Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130319_PC_Minutes.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Rob Callahan David McNaughton PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER Tyler Marion, Vice Chair Dianne Otto, CFM Monty Parks, Chair CITY ATTORNEY Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Monty Parks called the March 19, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tyler Marion. Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the February 19, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? (Mr. Callahan made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Marion seconded.) All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.] Mr. Parks stated there is an opening on the planning commission; that term would end January 31, 2014. Mr. Parks – Are there any disclosures or recusals at this time? Marianne Bramble recused herself from 211 Butler Avenue and the Private Parking lots. Rob Callahan recused himself from Eagles Nest Map Amendment and Text Amendment. Site Plan Approval – William Navon – Storage Containers at Existing Commercial Business – 211 Butler Avenue Ms. Otto – 211 Butler was developed as a retail store with a parking lot. The owners are requesting to place two storage containers in the northwest corner of the parking lot. These would be 40-foot by 8-foot by 8-foot containers. In your packet are the staff report and materials related to it. Mr. McNaughton – Will these containers be enclosed? Ms. Otto – The paperwork that was submitted, other than the letter from the man across the street, reference a fence that is proposed around them. It isn’t shown on the site plan but evidently it was communicated to the neighbor that there will be a fence. Mr. McNaughton – Is there a permit application in for fencing? Ms. Otto – It should have been shown on the site plan. If it’s approved, with a fence required, that would be part of the permit. Mr. Callahan – One sentence in your write-up says a character area boundary line bisects the property north/south. Can you draw that on the picture [referring to PowerPoint]? 2 Ms. Otto – This was originally four lots that went that way and this way [referring to PowerPoint]. The character map shows that everything on the east side of the line, the main structure and this half of the parking lot, is in the Arts/Eats Eco-Business corridor. Mr. Callahan – This is a C-2 zone? Ms. Otto – This is a C-1 zone. The area on the other side, the rest of the parking lot and where the two containers are proposed to be, is in the Inland Cottage Neighborhood character area. Mr. Callahan – Is that zoned differently? Ms. Otto – It is not zoned differently; it’s just a character area. Mr. Bishop – With regards to the petition, it says “…will install privacy fencing around the containers”. Has there been a precedence set? Is there a specific type of privacy fencing or buffer that would have to be required in order to shield residential areas from that site? Ms. Otto – No. On the west side, it is to be a 5-foot arboreal buffer with an 8-foot privacy fence; they have an adequate length of the buffer with a privacy fence they are proposing. On the north side, there is an existing buffer of 28 feet; that side will also be covered. The uses on the south are across the street as is the other side across Butler Avenue. Mr. Marion – Didn’t we have a similar applicant come forward where two container items were dropped on a retail property? Ms. Otto – Yes, it was last year. It was at The Wearhouse located on McKenzie and it was at the back of that building. Mr. Marion – Is this applicant affiliated with that same business? Ms. Otto – It is the same. That one was owned by a different owner but it was the same applicant. They are tenants to the landowner; this particular property they own outright. Mr. Marion – Is it fair to say that their intent is to do the exact same thing that they did at the prior property that ultimately council approved? Ms. Otto – They are very comparable. Mr. Callahan – How many more times are we going to have to deal with this piece of property? How many times can an applicant piecemeal a development and continue to add or request to add things? Ms. Otto – This site has more than adequate parking for the original use that was proposed. I don’t know if their intent all along was to install some storage in that area or if it has been a recent need that they have identified. Perhaps it could be best answered by the applicant. Mr. Parks – Do we have an applicant that would like to address the commission? William Navon came forward and introduced himself. Due to the fact of a new building being constructed and the need for storage with the growth of the business; it was necessary at this time. It wasn’t something that we decided to do in the past. Mr. Marion – Solely based on a need for accommodating seasonal business? 3 Mr. Navon – Solely. Mr. Marion – In the off-season, the container units will be used to store excessive retail that didn’t move? Mr. Navon – Exactly. Mr. Bishop – What are your plans for the privacy fencing as indicated in our packets? In the other location that was referenced earlier, council said there must be an 8-foot tall buffer constructed between the containers and the adjacent residential property. Do you have some plan already in mind although it is not on our site plan? Mr. Navon – I knew it was required last time so I proposed it just to save a step. This is to shield any of the neighbors so they would just see a fence and not the containers. Mr. Bishop – It would not lend itself to natural vegetation because it is in paved area, correct? So it would have to be some type of artificial barrier. Mr. Navon – Right. Mr. Parks – We don’t restrict the use of these storage containers to just this building? They can use this in any of those structures that they do business out of? Ms. Otto – That wasn’t a condition of the prior containers that were approved. Mr. Parks – It’s just there for storage. Have you solicited any comments from the neighbors? Mr. Navon – I solicited Marianne [Bramble] but I didn’t know she was on the planning commission; I don’t know if I can disclose what she said to me. Nobody seemed to be upset. I did furnish a letter from the DeSoto across the street because they have a direct view of our property and they don’t seem to have any concerns; if you read the letter it states it plainly. Two of the neighbors, they are seasonal tenants that I couldn’t reach, but everybody else seemed to have no problems with it. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this matter? Sue Gouse came forward and introduced herself. I am apparently a seasonal resident. We often stay in our house which is directly across from where those containers are going to be placed. I have not been notified in any way, shape, or form by either the City of Tybee or the owners of that structure. We were at the meeting before this was built and we were promised a green buffer all the way across Lovell Avenue. I live literally across the street from where those containers are going to be situated on the drawings that you have. I’m at 209 Lovell and there is a house next to me on the left that is going to be hugely impacted by this; the guy on the right probably not much because that buffer on the north side blocks his view of the parking lot. We live on the second floor of that house as most people do at Tybee. We look straight down into that parking lot and we will be looking straight down onto the tops of those containers should they be placed there. There is no way an 8-foot fence can take care of that problem. If the containers were placed up on the grass, which is the buffer on the north side, it would be less of a problem because there are a few trees that cover that area. I don’t see how they can bring 40-foot containers in there and that not impact us in such a way that the value of our property will drop instantly. Ms. Otto – I think she is referencing this buffer along here [referring to PowerPoint]. Ms. Gouse – It’s a grass area at the moment; it’s not part of the parking lot. Mr. Parks – Actually placing them on the dirt. 4 Ms. Gouse – I don’t know. It may be back in this front corner where Butler is and put a fence around it there because the hotel on the other side of the street lives to the beach side, not necessarily to the Butler side. I’ll speak for the house next to us also because I’m sure they’re not going to be happy because they live on their porch on the same level we live. That is where we have all our meals and we have been known to live in that house nine months out of the year. We are Savannah residents but we have owned property for the last twenty years. Mr. Parks – Would you like me to address the question to the applicant? Ms. Gouse – Yes, but there are a few other issues. We never got that green buffer from before. There are some plants that are not as tall as I am, I’m only 5 feet 2 inches, and they are scattered. I would not call it a fence of green by any stretch of the imagination; it is little grasses and a few small bushes. We didn’t get the first thing that was required before they built this building and I thought we’re not going to make a big deal about it. Now that he is talking about an 8-foot fence, which in fact could be a green buffer that does have some property on the other side where those containers would be, there is some green space where trees or bushes could be placed. With us being on the second floor, it doesn’t matter what is there unless they are overhanging trees as we’re going to be looking right at them. I called once before to the city because there was a refrigerator truck parked there with its motor running 24/7 in that same area where those containers would be. Another time there was a float parked there that we looked at for a week or two. That little corner has been used continually, much to our detriment, and we are not happy. With the property being as large as it is, and there are other areas where the containers could be, I don’t see why it has to be right in front of our house. Mr. Parks – Would you like to address the question about location of the containers; have you considered other locations in the parking lot? Mr. Navon – I didn’t see another place without obstructing people parking and driving through the parking lot. We felt this was the best spot based on the fact of not being an obstruction entering our parking lot and causing a safety hazard. Mr. Callahan – Going back to what Tyler [Marion] was asking about the two containers that were placed at The Wearhouse, did you consider the possibility of placing them there? Tybee is a small place and you wouldn’t have to drive very far to resupply and that place is much more hidden away. Mr. Navon – I don’t see that as a problem. Based on what the city council told me the last time, there was not allowed to be any more containers or accessory structures put on that site. That’s why I put it on this site because I didn’t want to go against the city council’s wishes from the last meeting. Mr. Bishop – Regarding the previous council decision on the containers at The Wearhouse, is that code that only two can be placed there or was that a decision that council made? Ms. Otto – As I recall, it is not by code. Their motion was specific and reads, this was June 14, 2012, “…approved with conditions that no more than two containers be located on the five lots and an 8-foot tall buffer be constructed between the containers and the adjacent residential property”. It is my recollection that because of the number of existing accessory structures they said there could be two more; not that there is a code that limits how many. Mr. Bishop – So there is a possibility if this was not approved and recommended, that council could potentially re-visit the placement of two additional containers there and not be in violation of any Land Development Code? Ms. Otto – Correct, it would just be another consideration on their part. Mr. Bishop – So that is a possibility. 5 Mr. Navon – I’m not against it at all. Mr. Bishop – I would like to follow up with Ms. Gouse’s question. Previously when the Funky Fish was developed, she made the comment that there was to be a green buffer installed and that was part of the agreement. Could you elaborate on that? Mr. Navon – We turned in our vegetation plan to the city and it was approved by the city council and planning commission. We did exactly what was on that vegetation landscape drawing and those were done to the ‘T’ and nothing was left out or added. Mr. Bishop – I don’t have that in front of me but I’m assuming that is correct. Ms. Otto – I would need to go back and look at the records. I can see that this plan has been brought back to show these two containers only show vegetation along the detention area. Mr. Navon – That is correct. This is a different site plan, the landscaping was a different one. Mr. Bishop – If there is a 5-foot rule with regards to setback, the placement of containers cannot exceed the 5-foot setback for an accessory structure, correct? If they were to move the containers from their proposed location into the 28 feet per the survey we have, would they partially be accommodated at that point? All we have to have is 5 feet on the north side or 5 feet on the west side and then as long as we meet the 5 feet west and north they would be able to shift those containers in that area, is that correct? Ms. Otto – Yes, that would be correct. I believe what we are seeing on the plan is curbing along there so it would be a bump up to get another vehicle to deliver or pick up from the trailers to get over that curbing. Mr. Navon – That curbing shouldn’t be a problem with deliveries. Mr. Bishop – So that is another alternative that would still fall in the Land Development Code but we would have to come back and ask for another site plan. Ms. Otto – As long as it stayed 5 feet from each of those two property lines. I think it is heavily vegetated there and it’s going to require removal of some vegetation. Mr. Parks – That’s still in the area of the residential. Mr. Navon – Ms. Gouse is proposing for them to be in that location, correct? Ms. Gouse – There is a grassy area and some vegetation. If you remove the vegetation then you remove the buffer that would maybe cover them up. It would be a question of putting them on the grass that is in front of the buffer towards Butler. Mr. Parks – Basically the comment was that they would have to be moved up on the grass leaving existing vegetation in place. Mr. Navon – If it’s possible I don’t see that as a problem. We’re definitely not opposed to putting it there if we don’t lose a parking spot and the neighbors are satisfied. Mr. Parks – We could vote to approve with comments about where other alternatives are possible. Mr. Marion – In the prior scenario from last June, those two boxes, are they setting on concrete slabs or on gravel? 6 Ms. Otto – It’s on rock. Mr. Marion – Will the city require the applicant to have a gravel bed to rest those on? Ms. Otto – If I recall, they are elevated just enough over the gravel that water can flow under. Mr. Navon – The engineer, Downer Davis, required the rock to be put underneath even though there was dirt. He required the gravel rock so the water runoff wouldn’t be so extreme. If they propose to put them there we would have an extra expense to put the gravel rock under them. Ms. Otto – That will be another requirement unless he proposes an alternative plan and the sloping of the roof would be the same as what we did at The Wearhouse. Mr. Callahan – Do you have plans to request additional lighting? Mr. Navon – Not at this time. We do business during the day and we do have lights in the parking lots so I wouldn’t think that we would request extra lighting. Mr. McNaughton – They will still be okay on the number of parking spaces? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – Anybody else from the public that would like to address the commission at this time? Ms. Gouse – When will this be heard again and finalized? Ms. Otto – April 11th. Ms. Gouse – Were we ever going to be given notice of this? I’m going to admit, we are not happy that we were never notified that anything like this was ever going on. Ms. Otto – Did you and I not have a telephone conversation? Ms. Gouse – We did but April 11th is not 30 days from now. Do I get 30 days’ notice or is it just a week or two? Ms. Otto – No, the public hearing before the mayor and council has to be advertised 15 to 45 days before so we will be within that window. As I explained to her this morning, for planning commission, the property was posted with a big orange public hearing sign. The notifications to the adjacent neighbors go out after planning commission as does the publication in the Savannah Morning News for the public hearing at council on April 11th. The public hearing sign would have been her only opportunity to have seen that there was an activity tonight. Ms. Gouse – When did that sign go up? Ms. Otto – The agenda was set on Monday and the signs were posted on Tuesday. Ms. Gouse – I would propose to you that is not nearly enough time to notify us that this sort of thing is going on that impacts our house in this manner. 7 Mr. Callahan – Is there any design standard that will provide either better visual blockage or possibly have the owner use something to dress up a container to look more like the building it is adjacent to? Do we have any way we can impose any additional requirements so it may not be such an eyesore? Ms. Otto – In the site plan approval process, they have proposed what their desire is. If it meets all of the stated codes it is strictly a public hearing process which is what we have begun by consideration tonight. If there is will on the part of the applicant to accommodate or negotiate, it is strictly on a volunteer basis. Mr. Parks – Other comments from the public or the commission at this time? [There were none.] At this time, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion or discussion from the commission? Mr. Bishop – I’ll make a motion to deny with a request for specifications to be provided as a new site plan proposal for two containers with specificity as to the establishment of a green buffer and to the potential relocation into the current 28-foot northern buffer zone. Mr. Parks – Did you want to include the possible relocation at The Wearhouse location? Mr. Bishop – And to include the potential for relocation at the existing container site previously deliberated by this commission and council. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second. Those in favor of the motion as presented, please signify. [Marianne Bramble had recused. Vote was unanimous]. Variance – Michael Lucas – Accessory Structure at Existing Single-family Residence – 61 Solomon Avenue Ms. Otto – This request is for an accessory structure with a zero setback. This construction began without a permit. It was learned that what was originally described as a patio is actually going to have a deck roof structure. A patio can go anywhere on a property without setback requirements if it is less than a foot off the ground. If it has a roof, it is no longer considered a patio, it is now an accessory structure which has a 5-foot setback from any property line required. The information was shared with the owner who opted to come and ask for a variance to keep the structure where it is currently located. This is an R-1 zone. There is a letter from an adjacent neighbor in support of the request. The applicant is here to answer any questions. Mr. McNaughton – If the owner of the property decided to put a roof over only part of that patio, so it met the 5-foot setback, would that be permissible? Ms. Otto – Yes, if it remained less than one foot off the ground and the roof portion of it was 5 feet off the line, yes, that would be allowed because it would be a patio where it is not roofed and an accessory structure where it was roofed. Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff at this time? [There were none.] Do we have a representative that would like to speak? Michael Lucas came forward and introduced himself. Mr. McNaughton – Have you considered running the roof over only a portion of the patio so that it would meet the code? Mr. Lucas – We are dealing with a very tight area here to the adjacent property. There is a fence there now and I think it would be too tight. 8 Mr. McNaughton – You would still have 10 feet of the patio that would be covered; it’s 15 feet wide. I’m raising that as a possibility. Mr. Lucas – I don’t think that is a possibility because it is a tight area. We’ve already set the posts and the footings are placed already. Mr. Bishop – If there was an alternative to allow this to move forward by only having it partially roofed, you’re saying that would be, from a construction standpoint, unable to be completed? Mr. Lucas – The footers and posts have been placed and I would have to tear it out and redo it. Mr. Bishop – Versus not doing it at all because right now it is totally not in compliance. If there was a way to come back and correct what is in error, you say that can’t be done, but currently as it exists it is out of code and not meeting our Land Development Code because it is covered. That takes it from the patio that it was originally designed for. Is that correct Ms. Otto? Ms. Otto – Yes, sir. Mr. Bishop – We’re trying to find out if you have any means of modifying what you would like to do in order to have this project completed and meet code. Mr. Lucas – I guess we could not extend the roof quite as far and leave the posts where they are. Mr. Parks – I think these are good suggestions. I think the actual issue in front of us is whether this meets code and whether it is something we need to move forward on. Ms. Otto – On both the rear and the side, the roof structure would need to be 5 feet away from the property line so the roof would only be in the back area. This survey was prepared after it was constructed. It’s a very new survey so that is why you are seeing the wooden deck there; it just hasn’t had the roof put on at the point the project was stopped. Mr. Lucas – And the adjacent property owner wouldn’t have any problem with it. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak on this? Dottie Klutz came forward and introduced herself. Did I hear you correctly to say that this was started without a permit? Ms. Otto – Yes. Ms. Klutz – So we have someone who has violated our ordinances already and you’re trying to work out a way to work with him – is that what I’m understanding? Mr. Parks – What we try to do is offer any solutions that might be within code, we’re just here to try and decide if it fits in the Land Development Code. Ms. Klutz – He just said he could put a roof part of the way and put an awning the rest of the way. I just think there has got to be a time when we draw a line in the sand. One you did it without a permit and so tear it down. Until we start saying tear it down, get it out of here, stop doing it, they are going to keep doing it. We have an applicant that never even bothered to come and ask for a permit. Did he really not know that he was supposed to get a permit? Does that clear it up or make it even worse? He’s still going to have an illegal structure with a roof and a deck and an awning. I 9 really believe we have got to start saying no. You didn’t come with a permit, tear it down, get yourself together, get a new permit with new plans and come back to us. Mr. Callahan – The work was started without a permit. Did I miss that in the staff report? Ms. Otto – Yes, in the write-up it says there was a permit issued to do this wooden deck back here [referring to PowerPoint] and then it was identified that he had gone out of scope from what we had permitted and a stop work order was placed at that point. Mr. Callahan – What you say here, “…for construction of a floating deck off the back of the home”, that was permitted before work started? Ms. Otto – We had to get caught up with him on that one as well. Mr. Callahan – So he started before any permit was issued? Ms. Otto – Yes, but when he applied for the permit it was only for this portion. Mr. Callahan – Were there drawings that you saw? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Callahan – And it didn’t include anything about this other deck with a roof? Ms. Otto – That is correct. At the point it was seen he was out of scope with the permit he had been issued, a stop work went up until we could have this issue resolved. Mr. Callahan – The sequence of events is he started work on the floating deck, someone from the city saw him, stopped him temporarily, permit was issued for the floating deck behind the house, he continued to build out of scope on this other deck with the roof, he was again stopped, now he is asking for a variance. Ms. Otto – Yes, that is the sequence of events. Ms. Bramble – What is the hardship needed for this variance? Mr. Parks – I don’t think this falls within the hardship definition within the Land Development Code. Ms. Otto – As with all applicants for variances, I do guide them to page two of the variance application where it does list the criteria for the granting of a variance on Tybee. I don’t try to answer that question for them where it says to explain the hardship. Ms. Bramble – Can we ask the applicant? Mr. Parks – [Mr. Lucas had left the building.] Are there other members of the public or commission who would like to address this issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to deny with no stipulation. Mr. McNaughton – Second. 10 Mr. Parks – I have a motion for denial with a second. Those in favor of the motion please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Site Plan Approval with Variances – William Navon – New Commercial Building – 23 Tybrisa Ms. Otto – This request at 23 Tybrisa is to build a new commercial building with two units. The Tradewinds Ice Cream and Coffee store and the Island Style retail store would resume occupation of the two spaces. In your packet it describes a sequence of events that lead us to this site plan. Originally it had been determined that site plan was not necessary. The project described at that time was that they would remove the front façade of the building, go inside and build a metal support structure, and then place the front wall back on. After the permit was issued, the shell that was to have been there was removed and at that time it was determined that this did in fact need site plan approval. This evening you are considering site plan approval and three variances which are no off-street parking, the required 15- foot rear setback, and a 5-foot vegetative buffer with a privacy fence on the rear to buffer the residential. I can answer any questions you may have and the applicant is here. Mr. Callahan – Would any variances have been required had this been conducted as the remodel project? Ms. Otto – Not as a remodel. Mr. Parks – Would the remodel have kicked off the 15-foot rear setback and the vegetative buffer? Ms. Otto – No, those were both triggered by the requirement for site plan. Mr. Callahan – Do you have any knowledge of what happened on this site that caused the building to fall? Ms. Otto – After it was no longer a shell and we began dialogue with the team involved with the project, it became clear that as they were tearing out and discovering what could be saved there was much less of it salvageable than what they had thought. On the spot decisions were made about removing additional parts of the building because they too were not structurally sound. The shell that they thought could support the metal building inside was not salvageable. Mr. Callahan – Was all of that done with the city’s knowledge? Ms. Otto – No. Ms. Bramble – That is why you stopped work on that? Ms. Otto – Yes. We stopped work because the need for site plan approval and the requirements for the construction plans changed based on change from a remodel to a new construction. Additional plans that addressed items triggered for new construction that don’t apply to remodel needed to be received and processed. Mr. Parks – Do we have other questions for staff at this time on the variances? [There were none.] Do we have a representative for the applicant that would like to address the commission at this time? Harold Yellin came forward and introduced himself. I am representing the owners of the property along with Mark Boswell, project engineer, and Walt Rocker, the project contractor. Admittedly there are some unusual circumstances that have brought us before you tonight. I don’t know the facts that were given to you in your handouts so if you will indulge me to tell you the facts as we know them. In November of 2012, the petitioner applied for a building permit. There was a very large set of engineering plans that were prepared and submitted by the project engineer. Admittedly the front page of that document reads remodel project but it does have page A3 captioned as “Demolition Plan”. Mr. Parks – Are you asking that we don’t consider this requiring a site plan and go back to considering this as a remodel? 11 Mr. Yellin – It goes to the general discussion as I personally don’t believe this is new construction. New construction is when there is an empty lot. It is important for you to know how we got here and I’ve heard some previous petitions about permits/no permits. It is a bit unusual. In the best case we do have a misunderstanding. Mr. Parks – Please keep in mind if what we’re after are the three variances tied to site plan approval, which is tied into new construction, that is different than if we’re headed towards remodeling. Mr. Yellin – We are here voluntarily for a site plan and variances. We’re here in a cooperative spirit. We may disagree but it’s a respectful disagreement. Mr. Parks – I’m here for site plan with variances also. Mr. Yellin – Our page A3 was a demolition plan with five different notations which said “remove existing roof, walls, ceiling tiles, grid, secondary ceiling, electrical, and duct work”. There was also a wall legend on that same demo plan that showed which existing block walls were to be removed. There was a separate page called “slab demolition” and two notations which read “remove existing CMU walls as required for construction of new footing and replaced to match existing condition”. These plans were approved by Chatham County Building Safety on January 25th and were approved by the Tybee Building and Zoning Department on January 30th. There was an email that followed from our construction manager to the city as he was very concerned because he had special orders on windows and doors and it was important that this project was completed by summer. The question was asked if a site plan approval was required and the response said no site plan is required because there will be no changes to the footprint; there have been no changes to the footprint. The footprint is identical and the exterior walls are exactly where they are with one exception; one dangerous wall collapsed. The use will be the same, what it was before is what it will be now. The setbacks, exactly what used to be there is what is going to be there now. The rear wall is still up, it’s exactly where it used to be simply without a roof. We are here tonight because of the stop work order; it’s now Tybee’s position that we did more than the plans show. We respectfully disagree. We are also being told that it’s Tybee’s position that we are now in new construction. We don’t see this as new construction. Because of this issue, I had a meeting and several phone calls with the city attorney and we have agreed to come before you tonight, voluntarily, in the spirit of cooperation. We are asking approval for the site plan and variances so we can go back to what it was before. Regarding the three variances, one is parking and no one on the street has off-street parking. The other two are related being a 15-foot rear setback, it is pretty close to 15 feet now, and the buffer between commercial and residential. I’m not sure, maybe Dianne [Otto] can confirm this, but I think that residence is in a commercial district as opposed to a residential district. Ms. Otto – It is commercially zoned but the ordinance is specific to residential uses. Mr. Yellin – What we are asking tonight is admittedly unusual, we want to be able to go back and rebuild this building. We in good faith applied for a building permit and I believe Chatham County and Tybee approved it. Somewhere there was a miscommunication but we are anxious to get back and up and running before the summer. We would be delighted to answer any questions you may have and Mr. Boswell can answer any building related or construction issues. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Mr. McNaughton – Are you saying that the plan was to tear all the walls out? Mr. Yellin – No. Mr. McNaughton – Why wasn’t a demolition permit applied for? Mr. Yellin – There was, originally, a demolition permit; it was exploratory and there is a difference of opinion as to what happened next. We are under the impression that we were told we did not need to because we already had an 12 exploratory demolition permit. We disagree on exactly what happened but there originally was a demolition permit and maybe Mr. Boswell can answer that more clearly. Ms. Otto – There is not a demolition permit. There never was one applied for nor one issued. The permit that was issued first was based on an application with details of project listed as “this will be the demolition of existing acoustic ceiling throughout Island Style at 23 Tybrisa. Removal and disconnecting lay-in fixtures”. There is a box on all permit applications for demolition of structure. It is not checked. The permit that was issued was tearout and disconnect lights; there was no demolition permit issued. Mark Boswell came to the lectern and introduced himself. I am the engineer of record. We were going to save the original roof structure. We did obtain the exploratory demolition permit. During that demolition we found that structure to be very unsafe. We decided to make a change on the scope by tearing out the roof and everything to get a new structure in there. I don’t believe there is a Tybee ordinance that you have to do a separate demolition plan; if it is, we’ve never done one before and been out of compliance because we always turn in the demolition and new together as one permit. If it is a Tybee ordinance that there is a separate demolition plan for demolition permit required, I would like to see it or have it pointed out so we can get into compliance from now on. Mr. Parks - I’m focused on three variance requests. Why are we requesting an off-street parking variance? Ms. Otto – Site plan approval is triggering the parking requirement. Mr. Parks – But they meet the requirements for commercial; they are within 1,000 feet of a public parking place. Ms. Otto – That particular section of the code is often misunderstood. What it says in that code is that if there is an existing commercial building of less than 2,000 square feet, it may expand up to 4,000 square feet if it is located within 1,000 feet of a municipal parking lot. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than an expansion of an existing business. Mr. Parks – This is staying on the footprint; this is the same square footage as what it was before. Ms. Otto – Yes and it was never less than 2,000 to fall under that standard. Mr. Parks – But it is not exceeding 4,000. Ms. Otto – Yes, it is. Mr. Parks – It’s going over 6,000. Ms. Otto – Yes, but that standard only applies to structures that want to expand that are less than 2,000 square feet and this never fell under that criteria. Mr. Boswell – We did not expand, we had 6,301 originally and we’re staying with that. Mr. Bishop – Mark, you’re saying there is no such thing in the Tybee Land Development Code as a Tybee demolition permit? Mr. Boswell – Not that I am aware of. If you’re taking down a structure by itself, then I would say yes you would have to get a separate permit by itself. If you are constructing something and taking out existing slabs and things like that, I don’t know that there is a separate permit that you need if it is incorporated into the project. 13 Mr. Bishop – I’m confused because I’m told that neither a demolition application nor a new construction application had ever been submitted on this project. You’re saying that it is not a necessity and the Land Development Code and staff say it is. Mr. Boswell – That is one of the points of confusion. Mr. Bishop – I’m conflicted because I can’t act on variances unless I know that we crossed that first before we move to a variance. Mr. Boswell – That’s one of the bones of contention on this project. Mr. Bishop – Can we get some clarification on the Land Development Code requirement for a demolition application? Ms. Otto – On the building permit there is a box to check if you are going to demolish a structure. That was never submitted to Tybee for this project. What we received was a building permit application for a remodel. The plans on the cover page called it a remodel and the application for the building permit called it a remodel of existing space so there was no trigger for Tybee to follow the normal demolition application process of notifying the Historic Preservation Commission. Had we received a demolition application, that process with the historic people would have been followed. It is my opinion that when the decision was made to no longer be working inside the shell and the project changed scope, that city staff should have been notified at that point and we were not. The structure, although it does say on the demolition page that the roof was to be removed, the application said it was a remodel, the cover sheet said it was a remodel, so it did not get the intense review by staff that it should have had. Mr. Bishop - The application we have in our packet, I clearly see the demolition of structure box. I also see it was only indicated for this project that there was going to be a tearout only and disconnect lights initially. Ms. Otto – Yes. The second application was the remodel. Mr. Bishop – Remodel existing space and that is where you added in the dry floodproofing. Ms. Otto – Yes. That was based on the cost of the project because it exceeded 50% of the value of the structure. It triggered a requirement that the entire structure be brought into FEMA compliance. With commercial buildings you have the alternative of dry floodproofing; that is not an option for residential. Mr. Parks – The application that has been submitted with the site plan is for new construction. Ms. Otto – That application for new construction was submitted the same day that the application for site plan was submitted. Mr. Parks – We’ve gone from remodel to new construction with variances and that is what is in front of us now. Ms. Otto – Yes. As Mr. Yellin stated, their position is that this is not new construction but Tybee’s position is it is new construction. Mr. Parks – His opinion is new construction with variances. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Parks – And I understand your opinion about the disagreement. 14 Mr. Yellin – I have consulted with the city attorney and we decided it’s in both parties best interest that we appear tonight seeking site plan approval with these three variances. I think it is important to note, like Ms. Otto stated earlier, had this been a renovation we wouldn’t be here for any variances. We are aware that for purposes of tonight, we should treat this as new construction. Mr. Parks – Other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak to this issue? [There were none.] At this time, I’m going to close this for public hearing and I’m open for a motion from the commission. Mr. Bishop – Wasn’t there a question on the site plan that if an awning is planned that has to part of the site plan? Ms. Otto – I am not recollecting that. If it is an awning in excess of two feet on the front it would require site plan approval. The plan that we are currently working under does not have an awning. Mr. Bishop – So that is a non-issue even though it is discussed in our documents. Ms. Otto – I don’t remember discussing it. Mr. Bishop – It just says if an awning or eave exceeds two feet is proposed at a later time, site plan approval would be required and the same would be true for a sign projecting over the city sidewalk and you refer to the first set of plans. I just wanted to be sure we didn’t have to consider that with these other variances. Ms. Otto – The first set of plans showed an awning. A second set of plans came in, this is the cover page, and the awning is no longer on that rendering. Mr. Bishop – That is the February 2013 plan. Ms. Otto – This is the second set. The first set showed an awning on the front and the second set reconfigured how some dressing rooms and restrooms were laid out. Mr. Bishop – We still have off-street parking, rear setback, and vegetative buffer. Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Parks – I’ve got three variances; off-street parking, 15-foot rear setback, and a 5-foot vegetative buffer. Do I have a motion from the commission? Mr. Bishop – I’m going to recommend that we deny this site plan as presented with the stipulation that the applicant return with a site plan specifically stating and answering the planning commission and staff’s questions concerning the off-street parking, the 15-foot rear wall issue, and the natural vegetative buffer issue so that we have one complete package. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion to deny with stipulations, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] 15 Variance – Phillip McCorkle – New Single-family Residence – 1 Eighteenth Place Ms. Otto – This variance differs from typical variances that you normally consider. We’ve only had one other variance request in the past from the flood prevention ordinance. That article has a variance process different from the zoning variance in Article 5. Bear in mind that this variance process, although it is on the same application for a zoning variance, is for a variance under the flood damage prevention ordinance. This home under construction is a single- family home at 1 18th Place. The permit for construction was issued about a year ago. When the lowest horizontal structure and the foundation are in place, the city requires that the developer, contractor, or surveyor provide the city two documents: an elevation certificate showing the elevation of the lowest horizontal and a foundation survey. Those documents were not received until staff requested them and about a month after the initial request. It was immediately apparent that the 1-foot freeboard that the City of Tybee enacted in September 2008 was not reflected on the elevation certificate that had been provided. That elevation certificate showed the structure to be in a VE zone with a base flood elevation of 17 which means the lowest horizontal, to meet Tybee’s requirement, would have needed to be at 18. Contact was made with the land surveyor that prepared that elevation certificate. After he checked his records, he did submit a replacement elevation certificate that placed the structure in a VE zone but with a base flood elevation of 16 that would have made the lowest horizontal compliant because it was at 17. However, staff looked back through the documents from permitting and saw that there had been issue during the plan review regarding the correct flood zone. Staff had originally identified it as a base flood elevation of 17. Based on a red-lined document from the architect, the change was made on the plans that it was in a base flood elevation of 16. In hindsight, that was an incorrect assessment by the architect and it should have been in a base flood elevation of 17 with a design requirement to 18. At that point, a stop work order was placed. The flood damage prevention ordinance states that no further work can progress on a project until the correction is made. Rather than seek to voluntarily correct that, the team for this project has applied for a variance under the flood damage prevention ordinance. There have been attempts to identify what impact a variance, if granted, would have on the city’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program because Tybee participates and exceeds the requirements of FEMA through various outreach activities. Using the criteria, you receive points under the community rating system. Tybee is currently rated as a Class 7 community and because of that residents who have flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program are receiving a 15% discount on their premiums. When Tybee was a Class 8 community, it was a 10% discount. The emergency manager who oversees the community rating endeavors to get all the points that we can to keep the rating as low as possible; the lower the rating, the higher the premium discount is for residents. It was attempted to determine if a variance is granted for this project, if it would or would not have an impact on Tybee’s Class 7 rating. In your packet is a letter from Sue Hopfensperger, who is our ISO coordinator, that communicates that though she cannot state how much of an impact, it will have an impact of some sort. For each classification, there is a 500 point differential from a 9 to an 8, and an 8 to a 7. If this variance is granted, whether the points that might be lost would cause a shift from a Class 7 to a Class 8, or if other changes have happened and has a cumulative effect, it is hard to identify until we actually go through the next rating. There are many other criterion that you receive points for or you don’t. It can’t definitively be said that granting of this variance would in fact cause the Community Rating of 7 to change back to an 8. Mr. McNaughton – What does Tybee say the lowest horizontal member is – the I-beams? Ms. Otto – Tybee recognizes what FEMA does. When the land surveyor for this project prepared the initial elevation certificate, he picked up, as the elevation certificate required, the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member because this is in a VE zone. There are diagrams provided that guides the surveyor on where to pick that point such as these [referring to PowerPoint]. This building in diagram 6 says that it must be measured at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural of the floor. As you can see from this picture, they have also used that same point for installation of wrapped duct or other ventilation attached to the structure and that too needs to be elevated one foot above. My contention that is this is the lowest horizontal beam and it needs to be a foot higher than what it is. Mr. Bishop – In reviewing the documents we were provided, particularly with regards to item C2.a-d, “For buildings in V zones, elevation c must be measured at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the floor.” The I- beam as depicted here, would not the joist above that be the lowest horizontal structural member of the floor versus the I-beam? 16 Ms. Otto – In my opinion, no. You’ve got the lowest horizontal and then you’ve got more horizontals resting on top of it. The lowest horizontal is that one [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Bishop – And those are structural supports and not structural members of the floor seemingly. The floor appears to be above it. Ms. Otto – They are supported by the lowest structural member here [referring to PowerPoint]. Mr. Bishop – Of the floor. Ms. Otto – The lowest horizontal of the building but they are supporting the floor. Mr. Bishop – It says member of the floor, it doesn’t say member of the building. Ms. Otto – If you go back to the elevation certificate, this is where you are referring to where it says structural member of the floor. It doesn’t show in these diagrams that you go up to the floor joists that are on top of these beams; these are the lowest horizontal beams. If it was, it would show a floor joist up here and it would say pick up the bottom of the floor joist. Also on the elevation certificate, it’s less specific in that it only says “bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member”. Mr. McNaughton – Tybee’s position is that the lowest structural member actually has to be at 18 feet? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – You are also saying that the representative for the builder measured off of that I-beam? Ms. Otto – I’ve been told by the attorney that they are saying it is not the lowest structural but he is saying that these beams are at 17 rather than the required 18. Mr. Parks – The requirement is 18 feet, correct? Ms. Otto – Tybee’s requirement is 18. Mr. Parks – Based on base flood elevation of 17; the base flood elevation is set by the FIRM map. Ms. Otto – The Flood Insurance Rate Map. Mr. Parks - Would the applicant be able to appeal to FEMA to see if they would measure off of a different piece of the floor? Ms. Otto – There is a formal process to go through if you want to get a map amendment. If you want your structure not to be in a zone, you can do a flood study that shows you’re not where they had placed you. All of Tybee is in a special flood hazard area. That generally happens when there is larger more inland place. An example is Pooler when the 2008 maps came out, a lot of structures that had not been in a floodway got put into a floodway because more technology and flood insurance studies had allowed additional structures to be brought into A zones that previously had been X zones where they were not under the restrictions. There is a way to appeal that process of getting yourself out of the floodway if you can prove you are not. As far as moving a V zone from a base flood of 16 to 17, I have not had any requests for anybody else to change their Base Flood Elevation. What I’ve seen is changing from an X zone to an A zone in other municipalities. Not Tybee because the entire island is in a special flood hazard. 17 Mr. Callahan – Sue Hopfensperger is the one that gave a gross estimate of a financial impact based on the possible change of the Community rating from 7 to 8. She estimated that the possible cost could be $190,000 total. If we were to approve this and this $190,000 impact occurred, does the city pay that? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Callahan – Would every homeowner on Tybee have a portion of that? Ms. Otto – Yes. What she is saying is all flood insurance policies issued on Tybee now, each individual premium would change from a 15% discount that is currently given because we are a Class 7 community to a 10% discount on each individual premium. Mr. Callahan – Every homeowner on Tybee would suffer some financial impact if this variance is approved? Mr. Otto – She is saying that the approval of a variance would have an impact on the number of points awarded to Tybee under receiving credit for having the additional 1-foot freeboard requirement. What she cannot definitively say is that other point changes in other categories may counteract that. Today we received the 2013 Community Rating Manual that describes the points you can attain for doing different activities. It’s not known what Tybee’s status will be when we are ranked under the new criteria for obtaining points. She is saying it will impact the points received for this activity but there are a number of other activities where points could be gained or additional points lost; it may not be just this one item that caused the change in classification. Mr. Bishop – When you refer to the points, is that the same as credits that Ms. Hopfensperger refers to? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Bishop – In the CRS class 7, currently Tybee has only 4 credits to spare? Ms. Otto – We only have 4 credits to spare when we had our last review. There was a 4 point cushion that pushed us into the class 7. Mr. Bishop – You have to have 1,500 points to be in a Class 7 so we have 1504. Ms. Otto – Yes. And it is a long way, another 496 points, to get to a Class 6 because you have to have 500 points to jump from class to class. Mr. Bishop – That is potentially where a variance of this type could have the impact. Ms. Otto – Possibly as may any other changes under this new point granting system that just got approved by Congress. Mr. Bishop – 8-050 Variance Procedure. “Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.” Can you interpret that for me? Ms. Otto – It would take an enormous amount of engineering flood studies to determine whether this structure, being one foot less than Tybee’s requirement, would cause the flood levels, if we had an event, to be higher anywhere else. I don’t have the expertise to determine that. Mr. Bishop – That calculation is not done by the city; that is done by an entity that would have expertise in that. That became part of our code, I presume, as input from FEMA or somewhere? 18 Ms. Otto – Article 8 is the state model ordinance that Tybee adopted along with a number of other communities in September of 2008 when the new flood insurance rate maps were adopted. The type of study you are talking about is what is done to determine where those base flood elevations are on the rate map. I don’t have the expertise to tell you that a 1 foot lower house at the end of 18th Place would or would not cause increased flooding somewhere else. Mr. Marion – Would any builder coming on the island to build a residential home be aware of what those base flood rate standards are? Ms. Otto – What the base flood elevations are? Mr. Marion – Yes. Ms. Otto – Yes, that is where it was determined in the beginning to be 17 and then based on the red-lined document change, I changed it to a 16 because that’s what information they provided to me. Mr. Parks – Is there an applicant that would like to speak at this time? Before we move forward we have been presented with a packet from the applicant. Is this something that needs to be relevant since it wasn’t in our packet? Ms. Otto – With their application they provided what I thought were their documents for this application. I do not know what we’ve just been handed. Attorney Phillip McCorkle came forward and introduced himself. It is certainly all relevant; not everything that I submitted with my application went to you. This is a life or death financial situation, not for the builder or the owner, but for this surveyor behind me, Mr. Yawn. Floodway doesn’t apply as there is no floodway on Tybee; that is all moving streams like in Pooler and other places so that section does not apply at all. There is no such thing as a Letter of Map Amendment for something of this nature. You would have to show that you think FEMA put the line in the wrong place and you would have to do a lot of documentation. We have no reason to think that FEMA put the line in the wrong place so there is no reason to pursue that. The finished floor on this structure is 19 feet 3 inches; the joists are all above 18 feet, so everything is above 18 except for the beams. It’s a fallacy to think that determining the exact location of a flood finished floor elevation is easy. Glancing at these large maps [referring to a handout given by the applicant], the gray map was the one in use from the early 1970’s until 2008; it was the first FIRM map put out by the government and you can see how little detail there is on that map. A surveyor is charged with trying to figure out where those lines are on the face of the earth. In my hand is the whole map from the 1970’s; it has a scale that says ‘approximate scale’. Approximately these are where the lines are and these gentlemen, like Dale Yawn, are charged with figuring out where the line would lie on a lot on Tybee based on that map. In 2008, new FIRM maps were adopted and if anything they are more confusing than the first ones. I don’t think the lines really changed but they put blue dots all over the map and you can hardly see them. Based upon this information, this is a federally produced Flood Insurance Rate Map that is supposed to determine where a line is and where the finished floor changes from 16 to 17, or 17 to 18. The first map I showed you was done in 1996 based on the 1970 FIRM map. This was done by a local surveyor, Whitley Reynolds, and he understands how difficult this is and what you have to do to establish a line. I put a yellow marker on there to make it easier to read and that is where he established the line to be. In 2006, my client, Mr. Yawn, based again upon the old maps, established a line in the same location that Mr. Reynolds did and this is using their best estimate of where it would be. In July 2010, there was some correction of information and it was resubmitted to the city at the time the city was about to issue a building permit. The house had been designed so that it would fit on the portion of the lot which is to the west of that yellow line which shows a base flood elevation of 16. Towards the ocean, on the east side, is a base flood elevation of 17. This is a map we’re going to come back to because this is where my client made a mistake. Mr. Brewer was called upon, while the construction was going on, to establish the base finished floor elevation of the lowest horizontal member. He put the line at the exact same place and then he put, instead of 17 by the ocean and 16 inland, he put 18 and 17 which caused a small brouhaha that we had violated the freeboard. Number five is an email [referring to a document that had been distributed earlier] that Mr. Brewer sent to Ms. Otto stating he looked at the maps again, realized he was incorrect, and it should be 17 and 16. At that point, Ms. Otto was concerned and continued to ask more 19 questions. There is a digital overlay that you can use that FEMA provides and Mr. Brewer, who did the map at the end of 2012, does not have a digital overlay in his office and still relies on the maps. Mr. Yawn, my client, had access to the digital overlay. Number 6 shows the actual location of the line, again at 17 feet towards the ocean but it goes through the middle of the house; 16 feet towards the west. If the beams are part of the lowest floor, they are certainly below the freeboard. When he discovered his mistake, he gave it to Mr. Brewer who put it on the survey marked number 6. Mr. Yawn stands before you as a man who made a mistake. Those are just beams in the freeboard and they are not violating FEMA rules. What I did find out is all anybody wants to talk about is the flood insurance rates, not Mr. Yawn’s situation nor the fact how we got there. Mr. Yawn didn’t do anything on purpose, he just made a mistake. The last thing that I have is the cross section of the house which demonstrates that the floor joist, the floor, and the rest of the house is above 18 feet. The only things below 18 feet are five steel beams and the breakaway walls on the exterior. The code of federal regulations says it would be the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor. I’m not admitting that these beams are part of the lowest floor; to me they are not part of the floor system, they are part of the structural system. The path that makes the most sense is to come and ask for a variance and not get into any protracted litigation with Tybee, which we don’t want to do. Variances can be granted to these regulations; if they could not be granted there would not be a provision in the flood ordinance. This is patterned after the model ordinance that the State and Environmental Protection Division put out. The good and sufficient cause is we’ve gotten a structural analysis of how this house could be raised a foot. I’ve been told a minimum of $400,000 plus to raise the house. All stairwells would have to be rebuilt and the house would be a foot too high requiring a variance because of the height restriction. When it is done, the cost easily would be a half million dollars. We stand here admitting that Mr. Yawn made a mistake. Will it cause considerable hardship? Yes, Mr. Yawn doesn’t have a half million dollars and he the one that made the mistake. It’s going to be a very tough thing for him and his wife. With the granting of the variance resulting in increased flood heights, five beams, not possible. Create nuisance, cause fraud, or victimization of the public, conflict with existing laws or ordinances – I don’t think any of those things apply. If it wasn’t for the question of the flood insurance rates, I think most people have a heart and realize it’s just a mistake, and it’s just 5 steel beams. Nobody tried to violate the ordinance, it was just a mistake. Regarding flood insurance rates, I have determined the letter Sue [Hopfensperger] wrote points out that these are credits; not demerits. If you don’t do something they don’t take away, they may not give you the number of credits. There is a great fear that by granting this variance we are going to hurt the people of Tybee. It’s true that Tybee is only at 1,504 credits but what do you get by having a freeboard? If the variance is granted, we are not violating FEMA’s rules, we are still above 17, which is the requirement of the federal laws. The variance is the requirement of the additional one foot freeboard. What difference does that make to Tybee? In her letter [Sue Hopfensperger] she says the community currently does not earn any credit from freeboard. You’ve got zero credits for the freeboard, so if you grant a variance from the freeboard, then you’re not going to lose any credits because you have zero. The regulations say if you have a one foot freeboard in your ordinance, you can earn up to 100 credits that you don’t have now. It also says if you grant a variance, which she [Sue Hopfensperger] says in her letter, then you prorate that. If you grant a variance and save the retirement of Mr. Yawn, then you will get some prorated amount of those. People know that you have this regulation. There was no intent not to comply with the regulation, but a mistake was made. There are other variables you can earn under the system, doing things like community outreach, giving people brochures, posting signs, telling people about flood insurance. Freeboard is one of them but granting one variance is not going to keep you from getting the freeboard credit; it will cause some type of proration. I’ll be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Parks – Are there any questions for the applicant? I understand the part about mistakes but we’re trying to go by the Land Development Code. Mr. Bishop – There’s no controversy over the base flood elevation, is that correct? Mr. McCorkle – With the freeboard, yes. Mr. Bishop – That’s concurred and it’s strictly the variance is the issue you have at this point. Mr. McCorkle – Yes. 20 Mr. Bishop – This commission sits as a recommending body only and we have to consider the impact that it has on the applicant, the property, and the citizens of this community. If there is an increase in flood insurance as a result of this, then that is an impact on our citizens. It is certainly an impact to which we have been entrusted that we don’t create issues for them so we have to take that into consideration. On the 14th of February, that is when both Mr. Yawn and Mr. Brewer withdrew their revised BFE 16, when they recognized the error? Mr. McCorkle – Yes. Mr. Bishop – We are looking at the citizens of Tybee and we’re looking at the error made and the impact that it would have on the owner of the residence. There would be a substantial cost factor involved to the owner in order to bring that to a base flood elevation of 18. You used the number of approximately $400 or $500,000. Mr. McCorkle – Half a million. Mr. Bishop – Is there a way at which that was arrived? McCorkle – We had the structural engineer do an analysis. Mr. Hall, the contractor, has also done a quick analysis; his initial analysis is north of 400,000 dollars. Mr. Callahan – The establishment of the base flood elevation is done after construction takes place, correct? Mr. McCorkle – Before any construction, you tell the city what the base flood elevation is and you design the plans that show you’re going to meet that. Mr. Callahan – There should be plans that show what that is going to be. Mr. McCorkle – Correct. Mr. Callahan – The plans are given to the builder who is supposed to build in accordance with those plans. Mr. McCorkle – And he did. Mr. Callahan – The architect made the mistake. Mr. McCorkle – No, Mr. Yawn made the mistake. Mr. Yawn did a lot survey and determined the finished floor elevation for the portion of the lot where the house was going to go. His determination from that 2010 plat was that it was 16. Ms. Otto – When these building plans were received, you can see that I made the determination at the top right that it was a 17; I have enlarged it so you can see it. This was marked in black. Mr. Callahan – This was when you received the building plans? Ms. Otto – These are the building plans; this is page 2. Over here, this was marked that it was a 17 and an 18. The architect came in and crossed out all of these things, red-lined is what we call it. He red-lined all the structure that protruded across that line so that they would stay in the flood zone to the left which on this plan was identified as 17. He also red-lined the base flood elevation changing it to 16 and 17. The base flood elevation is 16; they have got to build to 17 with Tybee’s 1-foot freeboard. When I initially reviewed them and saw the 17, that’s when I called it. This change is where, in my opinion, the architect contributed to this problem. Look at the document on page 4 that Mr. McCorkle gave you. That same flood boundary line that is shown here, that was marked 17, 18 originally, and was changed by the architect to 16, 17. This was submitted on January 24th. This is what came in with the first elevation certificate as the 21 foundation survey that showed the structure was at 17. When the elevation certificate showed that the lowest horizontal was also at 17 and missing the 1-foot freeboard, that’s what identified we have a problem. If you go to page 6 in his packet, you will see a revised foundation survey. The first one is dated January 24th, this revised one is dated February 28th, and this line is no longer here. The 16 and 17 lines are all the way over toward Butler Avenue. This line was based on, as near as I can tell, the 1986 flood map rather than the 2008 flood map under which this home was built. They were off when they submitted all of their documents for permitting. They were basing it on a flood boundary line that was not on our current insurance rate map; they had the wrong line. As page 6 shows, they weren’t even close to being out of the 17; they were using the wrong FIRM. We didn’t have a new map until 2008, so they were working under a 2006 flood insurance map. They tried to convert what information they had but they didn’t go back and convert that the flood boundary line changed from the 1986 map to the 2008 map. Mr. McCorkle – If I could somehow throw this on the architect I would, but the architect used Mr. Yawn’s survey. This 2006 was based upon the 1980 map. The data from which you measure finished floor changed on 2008 maps and what was 18 and 17, for example, became 17 and 16 because they look at a different spot where the sea level was. Mr. Yawn had mistakenly put 18 and 17 on that and the architect said no, it was 17 and 16. The line was not in the wrong place, it was the same place Whitley showed it and everybody else showed it. It’s 25 feet off based on this new digital technology that they have. There is no conspiracy here whatsoever; I think Ms. Otto is convinced there is. Mr. Yawn made a mistake and all of the work was based upon that. Ms. Otto – I’m not saying it is a conspiracy. What I’m saying is that the data, based on the 1986 FIRM, was not updated to the 2008 FIRM. Mr. Parks – We’re not assuming conspiracy, we are here strictly to determine if a variance is appropriate or not. Not to define fault, not to put blame. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address the commission on this? Dottie Klutz came forward and introduced herself. This is a tough situation and I don’t envy you. I do think this is one individual versus the 3,500 plus residents that live here. Maybe the architect or the surveyor made a mistake, but the people who did not make a mistake are the residents who live on Tybee. They are the ones who are innocent and not involved in this. I know Mr. McCorkle wants to say that all we want to talk about is the flood insurance – yes, we do. When FEMA comes it’s going to be very important. FEMA came about 10 years ago, and they ride all over the island when they come. When they see that buildings have been filled in underneath and there are bathrooms and washing machines and living quarters, they dock us and they did that before. They are very thorough and if we only have these four points that we’re dealing with, they will see the variance and whatever else they find. It is tough and I do feel sorry for these people but there are 3,500 people who did not make a mistake on this and I think they need to be considered. Mr. Parks – At this time, I would like to close the public hearing and I’m open for a motion or discussion. Mr. Marion – Make a motion to deny as is. Ms. Bramble – Second. Mr. Bishop – Can we have discussion? Mr. Parks – Yes. Mr. Bishop – What is “…a variance shall be issued only when there is (b.) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship”. How would that be defined? Is that financial to the applicant, additional costs to the citizens? 22 Ms. Otto – The last paragraph of the email from Sue [Hopfensperger] says “The community needs to determine if the variance is being awarded for a true hardship, other than causing a financial hardship, for the builder and a possible cost savings to the other 2,910 NFIP policy holders on Tybee Island. Each of them would be paying approximately $56 a more per year due to their loss of 5% discount to a CRS class retrograde.” I take that as her interpretation that a financial hardship to the owner is not a true hardship. Mr. Callahan – It’s not a reason for a variance. If I’m reading this correctly it does say A, B, and C have to be met because it uses the word ‘and’ at the end of sentence (b.). All three standards would have to be met. Am I correct? Mr. Bishop – I would disagree simply because I don’t think you can equate increased flood heights necessarily with cause, fraud, or victimization. I’m more concerned with the precedence being set from a perspective of interpretation of the Land Development Code, the applicant, and the citizens of Tybee; I think this is a critical decision. Mr. Parks – We have used standards of safety, environment, or topographical hardships as our primary hardships that we list with safety being number one at all times. Financial hardships have not, to date, been one of the key hardships we consider. Mr. Bishop – You also have to take into consideration the other section of variance procedure, 8-050, that says “…a variance by this body should only be issued on determination of the variance is the minimum necessary considering the flood hazard to afford relief”. I still don’t know what that is and it’s hard to make a decision from a planning perspective when you don’t know the answers to those questions. Mr. Parks – Looking at the definition of floodway in the Land Development Code, it means a channel or a river or other water course. Mr. Bishop – I would say as an island we could have numerous floodways. Mr. Parks - I have a motion on the table for denial and a second. Do I have discussion? [There was none.] Those in favor of the motion please signify. [Bramble, McNaughton, Callahan, and Marion voted in favor of denial / Bishop voted against denial.] Site Plan Approval – Doug Bean – Sign at Commercial Building – 1415 Butler Avenue Ms. Otto – This location will soon be opening as a retail store, the Funky Fish Outdoors. The request before you is a projecting sign off the front of the building which would be over the city’s property and therefore needs to have site plan approval. The square footage of the proposed sign does meet the ordinance; the protrusion of no more than 6 feet from the building meets the requirements. Mr. Callahan – The height is okay? Ms. Otto – The height is fine. They need to be 10 feet above the sidewalk and they are without going past the roof structure. Everything is good except they don’t have their own property to place it on. Mr. Callahan – It’s a very colorful sign against a pretty, non-colorful building which creates a clash in my mind. Do we have any standards we can impose for trying to make the building and the sign match a little? Ms. Otto – No, we do not have any standards like that. Mr. Parks – Do I have a representative from the applicant that would like to speak? Doug Bean came forward and introduced himself. I am the sign contractor and applicant. 23 Mr. Bishop – I like the colors. Mr. Bean – Tybee is a colorful place. Mr. Parks – I think it would add significantly to the streetscape. Ms. Bramble – Is it neon? Mr. Bean – No exposed neon. All of the lighting is internal and it’s all LED. You won’t see it, it projects through translucent faces. Mr. Marion – Do we have any idea how bright that light is going to be in that location? The composition of the framework of the outside shell is glass, plastic, or something else? Mr. Bean – It’s plastic. The part that the light projects through is plastic; the majority of the structure is aluminum. Ms. Otto – I do not know how bright it will be. We do not currently have a lighting ordinance for it to meet any standards. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this? Sue Bentley came forward and introduced herself. Because there is living space above there, is the light going to be reflecting or affecting the condos? Mr. Bean – In all candor, I could not guarantee that you could not look out the window and see that lighted sign. It is built in such a way, where the light projects only towards the street and out towards the sidewalk. There is no feature of that sign that allows light to come up; it will be opaque on the upper part of the structure. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody else from the public that would like to address the commission? [There were none.] I’m going to close the public hearing at this time. I’m open to a motion or discussion. Mr. Marion – I make a motion to approve. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion to approve and a second. Those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] Site Plan Approval – Karen Kelly – Patio at Bed & Breakfast – 1701 Butler Avenue Ms. Otto – This bed & breakfast is proposing installation of an at grade patio to the southwest within their property. On the site plan it shows there are still adequate parking spaces for the number of units. The patio would be in the back of the parking lot as shown in this photo [referring to PowerPoint] adjacent to the building. Mr. Callahan – At this stage, do we need to know the dimensions or materials? Ms. Otto – The dimensions are provided. It’s on the first page of the application as a 20-foot by 40-foot. With the recent change to Tybee’s ordinance about patio materials, it will be calculated whether 65% of the setbacks have to be greenspace. If that is accomplished, then it could be any materials. 24 Mr. Parks – Do I have a representative from the applicant here? Frank Kelly came forward and introduced himself. I am the husband of the owner. The area is 20 by 40 and the proposed material is cement. Currently it is an empty lot and it would still be less than 70% of the property covered. Mr. Marion – The use will be for anything? Mr. Kelly – Guests and entertainment. We are a commercial lot, part of the south end district, and entitled to the rights and rules of the south end district. Mr. Marion – The people adjacent behind you, I think there is natural bamboo landscaping. Have they given you any feedback? Mr. Kelly – The orange house is actually a part-time rental. The other neighbors are glad they are no longer looking at the back side of the Hunter House. Overall there has been no negative feedback on what we have done to improve that area. Ms. Bramble – That is where those two cabins were? Mr. Kelly – No, actually the Hunter House used to own the property where those two houses were. The orange house was where the cabin was and to the right was the old bathhouse. If you look back to the drawing, those are the walkways that went back over there. We’re just in front of it. Mr. Bishop – This is strictly an uncovered patio, no plan to put a roof over it? Mr. Kelley – Not at this time. Ultimately my wife would like to put another building there but that is another program. Mr. Parks – Do you plan to light it? Mr. Kelly – There should be some type of lighting over there, more accent type of lighting. Mr. Parks – Is that part of the site plan, something we should be asking for? How about electrical outlets? Mr. Kelly – There are electrical outlets already throughout that area just by the walkway. Typically you’re going to have some type of outlets just like they have around the parking lot on the strand. Ms. Otto – Without adoption of the lighting ordinance that is coming, we don’t have a requirement for a lighting plan. Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else that would like to address the issue? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Mr. Bishop – Motion to approve. Mr. Callahan – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion to approve with a second. Those in favor of the motion to approve the site plan, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.] 25 Text Amendment – Article 14, Historic Preservation Ms. Otto – Provided in your packet is the text that has come from the Historic Preservation Commission proposing a new process for permit applications that the Planning and Zoning Department receives for structures that are fifty years or older. Followed by that are emails that were exchanged between myself and the city attorney. Before you tonight is that text as proposed. Mr. Parks – Usually when we get a text amendment, it is presented like it is going to look and this isn’t. Ms. Otto – No. It went to the city attorney’s office where it’s put into ordinance form. There is no other section within Article 14 that this is amending; it would be new language that would be assigned a section number in Article 14 if adopted. It does not yet have an assigned section number or ordinance number. Mr. Parks – Do we have anyone that would like to speak on this issue? Cullen Chambers came forward and introduced himself. I’m the Historic Preservation Advisor to the Tybee Island Historic Preservation Commission. We do acknowledge and recognize that this needs to go to Bubba [Edward Hughes] and be properly worded; we didn’t word this in actual text amendment. I’m not going to read the recommendations to you but with your indulgence, I would like to explain the purpose of this. We feel we need a clearer notification process for buildings fifty years or older. Obviously there was some miscommunication on an historic Tybrisa Street building. We feel that this additional review process will prevent, or at least reduce, the number of those occurrences in the future. We want to provide a review process that determines whether a building fifty years or older merits a meeting with the owner/contractor to determine whether the building is eligible for tax credits, tax freezes, and FEMA exemptions. That might prevent some of the mistakes that are being made in violation of FEMA and adding possible costs to insurance policies. We want to provide additional assistance to the city zoning staff that clearly is doing a remarkable job in their capacity. We don’t want to add to that burden; we want to offset some of the responsibility on people who are more knowledgeable about historic preservation. We feel this additional step will not produce a hardship for the owner or contractor. It will enable them to get a bigger and better picture of what is historic and what opportunities lay out there for tax credits and tax freezes. Lastly, we want to provide a process to discuss with owners of historic buildings, especially those in the historic commercial area, design concepts that will enhance that historic commercial area. These are not design guidelines yet but it is an open dialogue with the owners and contractors early in the process so they don’t get too far down the design path before we can suggest ways of mitigating those designs that enhance the historic commercial streetscape. We plead with the planning commission to support us in this endeavor as we take it forward. We want to prevent further occurrences throughout the island where historic buildings are lost, in this case through accident, not intentional. We want that extra step to ensure that the process is kept intact. As the Historic Preservation Commission follows through and adheres to the historic preservation ordinance, it is incumbent upon us to make these changes where we see deficiencies in a review process. Mr. McNaughton – Do you have any idea how many homes on Tybee are more than 50 years old? Mr. Chambers – On the table we have about nine volumes; that is an island wide inventory of historic resources on Tybee Island. Based on those surveys we feel there are about 400 buildings fifty years or older. Keep in mind, mid- century is now considered to be historic. Mr. McNaughton – Almost every house on my street is over fifty and none of them have any historical significance that I can tell. I would have a problem going through the permit process through an agency outside the city and I think other citizens would to. Mr. Chambers – That is an ongoing misconception. The fifty years or older criteria is a baseline used by the Department of Interior, the National Park Service, fifty state historic preservation offices, the Georgia Trust, and the Historic Preservation Commission of the Coastal Georgia Development Commission. It’s also the criteria we are tasked with as the Tybee Island Historic Preservation Commission. As it relates to your concern about a building fifty years not being 26 historic, this is the first step; that doesn’t mean the building is historic. We have determined over 65 buildings basically needed to be torn down even though they were fifty years or older, they did not meet the criteria for that designation. Even in this case, the process is what we are asking for so that we can go in and review the application for demolition, alterations, modifications, and rehabilitation. If I go to that site and determine that building is not significant, Dianne Otto can tell you within a matter of minutes, if not hours, I allow them to continue with the demolition process. Not every building fifty years or older is historic but that is the starting point for consideration. Mr. Parks – One of the handouts we received in our packet was permits issued in the last 30 days to give us visibility of permits that have been issued that you don’t see. There are 35-40 and probably half of those affected buildings are 50 years or older. That’s equal to two decisions a day almost on your part. I think your role is going to change; I think you’re going to get some volume. How do you plan to address that? Mr. Chambers – I am willing, able, and permitted by the institution I work for to devote the time. I have been here twenty years come August. I have done my best to work on behalf of not the present but the future of Tybee Island in preserving its architectural history. We market this community based on the low profile unique historic character of this community. It has done wonders to transform us from a four month tourist based destination to a basically year round destination. We are relying heavily on historic visitation, heritage tourism, along with our eco tours. It is part of my passion and I am devoted to carrying out the mission of the Historic Preservation Commission as asked by the members of that commission under Article 14 of the Land Development Code. Mr. Callahan – You referenced the project at 23 Tybrisa. How would this proposed ordinance have prevented that? Mr. Chambers – It would have been prevented had I and/or Dianne Otto been notified that this was an actual demolition. The wording in this closes that gap because as it is worded, it states very explicitly, if you apply for this scope of work, and during that work you find you need to demolish the building or take a more dramatic impact on the building, the zoning administrator is notified and we sit down and come to a conclusion as to what course of action can be taken to save the building if possible. I have no doubt had the demo permit been applied for, I would have deemed that building structurally unsound as well. I am a realist. If the building is not structurally sound, if it poses a threat to individuals or adjoining buildings, then we move very quickly in making those determinations. On the other hand, if I find that the building can be structurally rehabilitated, that’s the determination we want this process to be in place for so we don’t see an unnecessary or unfortunate unintentional demolition of a historic building. Ms. Otto – This proposal includes that permits for discovery, modification, rehabilitation, alteration for buildings fifty years or older would go through this new process. There was an application for discovery for 23 Tybrisa but because there wasn’t an application for demolition it didn’t get through the process. Under this new proposal, what they did apply for would have triggered a review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Parks – Looking at that permit request the age of the building was not filled out. Ms. Otto – Nor was it available on the Chatham County Property Record Card which is where I normally go to locate it. In those situations I would rely on Mr. Chambers to determine the age of the building. Mr. Chambers – One of the buildings demolished dated back to 1919. Mr. Parks – If it had come to you without the age of the building on there, you would ring up Mr. Chambers. Ms. Otto – It’s a clue to me if the county doesn’t know what year a building was built, it’s really old because it is before their records. Mr. Chambers – I think the axiom would be, if you have a doubt, give me a shout. We have incredible surveys of this community. We can open a book and tell you, particularly if it relates to the Fort Screven district, but any area on this 27 island, I can give you a date of construction. That information is not provided by the county and I respectfully request that we use the local resources: Historic Preservation Advisor, Historic Preservation Commission, and the Tybee Island Historic Society. All of those entities can provide the information needed to fill in those dates. Mr. Parks – Would this have necessarily stopped what happened on Tybrisa because the date wasn’t filled in? Ms. Otto – Yes, it would have. In spite of the date not being there, it would have triggered my department to pass it to him because we didn’t know a date and it would have been up to them to determine whether it was or was not fifty years or older. Mr. Chambers – I can’t tell you specifically how many times Ms. Otto has relayed a site to me for determination. She has been an incredible asset to this community; her workload is phenomenal. This process will help her rather than hinder her as it is another set of eyes, another opportunity to bring that crucial information to the Zoning department, Planning Commission, and to City Council. Mr. Callahan – If some situation arises in the future, after this becomes part of our ordinances, if a property owner / contractor is able to skirt these requirements, should we have some sort of penalty, financial or otherwise, as part of this ordinance? Mr. Chambers – That is out of the realm of the Historic Preservation Commission. That really should come from this body and through city council. In my mind, the $1,000 penalty was not sufficient even though it was accidental. I think that if someone violates, not only this Article 14 provision, but any of the permitting processes, that a sixty-day stop work order automatically be implemented as a measure to get them to take notice and send a message to others as well; don’t try to skirt Tybee Island ordinances. Recently this body has had to deliberate incredible decisions based on after the fact, it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. We have seen that occur time and time again. That is something your commission and the city council needs to take up and implement. This will not prevent every occurrence; we are out to try and reduce as many as possible and save as many historic buildings as possible. Mr. Callahan – Do we need more historic districts on the island? Mr. Chambers – We do. It’s clear through the correspondence with Bubba Hughes that he feels it is time to start implementing those. We feel very strongly that the historic commercial district demands architectural review. We need to have a community based input into the streetscape design. I’m not keen on doing design guidelines elsewhere in the foreseeable future but I think the Tybrisa area needs to be done. We need to have local historic districts. We brought this before council ten years ago but we didn’t meet the public sentiment at that time. We think we can now word local historic districts and design them so they are more agreeable to property owners. It is not our intent to inhibit the property owners or cause them financial hardship. We do need to put measures in place, such as local historic districts, that protect those that want to see the historical character of Tybee Island preserved. Mr. Callahan – Part of that would include design guidelines? Mr. Chambers – Yes, sir. I think a starting point, and maybe a good test grounds, would be the historic commercial area of Tybrisa Street, part of Butler, and even wrap around the Strand. If you have a sign issue come before you and question whether it blends in with the building, this process allows us to have an open ongoing dialogue with the owner and the contractor to try and soften or mitigate those intrusions that are inappropriate for the character of the commercial district. Ms. Otto – This has gone to the city attorney. He is checking into the legality of doing this without the historic districts. I would recommend that you allow him to continue working on that with the intent of getting this to city council on April 11th. If he, for some reason, cannot meet that goal, it wouldn’t be because this body held it up. 28 Mr. Parks – Do we motion this and vote on it? Ms. Otto – Yes. Mr. Parks – Are there any other questions for Mr. Chambers? [There were none.] Mr. Callahan – I would still be concerned about some sort of penalty. Ms. Otto – In Article 14, which is where this would go, there is a penalty provision in Section 14-080 but it references a section in the municipal code. I believe that is where Mr. Chambers is getting the $1,000 penalty from. There is already a provision in the ordinance for a penalty; any proposed change to that would need to be to that section. Mr. Callahan – We could address that separately at a different time. Ms. Otto – It is my understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing all of Article 14 that will be coming to you in the future. We have done one section recently that changed the review time from 15 to 45 days. Mr. Callahan – I’ll make a motion to approve. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor please signify. [Bramble, Callahan, Bishop, and Marion voted for approval. McNaughton was opposed.] Map Amendment and Text Amendment – 13 lots – Eagles Nest Subdivision Ms. Otto – The list of properties in your packet, which are identified on this map, are before you to be considered for rezoning from C-2 to R-1 for lots 1-9 as they are numbered on this map; and for lots A through D to be R-2 lots. A year ago in March, there was a C-2 charette conducted on the island. The final report came from that in August and was presented to city council. At their January workshop, council elected rather than to follow any of the three alternatives proposed in the final report to instead consider portions of the C-2 corridor, neighborhoods if you would, in specific targeted areas for re-zoning. This is the first they identified to be considered for rezoning. The development there is residential on all of these lots although they are zoned C-2. It has been asked more than once whether this affects the lot that had been subject to some subdivision some time back. It is not; that property [referring to PowerPoint] that had been subdivided and was later determined to have already been zoned R-1 based on a Text Amendment but the map was never changed to show that. That lot [referring to PowerPoint] and this lot are already R-1 lots but the map doesn’t accurately reflect that. The lots you are considering are 1 through 9 and A through D. Do you have any questions? Mr. Parks – What’s the difference in property value between a C-2 and an R-1? Is that an immediate hit or an immediate gain to their property value? Ms. Otto – I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know what the Chatham County tax assessor uses for determining property value. Mr. Parks – You say this comes from council; this has been considered by them? Ms. Otto – No, it’s coming to you for consideration as it is being proposed tonight. Their request at the workshop was that the Planning and Zoning Department send the Eagles Nest lots that were zoned C-2 to you for consideration of rezoning and then, with your recommendation, go back to them for their vote. Mr. Bishop – What would be the detriment if they were not? 29 Ms. Otto – If for some reason, hypothetically, if there were a vacancy caused on one of these properties by a buyer, storm damage, or whatever reason, it could potentially be developed as commercial because it is zoned such. With this change that would no longer be a possibility. Since they are already developed residential, it will make the zoning match the current uses but it would also remove the potential uses if they were redeveloped in the future. Mr. Bishop – That hasn’t occurred at Eagles Nest has it? Ms. Otto – No. Mr. Parks – Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Mr. Callahan came forward and introduced himself. I’m one of the affected property owners. Our side of the highway is residential as with the other side. It only makes sense to me that this be rezoned residential. I have been contacted by three, including two who were here tonight, and they support the proposed change. I speak on behalf of those people and myself asking you to agree to the proposed change to residential zoning. Mr. Parks – Does this affect homeowner’s insurance? Mr. Callahan – I don’t think there is any impact. It prevents what might happen in the future if, hypothetically, a storm destroys the house. Mr. Parks – The county doesn’t charge a different tax on people who are C-2? Ms. Otto – I don’t know. I received an email on Wednesday that needs to be read into the record. This is from Phyllis Spencer and Molly Hannas. “Dear Ms. Otto, thank you for your letter of March 11, 2013. In response, Phyllis Spencer and Molly Hannas of 212 Eagles Nest Drive, PIN #4-0019-02-033, approve of the proposed Map Amendment zoning to R- 1. We will do our best to appear in person at the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 19, 2013. Sincerely, Phyllis Spencer and Molly Hannas”. Mr. Parks – Do we have other members of the public that would like to address this? Bill Werts came forward and introduced himself. I live at 214 Eagle’s Nest and I support this also. When I purchased the house, I didn’t know my house was considered a duplex; it’s a separate structure. There is a fence that stretches from my neighbor’s house over to my house and we have that common area in the middle. Ms. Otto – That used to be part of ‘A’, those two were split. Mr. Werts – It’s no big issue, I just wondered about the designation. I am in favor of the change. Mr. Parks – Any other members of the public that would like to speak on this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion or discussion? Mr. McNaughton – I move to approve as written. Mr. Bishop – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second for approval. Those in favor please signify. [Rob Callahan had recused. Vote was unanimous.] 30 Ms. Otto – To clarify, this is both a Map and a Text Amendment. The Land Development Code and the Zoning Map will be affected if this is adopted. Text Amendment – Article 3, Section 3-250, Private Parking Lots Ms. Otto – This is related to Section 3-250 which is specific to the operation of private parking lots within the city. The annual review for the private parking lots under the current ordinance occurred in January. Following that change at the February 28th meeting, a motion was made and seconded and the vote was 4-1 by city council to have Section 3-250 sent to planning commission for consideration of striking the section in the first sentence that reads “…and for the R-2 properties currently licensed, a list of which is attached here to,…”. That is the four private parking lots that had been using the word “grandfathered” when the ordinance was under prior consideration. It was decided to add the four R-2’s that have had business licenses in the past. What is before you tonight would remove that provision that allows those four to continue year-to-year to have their parking lots. This item has gone to the parking committee and the three council members that are on that committee voted 2-1 to recommend to planning commission and city council that the current private parking lot ordinance stay and the R-2 lots be allowed to continue to be a part of the ordinance. The vote at the council meeting that sent this to you was a 4-1 vote and voting in favor were Jan Fox, Tom Groover, Barry Brown, and Bill Garbett. Opposed was Paul Wolff. Wanda Doyle was not able to attend that meeting. The three council people at the parking committee meeting that voted were Bill Garbett, Tom Groover, and Paul Wolff and I don’t know which one voted to still have you consider removing the R-2 lots but two of them voted in favor of keeping it the way it is. Before you tonight is consideration as to whether to amend Section 3-250 to remove that sentence that is struck in red in your packet. Mr. Marion – By striking this, we have four people on Tybee that have been grandfathered in and we would essentially be allowing the death of their business? Ms. Otto – Yes, they would no longer be eligible. Under this current ordinance, all of these private parking lots have to come for an annual review. Each did that in February and they were approved with conditions which is another portion of this ordinance. What this change would say is that they can’t even apply any more for annual review. They would no longer be eligible because of their zoning. Mr. Marion – On the city council synopsis, the public hearing, and the review of each proposed property, some dates of operation were approved that are different than others? Ms. Otto – There were five considered at that meeting. The one at 1511 Butler is not zoned R-2. It is a C-1 so that did not receive the same restrictions that the R-2 lots received. The R-2 lots received the same dates of operation restriction of Memorial Day weekend, July 3rd and 4th, and Labor Day weekend. Mr. Marion – Prior to this, was it still restricted somewhat or could they operate year round if they needed to accommodate overflow? Ms. Otto – Prior to this, they were free to rent parking spaces between the hours of 10 AM to dusk or one hour before and one hour after a city approved special event. But further in the document it does say that during the annual review, conditions can be imposed and that was one of the conditions imposed on all four R-2 lots this past time. Mr. Callahan – Somewhere in the records we have some close approximation of public parking availability. Ms. Otto – We do. They are constantly searching for additional designated parking spaces in the areas where it is of the most benefit. Mr. Callahan – Any other parking, other than public parking and the lighthouse, is parking associated with commercial facilities? 31 Ms. Otto – Correct. Mr. Callahan – Those aren’t open to the public parking. You are supposed to be a patron. Ms. Otto – No, these are open to public parking. Mr. Callahan – Can you give me an example, like Funky Fish? Ms. Otto – No, they do not have a private parking lot license. The only ones that do are Ocean Plaza and the Sunrise Restaurant. Mr. Callahan – Okay. With this ordinance stating private parking lots being just on these holiday weekends, we don’t know if that is enough to cover parking demand greater than parking availability at other times. Ms. Otto – I would anticipate, just from living here, that there is not adequate parking in those situations. Mr. Callahan – Yet we are going to eliminate more possible parking by making this change. Ms. Otto – Yes, these would be eliminated. There were a number of neighbors opposed, in particular to the private parking lot at 1001 Butler Avenue, and probably ten to twelve that submitted emails and letters of opposition. This was viewed by council as a compromise by granting that lot to operate but only on a very limited schedule. Mr. Callahan – Were there objections to any others? Ms. Otto – I believe there was one objection to all R-2’s. I don’t recall any particular specific objections to the other three except for the one that was opposed to any of them. Mr. Callahan – I have trouble with this because you see how Tybee looks on a typical weekend, whether it is a holiday or not, and you have people driving around and around trying to find a place to park and there is nothing to be had. I don’t understand why we want to eliminate parking when we need more. Mr. Parks – I share that concern. Did council give any reason? Ms. Otto – The expression has been that they don’t belong in residential zones, that they are trashy and noisy nuisances. Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that wants to address this? Marianne Bramble came forward and introduced herself. I am objecting to this Text Amendment. One reason is we don’t have ample parking on Tybee to accommodate our seasonal day tripping tourists. Secondly, we were permitted this license for the past three or four years. This Text Amendment has come up for change every year. Last year the Text Amendment was changed that they will make the licensed parking lots available the entire year. In my instance, I operate maybe 20 days out of the year. I was permitted 13 drawn, stamped, certified spots for the past three years. On Saturdays during these twenty days, I generally fill all 13 spots and there are still people driving around at 3 o’clock in the afternoon looking for parking to go to the beach. On Sundays I don’t generally fill the 13 spots. My yard is for overflow parking only and if you have lived on the beach long enough you know that our season really started two weeks before our Irish Heritage parade. Do I get out there and get people to park? No. The season will start for me on Memorial weekend. I will go out into my yard around noon and only have to stand in my yard while people are driving by. The council, when they proposed this change, gave the reason as a quality of life issue. The four residential licenses that are permitted, according to some of the council members, are destroying our quality of life. I want to mention the Irish Heritage parade as they lined up from Memorial Park down Second Street and Lovell; they started lining up at 9 am 32 in the morning. About noon I began to smell gas and walked outside; it was from the Shriner’s vehicles and go carts. My dog was going crazy, I had gas fumes in my house, and when I went out to participate with the parade, I walked into my front yard and there is a troop of twenty Girl Scouts sitting in my front yard and two people sitting in my swing with their koozies and beers. How is this affecting the quality of life? There isn’t one of you that didn’t move here and not know that we have a season. It’s a season of day trippers and people wanting to come out and enjoy what we are fortunate to enjoy all the time. This is our home. I object to this Text Amendment. It is not a quality of life issue; I want to keep my license and operate my twenty days out of the year. Russell Bridges came forward and introduced himself. I live at 1001 Butler Avenue. In reference to the people who came and complained, most of them are non-beach residents who have property on Tenth Street and their complaints were very general, they were not specific to our particular parking lot. They didn’t cite any wild parties or fires burning in pits or anything of that nature. They were just basically saying that the increased number of people parking along the Tenth Street area were increasing the number of people on the beach and therefore increasing the amount of trash and other things. You cannot assign that to the specific issue at hand because we put trash receptacles out and encourage people to deposit their trash. We give directions, offer suggestions for restaurants, and other things. These are people who come down to enjoy the beach and they spend money. I’ve heard complaints at council that we don’t make any money off of these parking lots. You’ve got probably an additional 200 cars coming to the beach, each one of them has multiple people, they go to restaurants, buy beverages, and there is tax revenue generated. I personally object to the Text Amendment because I feel like we are being singled out. I’ve been before this very body, most of you were here when this came up last year. At that time, there were a couple of particular residential properties that were named for inclusion where the others are being stricken and that is an unfair balance. We’ve been doing this for years and we’ve had no adverse feedback; my neighbors haven’t come over and said you shouldn’t be doing this. None of these people that came to the meeting before had ever come to us with any type of complaint. Where we differ from the others, we were the people who came to the city and asked for the ordinance to be developed because they parked in our yard anyway. We get no support from the city. If this doesn’t pass, we will have people parking in our yard unless we sit out in the yard, with a rifle across our lap, and protect our property. We go down to visit and enjoy the beach and when we come back we have a lot of new friends. Some years ago, I said if you want to park here that will be $5 and they were happy to pay it. They would pull up and park and you could tell them they couldn’t park there because that is city right- of-way, it’s illegal. They would ask how much is the ticket and I told them maybe twenty or thirty dollars and they said that was fine, they would pay it. They don’t care, they’ve been riding around the beach for hours looking for a place to park and there is an unguarded spot and they’re going to be there. I’m personally opposed to this Text Amendment I think it is unfair to those of us who have done this; we do provide a service. We don’t park every day, it’s fifteen to twenty times per year. I have specific issues with the decision made at council because I believe their limitations were unreasonable. Mr. Callahan – You are required to have a business license, correct? Mr. Bridges – That is correct. If you do not have a business license you get to go down and see the judge. Last year when this was visited, there were additional fees required for applying, additional fees for application processing, and requirements for professional surveys. The requirements were raised and the costs were increased accordingly. Some members of the council have been trying to put us out of business because they have a personal problem with it. Mr. Bishop – I keep hearing from Marianne and yourself, the discussion about the degradation of quality of life by members of council and others. What specifically has been brought to your attention that has produced that degradation of quality of life? Is it public safety issues or litter; what specifically has been used as evidence to move forward on this type of change in ordinance? Mr. Bridges – Honestly, nothing. It’s more of a personal feeling and it never has seemed to have been based on any particular thing. I don’t think there have been a flood of complaints from citizens of Tybee. I think there are some people that have expressed their opposition, probably the same people over and over. They are not the people who live up nearer to the beach that are subject to exposure to this overflow traffic. There were no specific issues cited that the 33 city had to move an extra 10,000 pounds of trash because we had these cars or that we left mountains of trash in the street. None of those types of things were demonstrated or illustrated. I came away that it was more of a personal feeling of individuals. Mr. Bishop – Have you had, during the season, Tybee Police Department respond to issues where you are having cars parked? Mr. Bridges – The only time the Tybee Police have been on our property has been when we called them because somebody blocked in one of our ingress/egress areas. Mr. Bishop – Not a response, not as a result of an incident. Mr. Bridges – That is correct. Also, we were the second license ever issued on the island for this particular thing and I guess it’s been seven or eight years ago. We’ve been licensed every year thereafter and we’ve not been cited or called down or had any adverse action whatsoever. Mr. Bishop – There is certainly not a decrease in traffic. Mr. Bridges – No, I would say since Tybee seems to be becoming a vacation destination, it’s ever increasing. The season seems to be expanding. It used to be you knew the weekend of Beach Bum parade was the start of the season and it would run out the last of July or so. It now seems to be starting a couple of months earlier. Joyce Prescott came to the lectern and introduced herself. It started with a couple of people who oppose everything. They made a complaint about the litter; that is not true. They cause problems all over the island, so it is not only in our areas. We’ve got residential properties operating commercially and one of the neighbors that complained rents and makes a profit. The remarks that have been made are why they should make a profit; in other words, it’s a personal vendetta. It’s not a problem and it has never been a problem. We maintain it and that is why I allow it. Mr. Parks – Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission at this time? [There were none]. Are there any other questions? [There were none.] At this time I’m going to close the public hearing. Do I have a motion or discussion? Mr. Marion – I make a motion not to approve the language in red. Mr. McNaughton – Second. Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second to not approve the recommended verbiage. All those in favor please signify. [Marianne Bramble had recused. Vote was unanimous.] Mr. Bishop – Motion to adjourn. Mr. Marion – Second. Mr. Parks – Adjourned. Meeting ended at 11:04 PM Minutes by Jerris Bryant