Loading...
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