riding the bikes so somewhere have the bike trail come in and angle
over somehow to the bike trail so you have two come to the main. She asked if that was making sense.
Knudson said that makes sense. He said we have got the basketball courts and the tennis courts with large
fences there and there is a small gap between City Hall and the tennis courts but that is certainly
something that, for safety, does need to be considered and especially when you get riders out on Jones
[Avenue], he does not even like to walk Jones. He said he has had comments from neighbors who say the
four -way stop, it gets ignored, the speed on Jones is higher that it should be which is why the bike path
was moved towards the center of the park so that the traffic on Jones would not interfere, also so that the
people entering the park through the drive would have time to see the path and we would not have a
conflict of cars turning in and out at the path. He told Bramble it was a great comment. Bramble said
bring another entrance in, that would work so that if you know you were designing the bike trail and you
are going to spend all that money and go all the way down to one end of the island we should do it right
and make it where tourists and vacationers understand and can see it and come in and across on all angles
instead of going out on Butler [Avenue] because they all go out on Butler or Jones rather than find the
small entrance to the bike path in that park. Knudson said perhaps more wayfinding to direct them
towards the path could be an interim solution. He told Bramble she was right; there is a big concern about
people biking on Butler and Jones; there is just not room on the sidewalks and there is certainly not room
on the road for bicycles on Butler. Major asked if they are going with impervious materials would not a
variance request be required even though it is the city. Knudson said this is one of those technicalities that
he is not so fond of; the city is not necessarily required to follow every ordinance it enacts which, to him,
is a shame. He said he would have to refer that to Bubba Hughes, the City Attorney, and ask him what
type of variance we need. He said the reason we are going through Site Plan is the city cannot move
forward without going through this body for Site Plan Approval and through the City Council. Bramble
said coming off of Fourth Street in between the volleyball court and the basketball court you have a
sidewalk. She asked if we are adding that sidewalk because there is not a sidewalk there. Knudson said
that was part of the plan for the whole park; tonight we are just focusing on the bike path exclusively
because of the safety issues that are involved with the gravel and the concern that City Council had in
wanting to move forward and paving that we were able to separate it out solely for approval of the bike
path's location for a Site Plan. He said the sidewalk is part of the plan for the future of the rest of the park.
Bramble said if we are going to do it we should do all of it at one time because we are going to end up
piecemealing it together. Parks said they could include that in their recommendations to Council: come to
us with a package. Major said he was concerned. He said the request that they are being asked to review
and act on is Site Plan Approval for paving the bicycle path and we have defined paving very specifically.
Knudson said that was exactly right; we are just looking at the bike path so that we can move forward
with the paving and what that paving consists of and whether it be pervious or impervious will be part of
the engineering plans as well. Major said we will never see the engineering plans or the drainage plans or
the type of material that is going to be used or anything that is going to go into it. Knudson said we could
5
certainly bring it back to this committee if you would like. Levy said we could go ahead and approve it.
Parks confirmed there were no other questions. Levy moved they approve it provided it drains and it is
pervious. Major seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Bishop, Rob Callahan, Levy, Major, and
Tyler Marion. Bramble voted against. The motion to approve the bicycle path provided it drains and
it is pervious passed with a 5 -1 vote. Parks noted the Planning Commission also has asked that they not
be approached with a piecemeal approach to the park improvements. Knudson said it certainly will be.
Chair Monty Parks opened discussion for the formation of a committee for Article 18, Lighting. Steele
Knudson said at the last City Council meeting we put forward a resolution on the exact membership and
makeup of an ad hoc committee for the lighting ordinance. He said they felt that the Planning
Commission was capable of doing it without forming a formal ad hoc committee and asked him to come
back to the Planning Commission and see that that happens so what we are going to need to do, and
granted, this is the last meeting of this current Commission. Parks said no, January. Knudson said he does
not want to rush forward with schedules when we may have new members but in the past Planning
Commission has met on more than one occasion a month. He suggested they met on two Tuesday
evenings during the month. Parks said in the past there was a pre- meeting which was two weeks ahead
and then at the regular meeting. He said it was like an agenda meeting for discussion of subjects. Rob
Callahan said we have had workshops. Parks agreed. Knudson said okay, this evening in order to tackle
the lighting ordinance we will need to get some volunteers and either form a subcommittee or task force
or schedule additional meetings and then decide who we should invite. He said certainly in our resolution
proposal to City Council there were members of the City Council who were non - voting on the committee
and a number of citizens as well and we should definitely consult the Department of Natural Resources
and the Tybee Island Marine Science Center. He said just some notes on lighting ordinances, when you go
out and measure illuminance you need a device which we now own. Knudson said for enforcement
purposes you have to be able to measure the exact output of the lights; you cannot just go by what the
wattage is on the bulb or what type of bulb it is. He said for example on an overcast sky with starlight you
are at like .00001 lux. He said the average office space is lit at about 300 to 500, and when you get outside
in full daylight you are looking at 25,000, 30,000, up to 130,000 in direct sunlight, so there is a very wide
range and you need a precise device to measure that. He said he did go into the parking lot of a couple of
our retail spaces and at night when you measure at the building facing the light you get about 300 lux so it
is as bright as his office or brighter than this room at night in their parking lots and that is something they
will need to look at. He said tonight is how should we proceed. Parks said one of the first things would be
to decide how many members we should have from the Planning Commission. Parks identified the
Commissioners that had volunteered last time as: Demery Bishop, Tyler Marion, himself, and Marianne
Bramble. He said we have four; that is more than enough unless somebody else wants to join at this point.
Bishop and Parks discussed that it was three Commissioners plus the Planning Commission Chairperson.
Bishop asked if it was just simply that the City Council felt the Planning Commission could do it or was
there specific objections to having citizens part of this, members of the Beach Task Force; what was their
reasoning for not going forward with the resolution. Knudson said there was not any objection to having
citizens or members of the Beach Task Force; it was the act of going through the formality of creating an
ad hoc committee that has a certain duration which may then have to be extended, etcetera, when they
trust the Planning Commission to get it done and to consult with all the necessary people and that was a
great vote of confidence. Bishop said okay, he just wanted to clarify that for the record. Parks said we
need a Council Member; they have got to sign up with this too. He said we need at least one if not two.
He asked if we have names. Knudson said no one has volunteered at this point but once we have a
schedule in place he was sure the interest would bring the volunteers out. Parks confirmed the City
Council makeup would change in January due to the November election and they would then appoint the
new Planning Commissioners. Parks suggested waiting until Council's January meeting to see who would
volunteer. It was discussed that the Council's second meeting in January had been canceled. Knudson
Con
asked if they would like two Council members; was that a number they would like to set or would they
like to open it up. Parks said they should open it up; they are non - voting so they would not hold up the
quorum or anything of that nature and they can only help. He said they should ask for two and they will
consult with DNR. He asked when their first meeting should be; should they wait until February.
Knudson said that was probably the wisest course of action, to wait until we have City Council members
in attendance. He said they can go ahead and one of the best ways to start this is for everybody to learn
how to use a light meter so as we write an ordinance we know that it can be enforced and how the
enforcement will take place. He said he would hate to put something together that then is not measurable.
He said one of the things he learned, he called around to numerous cities who have lighting ordinances, is
that their enforcement people do not even have a meter; they tend to just go out to the parking lot and kind
of look and say, well you know, can you shift that a little bit or dim it down. Knudson said in order to
have something that is enforceable you need standards that are measurable. Bishop said that would have
been very critical on a previous item that was before this Commission concerning lighting at a new sign
that was being requested on Butler [Avenue] because that was an issue about lumens and lux. Parks said
we have a four person committee, a request for two Council members, first meeting to be held in
February. He asked if they should pick a date. Knudson said the first Planning Commission meeting is on
the 21st and traditionally in the past the pre- meeting or workshop meeting had been held two weeks
before so it would have been held on the first Tuesday with the Planning Commission meeting on the
third Tuesday. He asked if that was a good way to approach it. He said he has the entire calendar for the
year here. Parks said he likes the idea of establishing the precedent of a pre- meeting two weeks prior; that
is a good thing to move forward on. Knudson said okay. Parks said if it is not used for this committee it
can be used for others. Knudson said that works great with the schedule; it is the one night that is open
and available. Parks said the lighting committee would be a good start for that and then we can grow that
from there. Knudson said he will add to the schedule starting in February a first Tuesday workshop
meeting. That date was determined to be February 7. There was no response when Parks asked if there
were any other comments from the Commission.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment of Section 3 -165, Greenspace.
Steele Knudson said this one is tricky. He said we had a draft go up to the City Council, they thought it
was too restrictive and rejected it and asked that we look at it again. He said on the slide that he has up
this sort of illustrates what we are looking at; you have got a concrete driveway, a gravel parking area,
and then grass, what is obviously green. He said the question comes up is we have an ordinance that
requires pervious driveways, we have stated in the past exactly what materials could be used, and now we
have a definition that allows, that sort of expands, the materials to say so long as they manage stormwater
runoff. He said what we have done with this draft, and this needs a lot of eyes on it and a lot of
improvement, we are not trying to define vegetation, we are not trying to distinguish it from impervious
pavement because a lot of the same materials used to pave driveways are also used in flower beds for
mulching purposes, we are not going to define mulch and we are not trying to restrict what materials can
be used on groundcover. Knudson said as Major noted on a previous issue the language of the ordinance
talks about permanent permeable surfaces remaining in a vegetative state. He said the vegetative state had
presented a little bit of a problem in terms of defining that because you have grass growing through
gravel, you have planting beds, etcetera, so the formula became complex so what we are trying to do is to
distinguish the driveway and the parking surface from the landscaping. He said our off - street parking
ordinance used to say you could use gravel, crushed coral, oyster shells; now the language is pervious
materials designed to manage stormwater so in looking at the issue we decided to focus on just the right -
of -way rather than to get into the yard and try to regulate plants, where they can go, etcetera, so anything
that is a paving material used for your driveway in the right -of -way cannot be used for landscaping or
ground cover which basically means you cannot just pour down gravel across the front of your lawn to
create six parking spaces for your friends and your family but it allows the city to still maintain parking
7
spaces in the right -of -way for tourists. Referring to an onscreen photograph, Knudson said this is one of
the driveways that sort of sparked this issue; you can see the concrete covers the entire front yard. He said
this driveway was then extended; you can see the original driveway and then the additional part that was
poured later to give an additional drive aisle. He said the only open space left is this small strip along the
fence and then this is the property line and the formula talks about 65% in pervious, 35% covered.
Knudson said we have a number of driveways like this that have been put in despite the ordinance.
Regarding the next photograph he said here is the issue, a number of homeowners who like to have
additional parking and so the gravel goes down and it is not green, it is not a driveway; our driveways our
defined at 25 -feet wide, etcetera, so we are trying to come up with language that works to define what is
the driveway, even when it is pervious material, versus what is the landscaping and the greenspace so you
have the ordinance in front of you. He said we have had some other recommended language; one phrase
was to call everything that is not a driveway "open plantible area" which is fairly easy to define: it is
plantible, it can have grass, it can have a tree, it can have a shrub, it cannot have a driveway. Knudson
said this is a really tricky one and he is looking to this Commission for input and recommendations. John
Major said our previous ordinance said that 65% of the setback area would be permeable material and
now we are saying that driveways and other setback cannot be more than 35 %. He asked if those two
equal the same number of square feet or is the latter considerably less than the former. Knudson said the
issue that comes up is if you have a permeable driveway does that count as permeable yard. He said the
formula was created for asphalt and concrete and now we have a very different paving method and so he
would hate for somebody to say, well, I have concrete pavers, my driveway is pervious and now I am
going to put a concrete patio down on 35% of my front lawn and you cannot count the driveway against
me because it is pervious. He said we have a number of pervious driveways that cover the entire front.
Major questioned that concrete is not allowed anyhow. Knudson replied that pavers was what he had said.
Henry Levy asked if this took into account the area that is covered by the structure itself, the house.
Knudson said it addresses only the setback area of the front yard so that would be from the right -of -way
to the house and what he was trying to approach is just within the right -of -way that we could be a little
more restrictive because the issue that came up is that rocks and gravel and shells are used in gardens and
are used in planting beds and it is very difficult to go into a yard and say, well that rock there is on the
driveway and that rock is part of the mulch for the plant. He said he does not want to have to calculate
things that way; it just presents an ordinance that is impossible to enforce, but we do have this issue of the
driveway crossing the right -of -way, being 25 -feet wide according to our ordinance, and then the rest of
what is the right -of -way, how do we address it. Levy said he ought to designate that this only applies to
the front yard setback because when you are talking about setbacks you have got a side yard setback, you
have got a rear yard setback. Knudson said Levy makes an excellent point because we have swimming
pools and patios in backyards as well, you get coverage on the back, the front, the sides, we address
decks, etcetera, so our old formula of 35/65 is not as easy to apply when we have permeable driveways.
Major asked does this only apply to the front setback. He said it says setbacks. Knudson said one of the
portions only applies to the front right -of -way, the right -of -way that is between the yard and the street; the
rest refers to the designated setback area of a lot so under that language it applies to the front and the
back. Major said and the sides. Knudson said and the sides so if you have got a swimming pool we have
got to measure that as impervious and so if you have a large swimming pool and you have a concrete
driveway as well we are looking at a high percentage of impervious surface. Levy said he ought to clear
that up; it ought to be apparent to anybody that reads it and not have to interpret it like Knudson just did.
Knudson said he agreed and that was why we are here before you guys to say are we looking at this the
right way. He said his big concern is this calculation of 35% and 65 %, and what are we counting when
you have got gravel and shells and a driveway that cars drive over repeatedly, it becomes less permeable;
how do we calculate that compared to what may be a planting bed with white rock or a shell garden. Rob
Callahan said this is certainly one of those instances where a picture is worth a thousand words. He said if
they could have some pictorial diagrams inserted into the Land Development Code in cases like this
showing people both what is correct as well as what is incorrect and give an example of how the
calculation would be made counting a swimming pool, not counting a swimming pool. He said maybe
you would end up with a thousand sketches and it is not worth the effort but this seems like one of those
places where some diagrams would help a lot. Knudson agreed. He commented that a lot of the
ordinances he looked at for greenspace are 25 to 50 pages of guidance on native plants, on landscaping,
and diagrams. He said we are trying to approach this with three paragraphs. He said the City of Miami
was 75 pages. Major said he likes things simple but what is wrong with just saying if you have 1,000
square feet of combined front, side, and rear setbacks you have got to have 650 feet of pervious surfaces if
that is what our intent is. He said that means if you have got 35 %, 350 feet, knock yourself out, but that is
what you have got. Knudson said so then if you have a gravel driveway that is counted as permeable
surface and your swimming pool is counted as impervious. He said we could certainly do it that way.
Major said one lets the water go through it and hopefully the other does not. Levy said if you have enough
trees planted you have got to deduct those; that is impervious. He clarified where the trunk goes into the
ground is impervious. Knudson said which is why we are trying to do this with the simplest language
possible. He said if you have 1,000 square feet, 650 have to be impervious. It was asked what was wrong
with that. Knudson said there was absolutely nothing wrong with that and the policy question was: are we
going to calculate driveways with concrete pavers or with gravel as pervious. Major said that is pervious.
He said the new ordinance requires if you have concrete pavers you have to actually have a maintenance
plan for those. He reflected on a discussion Downer Davis, the city's consulting engineer, gave about how
to maintain a driveway. Parks asked if he put in his driveway of pervious blocks then can he concrete the
rest up to 35 %. Major questioned if concrete can be used anywhere. Knudson said it is certainly on pool
decks and for sidewalks; it is acceptable. Parks posed if he makes his driveway pervious then he is
allowed to make more of his setback area impervious. Major said you have got 650 feet if you have 1,000
feet of setback; knock yourself out. Levy said what a lot of people are doing is they are paving with brick
or concrete blocks and not filling the joints. He asked if that was considered pervious or impervious.
Knudson said for the driveway ordinance that is considered pervious. Using an onscreen photograph, he
said the question is if this driveway were built out of paving blocks instead of poured concrete would we
then say that whole front yard is pervious under our ordinance. Major asked why wouldn't you. Knudson
said that was the question he was asking. Major said if a small driveway made out of pervious pavers is
pervious why isn't a big one. He said you have got a 25 -foot limit. Knudson said so that exceeds the limit
so we go by the 25 -foot. Major said that driveway could not be built today. Levy said what a lot of people
are doing is they are using impervious concrete or fired brick paving and leaving it out of the joints and
that seems like a good solution; although certainly a majority of the area is impervious still all of those
joints absorb the water. Major said to do it otherwise requires a lot of judgment calls and subjective
decisions and if you just do the math it would be simpler. Parks said that was a fair recommendation, to
just apply a simple formula. He said each homeowner should know their total square footage of setback
and the percentage of pervious to impervious, and what you do with your property is up to you. He said
what basically we are after here is runoff protection. Knudson said we have an ordinance that covers
sediment control and erosion that gets into a lot of these issues. He said the greenspace ordinance intent
was to say what is your yard and are you growing grass there versus having a concrete driveway. He said
the issue though that comes up quite often is where people put the gravel down across the whole front and
if they use that language of limiting it to the 25 -feet in the right -of -way then they cannot do that so we
have addressed the right -of -way, and then the setback area is a straight calculation, 35/65, and we can
separate the two. Levy said you have got to be very careful how you word it. He said we had an ordinance
once that said your paving had to be pervious so you could pave a 25- by 25 -foot area with concrete and
drill four 1/4-inch holes in it and it was pervious. Knudson said our engineer would actually go out there
and with the Director of Public Works they do test driveways that are pavers and measure the runoff.
Parks said Downer [Davis] actually has a formula and a test involving a bucket and a stopwatch. He asked
for other discussion on greenspace. He said Knudson has a couple of good recommendations: front
0
setback versus all setback areas, ratio of total square footage, visual guides to greenspace. He said maybe
you do want to make this more of a 25 to 50 page presentation rather than three paragraphs; maybe not.
He said that was all Knudson was going to get out of them on that. Knudson said that was exactly what he
needed and he thanked them.
Chair Monty Parks directed the group to a Text Amendment of Article 7, Tree Removal Regulations.
Steele Knudson said we had this before us at our last meeting and it was decided that we would need to
vote on portions of the ordinance rather than try to put a motion on the floor with the ordinance as
amended that we would go through and make decisions on each issue which would be: do we include
pines as a significant species, are we okay with the fine of $1,000 per tree for unlawful removal, do we
want to change the off -site mitigation for significant species from $50 an inch, is that high enough, low
enough, and then we need to vote on the removal of that phrase "in lieu of so that rather than have an
option of paying for off -site mitigation or going to court that you have to both plant the trees and pay the
fine, and then the term "canopy tree" it was proposed that that might be a good inclusion in the significant
species list and he provided a number of definitions for canopy trees so to take this ordinance apart we
need to just hammer out each one of those issues. Parks said before we go any further he would like to
pull a Levy here and he would like to ask that the first page of each item of business be on a facing page
and not on the back of the last page of the prior piece of business. He said he was a simple guy; he gets
confused easy. Knudson said okay, he would make that correction. Parks called for discussion. Tyler
Marion said in the statistical data he offered up last session the six municipalities, three in South Carolina,
three in Georgia, Tybee ranked third so with what they are doing now they actually have a chance to turn
the table, so to speak, and make Tybee not third, but even if you look at those three cities, make us the
first. He said we have an opportunity to make some changes and be a leader. John Major said we had
some harsh comments about pine trees at the last meeting and he did research and found an article called
The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. He quoted from it, "Most species of pine are long -lived and provide
numerous benefits during their lifetime. There are more than 90 species that are beneficially recognized.
Pine trees thrive even in the harshest of conditions, are disease and insect resistant and provide good
resistance to fire and wind." Major said the stated concern is generally we are going to have a hurricane,
they are going to snap off and fall on my house, and it does appear that they have less resiliency or
flexibility than an oak tree but there is a lot of information out there about pine trees and when to make
the decision on when to cut them, and he could not find anything that said that they are going to cause you
to have diseases and bugs and things. He offered to share his research with the others. He said they did go
through the exercise going through all of Article 3 and Article 5, and he noticed in the proposed ordinance
that we go back and forth between reference to a significant tree and a tree just almost interchangeably
and we define a significant tree in our definitions as a 10 -inch diameter at breast height. Major said he
does not have anything against pine trees and he liked it when they included them as real trees. Demery
Bishop said pine trees are a nuisance. He said the City of Colorado Springs did an extensive survey; they
came up with a rather scientific way of determining significant versus non - significant trees. He read,
"What makes a tree significant? 1.) A tree associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to patterns of the city's history. 2.) They are associated with lives of people significant in
their city's past. 3.) They have a particular and strong sentimental value to a neighborhood. 4.) They are
on a state or national tree registry. 5.) They possess a botanical, aesthetic, or ecological significance."
Bishop asked how do they move from that. He answered by reading, "They have determined minimum
standards: 1.) Any tree to be considered significant must have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. 2.)
It must have a repeated historical aspect of a sound trunk determined by a botanist and/or other ecological
scientist. 3.) No more than 30% dead wood at any time in the tree's canopy. 4.) No more than minor
insect/disease problems." He said once they consider a tree significant with their minimum standards then
they impose specific criteria: size, the rarity, the age, the memorial aspects for the community, the
historical significance, the specimen grouping and impact on the ecosystem, and the uniqueness of that
10
tree. Bishop said they go into special care and considerations for that particular tree, and all of this is
determined when someone seeks to have a tree designated as a significant tree; it is not left up to a body
of politicians and/or appointed individuals but is determined by a professional group of forestry experts
after a review of a nomination. He repeated pine trees are a nuisance. Henry Levy said amongst real
foresters the pine tree is considered a weed but he votes in favor of pine trees; he likes them, they grow
quick, they are here. He said he was not talking about longleaf pine, he was talking about the slash pine
that we have predominately. He repeated he votes in favor of them; he likes them. Bishop said Levy was
entitled to his opinion; pine trees are a nuisance. Rob Callahan asked if anywhere in what Bishop read did
it specifically exclude the possibility of nominating a pine tree as a significant tree. Bishop said no.
Callahan said so theoretically the City of Colorado Springs could have significant pine trees. Bishop said
certainly, if it meets their criteria. Major asked if they have pine trees in Colorado Springs. Bishop said
they have balsam firs and spruces and things of that nature but he was not sure about pine trees. Marianne
Bramble asked what happened to her suggestion of all the palm trees in this area. She said she has three
types of palm trees in her yard and she has 17 palm trees in her yard. She asked what happened to the
palm trees as a significant species or canopy tree. Knudson said we could certainly add that to the list, to
say we are going to vote on palm trees and pine trees. He said we just went through this with a Site Plan
where somebody removed a palm tree they had to replace a tree and it was up to them under our
ordinance what tree to put in so palms are protected slightly but certainly we can add that to our list if she
would like. Bramble said she knows that we are discussing pine trees but in the last meeting on this she
asked about palms. Knudson said in reviewing it with Staff it came back, several comments from
members of the Council, a palm is a grass not a tree and so you could put a motion to say we are going to
add palms trees to this list. Callahan said he would definitely vote in favor of that and that was his
concern with the sheet Knudson put in about tree canopy definitions. He said after reading through all of
those his question was will any of this be guaranteed to accommodate our palm trees. He said in a beach
community a palm tree would have to be something of significance and it helps to define what Tybee
Island is. Levy said he agreed. He described a palm tree near his porch. Bishop said the issue of
significant tree, a palm or a pine, perhaps we do need to look into how we define such as the example he
provided earlier on what is it and how do you determine a significant tree. Major said we have a
definition. Bishop said he understands that He asked is it as extensive as how other cities and jurisdictions
have done that and, if so, is it a planning issue that we might want to undertake. He said he understands
that the short-term is on pines. He said if you look at the list of significant trees that we have under
Definition we really do not address specificity as to how you make that decision necessarily by bringing it
before a Planning Commission when we really do not possess the necessary information on a significant
tree as maybe a member of the forestry community or someone would as Colorado Springs. He said he
was not saying that was all inclusive or should be but it is the type of research and planning aspects that
we might undertake in making decisions on such things as trees, and other things as well, where it has
already been invented and we do not need to reinvent the wheel but perhaps use a proven formula and/or
definition that has been looked at by other city administrations. Bramble said the DNR, when they are
measuring any line, measures by the height of a tree not the species of a tree so she is coming back to her
own personal space with pine trees in her yard that are well over 20 -feet and DNR would measure that in
delineating a line. She said Tybee is not full of just oak trees and pines, and like Rob [Callahan] said, we
are a beach community so palms are a lot of them on Tybee. Referring to the documents before her, she
said she asked about this last meeting and she does not see anything in here about that. Bramble suggested
making definitions of the species as Demery [Bishop] said because there are many different palm trees on
Tybee along with pines and oaks. Parks suggested voting as it was asked for in the first request from
Council, if they felt that they could, on including pines under the current definition of significant species
on Tybee. He said that was not excluding other varieties and that also was not limiting them to not
making a motion to include other ones or to change the definition of significant trees. Parks said tonight
they have been asked to vote on whether they should include pines as a significant species under their
11
current definition. He said he was open to being corrected on this. Levy said you have to be specific; you
cannot just say pine. He said you have to say the species of pine and what they have mostly on Tybee is
called a slash pine. Parks agreed. He said there are several species. Marion said last session he had made a
statement, "Outside of what is considered the significant trees in addition to these all other canopy trees
not listed above are also protected." He said perhaps that would cover the multiple species of pines we
have. He said he does like that language and another community, coastal, uses that same language in
protection of their trees. Levy pointed out they have an expert with them and when it comes to a definition
they ought to hear from him. Parks commented that he seemed to be remaining quiet through this. Levy
said he was shaking his head back and forth; when he likes it he shakes his head up and down, when he
does not he goes from side to side. The man was not identifiable; neither Levy nor Parks said the name of
the person. Parks said he does not mean to be simplistic or stubborn or anything but they have been asked
to vote under the current definition, which may or may not be the proper way to define our trees, to
include pines as a significant. Major said he would hate to see us have an ordinance that would just allow
the clear cutting of a large lot of any kind of large trees without any sanction or oversight of the city
government and he was afraid that was where they could be going if they go strictly with significant trees
are only the hardwoods and the live oaks and the magnolias and the happy trees and we could lose a lot of
our canopy and we have had it happen not far from where he lives on large lots that were largely pine
trees mixed with others that just were clear cut and at least somebody should look at it before it happens.
Major said we should have some protection for that even if you allow it. He said if mitigation is required
to cut down a pine tree, plant an oak tree; if you cut down a pine tree and do not do anything it is a
mistake. Knudson said our current ordinance, you still have to come in and get a permit for a pine tree.
Major asked him if he would not grant that permit if our ordinance only protects significant trees.
Knudson said within the ordinance there is a whole list on permitting. He said there is a different fee
schedule and there is a different mitigation schedule for the significant trees but we still require permits
for pine trees and he has been looking at those for the last month; we have had a lot of those come in. He
said he has been out onsite to look at trees. He said our Director of Public Works goes out and looks at
trees; somebody says, oh, I have got a dead tree and I need to cut it down, he will go out and look and see
if it is really dead or alive and see if it is really a threat to the house because where there is an imminent
danger we want people to be able to act, but pine trees are still protected to a degree, just not the same
degree. Major said another way to look at it was what this body has done for the last year- and -a -half:
when they have looked at the language of "significant tree" they have taken that language out. He said
they removed a lot of the word "significant" and if the ordinance applied to a tree then it would do the
same thing rather than try to designate everything as a significant tree. He said a tree is a tree, and you
have a designated 10 -inch diameter at breast height. Bramble asked if Levy would be willing to put palm
trees in with his motion as a significant tree also. Levy told her she could propose that and they vote on
her proposal first; if it passes, the whole thing passes. He said if it was voted down, they just vote on the
pine tree. Parks said he understood what Bramble was saying. He said first they have been asked by
Council to vote on pines. He said he understands other species and it was important they get other species
included. Bramble proposed that they also add in palm trees while they are voting on significant trees;
they should not piecemeal things together and come back later and say oh, let's add this tree in. Levy
asked what kind of palm trees. A discussion of different species of palms and pines occurred. Parks said
he had a motion on the floor to vote for palms as a significant species. Bramble said along with the pine.
Parks said he has a request from Council to vote on pines but he has a motion on the floor. He said he
might be wrong in his point of order and please correct him if he is wrong, but he has a request from
Council to vote on pines; he was more than willing to consider a motion to vote on palms. He asked for a
second for palms as a significant species. Marion seconded. Parks called for the vote which was
unanimous. The motion to approve palms as a significant species passed with a 6 -0 vote. Parks told
Knudson that goes to Council. Knudson said okay. Parks said at this point voting on the motion from
Council to include pines as significant species. He said he guessed he has got a second and he asked for
12
the vote. Bramble, Callahan, Levy, Major, and Marion voted in favor. Bishop voted in opposition. The
motion to approve pines as significant species passed with a 5 -1 vote. Parks said out of respect for the
voluntary nature of this Commission and for the time of the members, he was open to motions as to how
long they should pursue the balance of the meeting; sometimes we call these after a certain timeframe. It
was decided to press on. Parks described the next request from Council as being a proposed fine of $1,000
per tree for unlawful removal. Major asked if they were saying unlawful removal of trees, or unlawful
removal of significant trees, or was there a difference. Knudson said trees includes all trees. Major asked
Marion how that stacked up with fines that he saw in his research. Marion said for the State of Georgia, of
the three municipalities Tybee actually was the one imposing the steepest fine. Major asked if it was this.
Marion said yes, it was this. He said for South Carolina, one of the three cities actually had a fine of
$1,027, but looking at all six municipalities, each tree program was radically different. He said that given
the blending of our trees and what they are, being definitely somewhat different than Saint Mary's, we
still have an opportunity to really look at that $1,000 per tree unlawful removal and consider bumping it
up perhaps and send a message to those who choose to unlawfully remove trees. He said it could be a
little bit higher, maybe not. Levy said it was awfully high because he has got some areas near him where
the pines are as thick as grass; a whole group of them are growing up together. He said not all of them are
going to survive. It was noted that the $1,000 was for unlawful removal only. The size component within
the definition of a tree was also noted. Marion asked what the history was like as far as fines imposed for
illegal cutting on Tybee within the last year or two; how frequently it has occurred or do we find that most
people choose to comply with the rules and regulations that we have when it come to the tree ordinance
that is enforced when it comes to cutting a tree. Knudson said he has been here a total of less than three
months so he was not aware of any fines of $1,000 per tree. He said we have gone after people for work
without a permit, double the permit fee plus $250, and then because we have the "in lieu of they still
have to plant trees so we do not do both; we do not say, okay go back and plant the tree and we are going
to fine you. He said that was one of those that was coming up so he thinks it has been approached as work
without a permit and so long as you replace the tree we are not going to fine you. Major asked if that was
changing. Knudson said if they vote to change it, it will change; the recommendation will go up to change
it. Parks asked for comments on a proposed fine of $1,000 per tree for unlawful removal. Bramble said it
was not too steep because we have a lot of people on Tybee that work without permits. She suggested
they take out the "in lieu of and if they do it without permits they not only have to pay the fine but they
also have to replace the tree. Parks asked if had a 6 -inch tree that he wanted to get permitted to cut down,
what was it going to cost him for the permit. Major responded $50 an inch, right. Knudson said the permit
in general, it depends; the permit is different for significant species than it is for regular trees. Parks said
okay, non - significant. Knudson said at 6- inches he was not even sure that that qualifies as a tree. Major
and Parks said that is a tree. Knudson said okay, under our fee schedule most of what he sees is $50 an
inch, and then of course we have to go out and look and make sure you are telling us that the species it is
is accurate and then we actually go to make sure that the minimum amount of trees is still left over. Parks
asked if he has got a 20 -inch non - significant tree and he cut it down without a permit, he is going to pay
$1,000 in the fine but he is going to pay $1,000 for the permit, $50 an inch. Knudson said no, hold on,
that does not sound right. Parks agreed. Major confirmed with Parks it was a 20 -inch tree. Major said that
was $1,000. Parks asked if that was for the permit. Major said yes. Then many people spoke at the same
time. Knudson said no, the $50 per inch is on mitigation offsite; our permit is about $50 for the permit
and then the mitigation is the $50 per inch. He said he has never seen anybody charged for a permit more
than $50 so our fee schedule was different than our fine schedule and our mitigation schedule and what
we are looking at right now, to vote on the proposed fine of $1,000 per tree for unlawful removal, is
different than what would be a fee for a permit versus what would be the monetary amount for offsite
mitigation. Major asked what does that mean; who does he pay that to. Knudson said that goes into Palms
Up fund. He said say for example we had a building go in and they took out a tree and they were required
to put one back in but we had overhead power lines, we had city right -of -ways, we had Georgia right -of-
13
ways, now we did find a place for them to put a tree, however, had they been required to mitigate offsite,
or allowed to mitigate offsite, they would have paid the per inch on a significant species or $100 to $200
for a palm tree. Major said but if it was Parks' 20 -inch tree it would have been $1,000. Knudson said yes,
the offsite mitigation on a significant tree is fairly steep and in fact it may actually be less than replacing
the tree in terms of all the diameters on your own property, but our ordinance, we require you to replace
on your own property unless you meet the minimum so on a lot that has a lot of trees you pay the fee for
the permit, you get to cut it down and then you may or may not have to replace it depending on how many
trees you have left over under our current ordinance. Parks said his fee for just doing an illegal cutting on
a 6 -inch or a 20 -inch tree would be a grand [$1,000] but if $50 gets him permission to do it there might be
some mitigation that would cost him more but basically he was good with 20 times the permit fee as a
penalty. He said if Knudson is saying it is about $50 for a non - mitigated, non - significant, standard slash
pine then 20 times that in a penalty fee. Major asked if he would like a motion. Parks said they have one;
Council has given us a motion and a second: proposed fine $1,000 per tree on an unlawful removal. He
asked if they were ready for a vote. Callahan asked how can Council give us a motion and a second. Parks
said they obviously did some motion to send this to us and that had to be seconded and voted on. Callahan
asked if we do not have to have our own motion and a second, procedurally. Parks said we can do that. He
asked for a motion. Unidentifiable voices made a motion and a second. Levy asked if a definition of a tree
had to be 6- inches or more in diameter. Knudson said we are not changing the definitions as they are
written right now; that was not part of the proposed amendment. Levy asked if it was not already part of
the law that a tree has to be 6- inches in diameter to be considered a tree. Knudson said he believed Levy
was correct. Major read the definition, "A tree means any woody plant that has a diameter of 6- inches or
more or any woody plant with a caliper measure of 2- inches or more if it is part of a previous tree
mitigation plan." He said so if it is something you just planted you cannot cut it down because it is not 6-
inches, which makes sense, but that is what we are saying, if it is 5- inches it is a big weed. Parks asked for
those in favor. It was a unanimous vote. The motion to approve a fine of $1,000 per tree for unlawful
removal passed with a 6 -0 vote. Knudson said the next item was for the amount to pay for offsite
mitigation of significant species if you cannot replace it on your own property and this is one of the things
we discussed at our last meeting. He said the cost of a large hardwood being $300, $400, $500, just to
purchase a 12 -foot tall tree and you may need several of those in order to make up the total diameter
replacement so the question before you on a vote is is the amount $50 per inch reasonable and did you
want to continue with $50 an inch. Major said that is the question; this is just a continuation of what we
have in our current ordinance. Knudson said or would you like to amend it; that is the question. Parks
asked Marion where Tybee fell in comparison to other municipalities. Marion said South Carolina pretty
much has killed off a lot of their trees and had so many different ideas but the bottom line, within the
coastal communities, Georgia, when it came to that particular item that was very average. He said he did
not see anything that was over what we currently have in place. Parks said so $50 an inch is like baseline.
Marion said affirmative. Parks asked for a motion or further discussion. Major moved to leave it as is.
There was no sound but Parks was looking at either Levy or Callahan and he said he had a second. He
called for the vote. It was a unanimous vote in favor. The motion to not change the mitigation fee of
$50 per inch passed with a 6 -0 vote. Knudson said excellent. He said the next item comes from Section
7- 090(B) and it reads that a "violation... shall be subject to the following fines and restrictions." He said
they voted on $1,000 and then (B) says, "In lieu of, or in addition to, the penalties imposed in subsection
(A) herein above, the party or parties found to be in violation... shall be required to plant or replace
trees..." He said so basically if you planted the trees on your property and did the mitigation even after
unlawfully removing a tree, the "in lieu of meant we did not fine you and make you mitigate as well. He
said if that is removed then the fine stands and in addition you still have to plant. Major said based on the
comments Marianne [Bramble] made earlier and his understanding of this, he was ready to make a motion
if Parks was prepared to accept. Parks said he was ready to entertain one. Major moved to take "in lieu of
out. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to remove the words "in lieu of from
14
Section 7- 090(B) passed with a 6 -0 vote. Knudson said the last item was whether to include the term
"canopy tree" as a significant species. He said we voted tonight to include the palms and pines, and now
the vote is do we want to include a term for a canopy tree as well. Parks asked if we have a definition.
Knudson said this is the question and that is where he is looking for input. He said he would be hesitant;
most of the definitions are by height and it is very loose depending where you look. He said he included a
picture in the handout of Tybee Island; his original estimate was this was from the Fifties and he thinks
somebody corrected him and said it was actually 1964 looking at the make of the vehicles in the parking
lot and the date on their version of the photo. He said you can see we do not have a canopy; there is
undisturbed maritime forest up by the lighthouse, there is a concentration of trees, so in the 50 years that
have passed we have grown a huge tree canopy made up of hardwoods, pines, etcetera, so the question is
do we want to then say trees of a certain height are considered significant. He asked that now that we
already voted for pines and palms, is canopy tree necessary as well. Parks said once you got pines, palms,
plus all the other ones listed. He said the height requirement on canopy restricts the usage of that term for
palms. He said we have 25- and 35 -foot palms. Callahan said you do not have to define canopy in terms
of height. Parks said true. Levy said if you are talking about a canopy you would be concerned with the
diameter of the spread of the branches. Parks said palms do not have much of a spread. Major said pines
do not either. Marion asked if there were any thoughts on the language used by the Miami -Dade Metro
tree canopy cover definition. He said he liked it. He read it: "The aerial extent of the branches and foliage
of a tree." He said obviously that would be anything that falls under our tree classification. Major said we
define now as significant any tree basically over 10- inches in diameter. Levy said or you might be able to
say any tree that is so high or so wide. Parks asked with the addition of palm and pine, how many trees
are left out to become a canopy. Major said oaks are already in, so are maples. Levy said the live oak tree
is a fine tree with a good root system but if you have ever seen a water oak pushed over it frightens you; it
is just on the surface. He said in a good storm the water oaks are going. Parks asked for a motion on the
canopy tree. Major moved that they not include canopy trees as a species unless they can show his a genus
and a species; it is not a species. He said it may be a classification of protected tree but it is not a species.
Callahan asked if they do not want to try to define a canopy tree. Knudson commented we have a number
of different definitions from different places; some people define the canopy tree, some people define the
canopy cover. He said now that you voted to say pines and palms are protected, because canopy is usually
defined as height some palm trees are limited, etcetera, just about every tree on the island is now
protected. He said do we want to go additional and then add a new definition and so the motion was to
vote no on including the term canopy tree, and it needs a second or not. Bishop made the second. The vote
was unanimous. The motion to not include the canopy trees as a species passed with a 6 -0 vote.
The final item on the agenda was a Text Amendment of Section 5 -010, Permits Required for
Construction. Steele Knudson said it has already been reviewed by the City Council but it was suggested
with all the significant changes that were made in the language that it needed to come down to the
Planning Commission and it also helps to have every available person looking closely at this ordinance.
He said his approach here was that he is not a plumber, he is not an electrician, he would hate to try to
define what is a repair, what is an emergency repair, or what should and should not have a permit. He said
the International Building Code has very precise definitions. He said there are some points that we
decided that a permit may be required where they do not require one, for example, fences, but all of the
exemptions to where you do not need a permit and the definitions of emergency repairs are in the
ordinance and they are word for word from the Building Code and we have had this looked at now by our
building inspector, by people from Savannah - Chatham, this has been looked at by the City Council but
the more eyes on it the better, the more comments we get the more we can improve it. Chair Monty Parks
asked for discussion from the Commission. Henry Levy said that International Building Code has been
worked on and worked on and worked on and defined until it is a fine body of language and they ought to
follow it. He said the only trouble is the bureaucrats keep adding to it. John Major asked if that is what we
15
are doing. Knudson said just as a little background he actually sat down and visited with the International
Code Council a number of years ago when they were working on some automation technology and the
idea of a zoning code or our Land Development Code paralleling, nobody had ever done it before, and
why would he try to write a rule that he completely does not understand; like he said he is not an
electrician, he is not a mechanic, he would hate to try to define what is an air conditioning unit that needs
a permit versus what he can go out with a screwdriver and handle himself. He said this language was put
together by experts from all over the country and its whole purpose is safety. Rob Callahan asked what
they are being asked to vote on. Knudson said it has been through a First Reading but because of all the
significant changes it was proposed that we needed to bring it here for your approval as well so this is an
amendment to the existing code, Section 5 -010, so the vote would be to approve as amended. Callahan
asked that is with all the markups you have in here. Knudson said yes. Parks said this came before us, we
sent it on to Council, they have beaten it up and sent it back. Knudson said this version is significantly
different than what had been approved before here, gone up, and it is a very different approach than what
was taken before which is why it felt appropriate and necessary to bring it to you guys to have you get a
chance to look through it, to have it in advance of the meeting, and to put all the eyes on it we can so
nothing slips through the cracks. Major said it says, "Permits are issued to property owners, contractors,
leasers, architects, or engineers. A permit will only be issued to contractors licensed as required by state
or local law, who possess a City of Tybee Island business license or reciprocity with another jurisdiction."
He said that sentence says a permit only will be issued to contractors licensed to practice; the next
sentence says, "A permit may be issued to a homeowner..." He said those two seem like that are
contradictory; one sentence says we will only give a permit to a contractor licensed to build in Georgia or
a reciprocal state, and the next one says that a permit can be issued to a homeowner. Knudson said there is
a proviso there: "...provided that the dwelling unit is a single - family, duplex, townhouse, or a
condominium unit." Major asked doesn't that nullify the previous sentence. Knudson said for a
commercial structure you have to be a licensed contractor. Major said he does not see where it says that.
Levy said maybe you just need an "or" in between those two sentences. Knudson said we can fix that.
Levy said a licensed contractor or a homeowner. Major said that is about everybody. He said he was
trying to understand the intent; is it that if you are a contractor you have to be a licensed contractor but the
homeowner can always get the permit. Knudson said a homeowner can do work on their own home; when
you have a commercial building like a retail space or a restaurant the owner or lessor cannot just go in and
make changes, you need a licensed contractor. Major asked if I am a contractor working on your home do
I need to be a contractor licensed as required by state or local law. He said that is what this says. Knudson
said yes, we regulate contractors. Levy asked if contractors are now licensed. Knudson said licensed,
bonded, and insured. Levy asked if that means they are qualified. No audible answer could be heard. Levy
said that is good because it did not use to be. Major said this could be cleaned up just a little bit. Knudson
said he would look over that preamble part, clarify that. Parks asked for a motion to bring it back in
January. Major said that was what he said. An unidentifiable voice seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous.
An unidentifiable voice motioned to adjourn and another voice seconded. The vote was unanimous and
the meeting adjourned.
16