HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130416_PC_Minutes.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Tyler Marion, Vice-Chair Dianne Otto, CFM
David McNaughton
Monty Parks, Chair CITY ATTORNEY
Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
April 16, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the April 16, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners
present were David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tyler Marion.
Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the March 19, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the
minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Mr. Marion made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Bishop
seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
There were no disclosures or recusals.
Special Review – Sherry Stipp & Asynthia Sukal – Residential Bed & Breakfast – 21 Officers Row
Ms. Otto – This request is for Special Review for a bed and breakfast at 21 Officers Row. The zone is R-1; the character
area is North Beach Neighborhood. The request is a six-unit bed and breakfast; five of those being rental units, one
being owner occupied. In your packet are the requirements for a bed and breakfast and the responses based on the
submittals to those various requests. Also included are the standards for Special Review and the North Beach
Neighborhood criteria for development.
Mr. McNaughton – The property owner is going to reside at the address?
Ms. Otto – The applicant is two sisters. The business will be operated by the two sisters but the property is owned by
one of the sisters and her husband. I have had a conversation with Sherry, who is the owner with her husband, and the
sister. Cindy will be the one living there but if that is an issue for the city, Sherry is willing to have Cindy’s name added as
an owner of the property if need be.
Mr. McNaughton – Doesn’t the city require the owner of the property to live there?
Ms. Otto – We do. The ordinance states that. We’ve had situations in the past where we’ve had bed and breakfasts
managed by a member of the family. Sherry is willing to put Cindy on the owner’s record if that should be a criterion
which the city needs in order to be approved.
Mr. Callahan – The write-up mentions adding a pool but there is no pool indicated on the drawing.
Ms. Otto – We are working with the pool installer to get the requirements for the permit. This is Special Review, not Site
Plan. This does not require approval for the pool to be installed.
Mr. Parks – Was this before us in recent years?
2
Ms. Otto – It has been a vacant building for a couple of years. The prior owner had come before the city requesting the
special events portion of running a bed and breakfast and she had some issues with providing ample parking. That was
the last you looked at this property but I think that has been at least two years ago. The parking plan before you tonight
does not propose use of the parking on top.
Mr. Parks – Do I have a representative for this request?
Sherry Stipp and Asynthia Sukal came forward and introduced themselves.
Ms. Stipp – I am the owner of the property, along with my husband. Cindy will be part of the corporation but not the
house but we can change that if need be.
Mr. Parks – Dianne, what is the intent of the owners required to live on the premises?
Ms. Otto – That has been a sentence within that ordinance prior to my arrival with the City of Tybee. I think the intent
was to keep it privately operated by the residents who live there, not be a commercial bed and breakfast which is a
separate category and has its own requirements. When the last owner was operating it, it was known to the city, her
son or nephew was living there. It is required, per the text, that it be owner occupied.
Mr. Bishop – On the parking plan, space number eight is indicated as a concrete drive and goes behind other residents
on Officers Row. With the narrowing of that drive, would space eight create any type of emergency vehicle
ingress/egress issue if occupied by a vehicle?
Ms. Otto – I would not be comfortable replying until I looked at it on-site. Based on the survey, it appears to have
adequate space for emergency vehicles but maybe not a fire truck necessarily; I don’t know if they go up there anyway.
Mr. Parks – I think it would be good, before this goes to council, to measure the distance. I have a concern about the
width. If there was an RV parked in space eight it seems like that might be a problem.
Mr. Callahan – I did take a tape out there. I took a measurement based on a standard vehicle width and it appeared,
unless you’re talking about a huge vehicle, that it would comfortably fit through there even if someone was parked in
space eight. If you had a large RV or something similar parked in that space, I guess it could create a problem.
Ms. Otto – She has provided eight parking spaces but her required number is one per unit plus two for the owners which
would be seven. It could be stipulated that space eight be extreme capacity use only.
Mr. Parks – Do we have to keep space eight on the map?
Ms. Otto – No.
Mr. Parks – It seems when it came to us before that there were four rooms.
Ms. Otto – No. Six, plus the owner, making seven units; this is fewer units being offered.
Mr. Parks – Did I see a rear yard vegetative buffer on the setback? Per the Land Development Code, “A buffer is required
with a minimum height of six feet within each of the side and rear yard setbacks.”
Ms. Otto – The rear yard is the street.
Mr. Parks – Right. It is not necessary in that case?
3
Ms. Otto – It is my opinion, yes.
Mr. Parks – Do we have other residents that would like to address the commission?
Betsy Robbins came forward and introduced herself. I own the property at 27 Officers Row which is next door. I just
want to say I have no objections to this being operated as a bed and breakfast.
Mr. Parks – Is there anyone else wishing to speak? [There were none.] Are there any other questions? [There were
none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Callahan – Second.
Mr. Parks – I have a motion to approve with a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Variance – Jason Craft & Mary Pulk – Front setback for construction of single-family home – Lot A S. Campbell Avenue
Ms. Otto – The lot on South Campbell is on the right side if you turned off of Highway 80. It is in an R-2 zone with the
character area of Marsh Front Neighborhood. The lot has a marsh on the rear, which would be the west side of the
property, with a 25-foot buffer. The applicants are requesting, pending purchase of this property, for a Variance to have
an eight-foot front setback off of the front property line in order to increase the amount of structure that could be built
given the 25-foot buffer in the rear. The lot is somewhat narrow but long. They do not intend to use the entire
footprint that you see on this survey. On the right bottom corner of the lot where the red dashes are [referring to
PowerPoint], there is a cluster of trees they would like to protect. They are requesting an eight-foot front rather than
the required twenty. It was discussed with the applicants that we do have the 200-foot rule where they could have the
adjacent properties, 200 feet in each direction, surveyed and if the average of those structures had allowed, staff could
have granted a ten-foot front setback. Looking at what seems to be there, it did not appear that this would have
provided enough relief. The lot has been cleared so you can get a good view and the survey stakes were there when I
last visited. This shot, [referring to PowerPoint] looking north, the arrow is pointing right at the flag of the property line
so if you visualize eight feet back from there you can get a feel of where the proposed structure would be. This is
looking south [referring to PowerPoint] and the arrow pointing out the south corner property line.
Mr. Callahan – In walking that lot and down the street, to me, it’s going to look out of place if they build out to eight feet
from the roadway. It would almost make more sense to let them move backwards towards the marsh but I suppose we
can’t do that. All the adjacent houses are on the marsh. I don’t guess we have a 200-foot rule for the backside of a
structure.
Ms. Otto – You are correct. If it was moved back, it shows there [referring to PowerPoint] the function of the 25-foot
buffer. The required setback in the rear would be ten feet off of this line which they are not far off of now. Any
proposed encroachment into that buffer would require a buffer encroachment variance from the state.
Mr. Parks – Is there anybody representing this request that would like to speak?
Jason Craft and Marion Pulk introduced themselves.
Mr. Craft – I’ve been on Tybee fourteen years now and am finally able to purchase this lot. Ideally it would fit in with the
surrounding properties if we could build closer to the marsh. The neighboring property, owned by Jim Fabrikant since
1979, sits what appears to be less than five feet from the marsh if you look at his back yard. It is my understanding to
get a buffer from the DNR on the marsh setback, is for the current property owner only and does not transfer with a
4
sale. We are in negotiations to buy the lot and if the current owner were to get that, it is my understanding that it could
not transfer to us. We would have to go in blindly and hope that in the future we could get a setback variance from the
DNR which is a big risk and that is why we are asking for a variance for the front. There is a bulkhead that is not on the
property and it’s where the DNR flagged the jurisdictional marsh line on the landward side, basically on the first step of
land from the bulkhead. In reference to the trees, when looking at the slide on the south portion, there is a 20-inch and
a 27-inch live oak that we are hoping to save if we can get more depth on the lot because we like the trees and they are
a buffer from Mr. Fabrikant’s property. I spoke with him on the phone and he wholeheartedly supports what we’re
trying to do. Other than moving a couple of the palms there are no other trees to cut down in the buildable footprint.
Mr. Parks – Where would you park with an 8-foot setback?
Mr. Craft – It would be underneath parking.
Mr. Parks – If Tybee ran a sidewalk on Campbell, where would it be?
Ms. Otto – The pavement that is currently on Campbell is here [referring to Power Point]. A sidewalk would be adjacent
to that which is in this area [referring to PowerPoint], probably underneath that power line.
Mr. Craft – When we met with Dianne, based on the calculations Whitley Reynolds left, it’s about 30 to 35 feet between
our property line to the pavement. There is a significant roadway easement which is about 30 feet on one side and 35
feet on the other. We are well off the road before the setback.
Mr. Bishop – Have you explored other alternatives as far as design or location on the lot with anything other than the 8-
foot variance?
Mr. Craft – We have taken everything into consideration. The building setback line is roughly 24 feet on that side and 27
on the bottom just due to the odd shape of the lot and the marsh setback. What we’re ending up with is our porch
areas, typically an 8-foot porch would be fairly standard from what I’ve seen. Anywhere from a 3 to 4-foot small
walkway so you’ve got some access to the front or at least a side access. That would leave us enough room to have a
front porch or a rear porch so we’re not just a narrow rectangle box with no porches front or rear.
Mr. Bishop – Dianne, it states the 25-foot buffer that encroaches on this lot is a unique physical condition to the lot.
When you look into 5-090 of the variance section it says, “if there are unique physical circumstances, variances may be
granted.”
Ms. Otto – Correct.
Mr. Bishop – The buffer constituting a unique physical condition, would that put us squarely within the intentions of the
Land Development Code?
Ms. Otto – In my opinion, yes, it would. If I could further note, there is another 36-inch live oak at the rear that they also
intend to preserve. If it was a DNR marsh buffer encroachment, it could have an impact on the rear depending on what
they requested.
Mr. Parks – This would result in about 1,000 square feet added to the footprint of the house which is significant.
Mr. Craft – The red line that goes across is roughly 60 feet. The lowest tree [referring to PowerPoint], where it says “27
live oak”, is about five feet within the property line. We were thinking you wouldn’t want to build right up to the tree.
Ms. Otto – Jason, do you know what the distance would be from there to about where you would want to stay back
from that tree?
5
Mr. Craft – Just to the tree is roughly five feet so you are at 55 feet, and then another couple feet back from there, so
probably 53 would be maximum.
Ms. Otto – That times the 12 would be the square footage you are asking.
Mr. Parks – We are closer to 600 square feet that you are asking to add.
Mr. Craft – With the odd shape of the lot, the buildable area is turned from the lot lines. We would still try to keep in
line with the upper setback towards the top of the property because we don’t want to build an angled house just to
follow the property line. We would run the house 24-feet south and not angle the house to 27 feet on one end because
that would increase our building costs significantly. I’m a real estate appraiser and have been for fifteen years. I’ve seen
a lot of houses and a lot of different floor plans.
Mr. Parks – So you know it would be advantageous to add 600 square feet to the house on one level.
Mr. Craft – Yes, in that respect. We are on a budget and generally staying in the 1,700 to 2,000-square foot total on a
one and a half story house not including the porches.
Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address this? [There were none.] I’m going to
declare this public hearing closed. Do I have a motion or discussion?
Mr. Bishop – Based on the unique physical circumstance, i.e. the 25-foot marsh buffer, I recommend approval of the
Variance.
Mr. Callahan – Second.
Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second for approval. Those in favor of the motion as presented, please signify. [Vote
was unanimous.]
Variance – Wistar Lewis – Remove walls, paving, steps / build walls – 2 Eighteenth Place
Ms. Otto – This property was before you in January. At that time the owner requested, and it was ultimately approved,
to remove concrete to replace it with pavers. Because that work was in the 10-foot setback from the toe of the
landward-most dune, it required Tybee’s approval to be working in that area. Since that time, the owner has been
working with the Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resource Division. Under the permit that was granted for
the property, it is required that a high percentage of the land be restored. In order to meet the 62% required
restoration of the lot, it is now before you to consider an additional need to remove steps and concrete in order to
incorporate vegetative areas. In your packet is a plan from the applicant of what specific areas he is requesting to
remove and that is considered the demo plan. There is also a restore plan that would result in replacement of the wall
and relocation of portions of that wall. In the plan that I have on the screen, the pink areas is where the new wall would
be built after the removal of the steps and the other concrete areas.
Mr. Callahan – In tearing down these steps, is that the only way they can get to the required percentage of vegetation?
Ms. Otto – Yes, and it is tight at that. There are few options to meet the 62% without this approval. When we have had
other oceanfront or riverfront lots, they tend to have extensions of the property deeper into what is the dune area. This
particular lot line follows the seawall so he doesn’t have the luxury of counting the area that is oceanward of his
property as part of his restoration.
6
Mr. Parks – They would tear down the steps, knock out the patio at the bottom, put up a new retaining wall in line with
the existing one, and then backfill?
Ms. Otto – Yes. What is above there would have to be filled with dirt and vegetation. It would be at the level of the wall
and there would be a drop down to the dunes.
Mr. Bishop – The requested restoration plan puts it back to where the old seawall followed. We’re restoring what
historically was there years ago?
Ms. Otto – The seawall is still there.
Mr. Parks – Do we have any representatives for the applicant at this time?
Wistar Lewis came forward and introduced himself. I need to have 2,260 square feet of naturalized area in the
jurisdictional area when I’m completed. With the light green that you see there [referring to PowerPoint] that will
change from concrete to vegetative surface and that would give me the 2,260 square feet in the jurisdictional area and
satisfy the DNR requirements.
Mr. Marion – Will this require a demolition plan of any sort?
Ms. Otto – Because this is a new construction site, this will be considered part of his site development under the existing
permit for new construction.
Mr. Lewis – The steps used to be functional when the old house was there. It sat almost on the seawall and the steps
took them down to the seawall and then you could hop down to the beach. Since the old house is gone we’re not
supposed to use the steps according to the DNR, we’re supposed to use the common path. I think it will be an
improvement to the area.
Mr. Parks – Anybody else from the public that would like to address this?
Steve Luxenberg came forward and introduced himself. We remember the old house that was there, it preceded the
seawall actually. This was access to the beach and there was a patio and the stone wall was a later addition by the prior
owner. This used to be exposed at one time before the stone jetty was built out. It is interesting and I think it is great
that it is going to be restored for natural purposes. That is a newer wall along there and it’s full of concrete and other
things because of erosion. DNR is not requiring any changes for that even though it is fill with some brush on the top –
that is not an issue with this at all? The area that is affected stops at the wall and isn’t part of the easement of the road
either as I understand it.
Mr. Lewis – Correct.
Mr. Parks – Are there other members of the public that would like to address this? [There were none.] Are there any
other questions? [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.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor of approval, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
7
Site Plan Approval – Stacye Jarrell – New construction at existing special events facility – 1114 Hwy. 80
Ms. Otto – What is before you tonight is Site Plan Approval for addition of another structure. In your packet are
renderings of what the building would look like if this is approved. The area with the steeple would be the additional
part. This is looking south off of the highway so to the right of the current structure you would find this new buildout
with use of the steeple in the front. This is a side rendering [referring to PowerPoint] that shows it as well. The property
owner is opting to purchase an additional lot to the west to be able to provide the parking required due to the increased
occupancy for this addition. This site plan shows here [referring to PowerPoint] where the dance hall would be built
with attachment to the existing structure and parking throughout the remaining property to accommodate the guests.
This applicant has proposed valet parking so you do see an unusual triple stack of cars in this vicinity [referring to
PowerPoint]. The number of spaces triggered additional handicap parking spaces which are in this area. The business is
impacted by a marsh line with a 25-foot buffer. In your packet, and further provided through email to you this week,
was information from the DNR about the use of that buffer for parking; it would be the last parking utilized. It would be
for an at capacity event that every available parking space was needed. For smaller events they would not be parking in
the buffer as a routine practice.
Mr. Callahan – The site plan we are looking at [referring to PowerPoint] is the final site plan?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Callahan – With one hundred parking spaces?
Ms. Otto – Yes, this is not the original. They have worked with staff on the original to make some needed modifications;
this is the result of those discussions.
Mr. Callahan – DNR will allow parking in the buffer?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Callahan – As a last parking space available?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Callahan – How many spaces actually encroach into the buffer?
Ms. Otto – They are shaded here. It appears to be seven.
Mr. Bishop – The other shaded spaces, those are to be used as a last resort even though they are not in the buffer?
Ms. Otto – Let’s have the engineer and the applicant answer those questions. The shading through here [referring to
PowerPoint] is a drive aisle. There is a parking plan on how this lot would be loaded to get everyone in there.
Mr. Bishop – The new parking plan has a number of trees that are marked with X’s, those are going to be removed?
Ms. Otto – To meet the required number of spaces, they would need to remove those trees.
Mr. Bishop – Some of those are designated as pines, correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Bishop – Are those now on the protected list?
8
Ms. Otto – No. The outcome of your prior consideration of that change to the tree ordinance was that pines were not
put on the significant species list but palms trees were.
Mr. Bishop – Pines are not.
Ms. Otto – Pines are not a significant species.
Mr. Marion – Do we have any other businesses on Tybee that have capitalized on the use of the marsh in an overflow
capacity situation?
Ms. Otto – Years back, if you went down this easement, there was a property back here that went for a bed and
breakfast or a special event facility, I can’t remember. It had proposed parking and was approved to have parking in the
buffer.
Mr. Marion – Do you recall if DNR had imposed any conditions or are they in agreement as long as it is for the use and
managed?
Ms. Otto – Yes. They want the soil to be stabilized; they don’t want it to go down to bare dirt. We will require that they
maintain the current vegetation or replace it with mulch or something that is going to keep the soil stable.
Mr. Marion – If it starts to become apparent that it is wearing, would DNR manage the governance of that maintenance?
Ms. Otto – Tybee would.
Mr. Bishop – The portable fencing issue that was stated in the packet as not satisfying the Land Development Code, it
states, “The proposed portable fencing along a portion of the south property line would not meet the requirements of
protective screening (buffering) outlined in Section 3-160.” Would that be something that would have to be resolved
before we could completely rule on it?
Ms. Otto – That would be at your discretion whether you want that resolved or not.
Mr. Bishop – How is that not approved?
Mr. Downer Davis, the city’s consulting engineer, came forward. There is a permanent fence along the southern end of
the parking spaces that goes into the buffer. It prohibits anybody going any further into that end of the buffer. There is
a portable fence, removable barrier, which would run along the north side of the parking spaces delineating them so
that when the parking lot starts filling up, you would go to all of the unshaded spaces. You would then start going to the
spaces shaded in the middle of the project and finally into the parking spaces that are protruding partially or fully into
the marsh buffer. Tybee’s LIA (Local Issuing Authority) determines whether the activity in the marsh buffer is a land
disturbing activity or not. Dianne and I felt with certain controls this would not be a land disturbing activity, it would be
minor disturbance if anything. Dianne and I communicated with the DNR, gave them a copy of the plan, and they
offered a few suggestions. We’re going to have a permanent barrier on the southern end to keep from going any further
into the buffer. The fence would be portable for the valet attendants to remove as a last measure. The reason you have
the four spaces shaded on the left side of the screen, you will drive through those two spaces to park in the marsh buffer
and park a second row. When they pull into the marsh buffer they will pull straight in and pull straight out, no wheel
turning.
Mr. Callahan – There won’t be any fill or grading in the marsh buffer area for those spaces?
Mr. Davis – Not a bit. The only thing that may happen is, as they start to develop it, if we determine there are some
spots out there that may be a little sparse, they will enhance it with seeding or straw.
9
Mr. Bishop – The portable fence that is reflected on the plan, that is strictly to facilitate valet parking? There is a
permanent fence on the south end of those three shaded spaces, correct?
Mr. Davis – Yes. I believe the applicant wanted the flexibility of using landscaping instead of a fence which is also
allowed.
Mr. Bishop – The portable fence referenced here is strictly for maintaining the parking spaces as they become needed?
Mr. Davis – Right. They would probably core the fence post holes just as if they were putting in a fence, put a pipe in,
and stick little fence sections in there that could be pulled out quickly.
Mr. McNaughton – On the right side there is a concrete block garage. Is the corner of that in the buffer?
Ms. Otto – You are correct.
Mr. McNaughton – Was there a variance granted for that building to be in the buffer?
Ms. Otto – I don’t know the answer to that. This was an existing structure before the chapel was built. They have been
using that for storage but it was there long before the owners purchased this property.
Mr. Parks – Do we have a representative from the applicant here?
Mark Boswell came forward and introduced himself. That garage has been there for a long time, basically grandfathered
in. Dianne did not receive the last site plan; this is not the most recent. I’ve got it right here [referring to handheld
device] if you want to pass it down the line. It shows the landscape buffer with the portable fence.
Ms. Otto – The one I’m working off of is a revised plan that came in after we had met.
Mr. Boswell – This one has a parking method legend on it. We addressed Downer’s comments and resubmitted it.
Ms. Otto – That is on the one I have.
Mr. Boswell – Is the portable fence shown on that one?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Boswell – That is not right. At Downer’s [Davis] request, we changed that to permanent fence or landscaping and
then we showed a portable fence going around the top edge of the parking that was impacting the buffer area.
Ms. Otto – I do not have that change.
Mr. Callahan – That means we don’t have that change either?
Mr. Boswell – You do not have this change either but I’ve got it here [referring to a handheld device]. It shows the
difference where the portable fence was around the buffer and the landscaping.
Mr. Parks – Dianne, do we proceed with the site plan we have?
Mr. Boswell – I wouldn’t consider it a big enough difference in making your decision.
10
Mr. Parks – In my opinion, the applicant would be the one who determines what site plan we use. Dianne, when it goes
to council, which one will they look at?
Ms. Otto – They will be looking at the one he is referring to that I do not have. There is a phrase in the Site Plan
Approval ordinance that at Planning Commission not all engineering is required to be completed. It does have to be
complete before it goes to Council. If this is viewed to fall under that, then I would say we would continue working with
the two engineers to get a plan that works with your input.
Mr. Parks – Our motion could say approval or disapproval with site plan to be negotiated before presentation to council.
Ms. Otto – What is before you is a plan to build a new building.
Mr. Callahan – Could you explain the differences between what you just looked at versus what we are looking at?
Ms. Otto – Mr. Boswell can do that better than I.
Mr. Boswell – At the bottom where it says portable fence, it now says permanent fence or landscaping. There is a
portable fence that runs around this edge [referring to PowerPoint]. Any parking that is in the DNR buffer has a portable
fence around it. When it becomes necessary they will remove that fence otherwise, it will stay in place. That is the only
two differences between that plan and the plan you are looking at.
Mr. Callahan – What is shown as a 25-foot buffer line is the portable fence?
Mr. Boswell – That’s right. It will have a portable fence just on the outside of the protective buffer unless they
absolutely have to need it. Lannie [Jarrell] said they will probably park down the road before they would use it.
Mr. Bishop – If we look at this with those oral changes from Mark, at the time council reviews it, will it be clearly
understood by council what we saw and what we acted on that we did not make a decision based on not having all the
facts before us?
Ms. Otto – I feel confident in that.
Mr. Davis – We moved the portable fence up to the top and put the permanent fence to the bottom. That is what the
DNR looked at, gave their blessing on, and said that Tybee is on target by doing this. They supported us; it’s green
infrastructure. The runoff going towards this buffer isn’t overloading the capacity of the buffer.
Mr. Parks – Mark, this will not go over 30 or 35 feet?
Mr. Boswell – Absolutely not.
Mr. Marion – What is the tipping threshold that would warrant utilization of the marsh? If you have an event with 200
or 300 people, would that warrant the overflow to be utilized?
Stacye Jarrell came forward and introduced herself. I’ve also been trying to get that. The only reason we are expanding
the facility is not to be a dance hall; we would like it to be a grand ballroom. We have found that we lost a lot of
fabulous weddings because we can’t have a great reception. The goal we are looking for in occupancy is around 225;
we’ll have over 7,700 square feet of heated air space. We have occupancy of 388 but I can’t see that we would ever
need that. What we want to do is be able to host and facilitate a grand reception. We have the most beautiful place in
this entire area to have a fabulous wedding. When Lannie and I started this project, we had no idea that we would be
the best of weddings for 2012 and 2013. Until we asked the caterers why Tybee didn’t get that nice wedding, it was
because we couldn’t do a nice reception. Most weddings will plan for 225 and they may actually host 170. The girls
11
want to know that they can have fine dining on a five-foot round table and they want to be able to plan their wedding to
easily seat 225. This is such a hard project. We are before SBA again and this has been very stressful. I thought what we
had was perfect. We got scared because we probably, in the last year, lost twenty weddings for Tybee. Twenty
weddings are not twenty weddings for Stacye, Lannie, and Oceanfront. Twenty weddings for Tybee is probably 400 with
people coming here and bringing their families and friends. The only way I can think that we would ever use parking
necessary for 388 would be if we had a major Tybee event.
Mr. Boswell – It’s a loaded question as to where the tipping point is. If we have ninety-seven spaces and you took the
seven spaces out of the actual buffer area, you are at ninety. The Tybee requirement is four people per space. If you do
the math, it’s impossible to say there will be two people or six people per car. All we have to work on is what Tybee’s
ordinances are. We’ve worked with Downer and Dianne to try and find that number and decided to go with the four
seats per parking space.
Mr. Callahan – Is there any base flood elevation issue?
Mr. Boswell – Absolutely. The new building will be dry floodproofed just like the existing. The windows will be above
flood but we will have to put the flood panels in front of the doors.
Ms. Otto – The area that was last enclosed beneath the chapel is dry floodproofed. They have an emergency operation
plan they provided. They are subject to annual testing of their plan and inspection of their door panels that he referred
to.
Diane Kaufman came forward and introduced herself. I’m here as a fellow businessperson and member of the Tourism
Council. This is the sort of thing we need to bring families and people that are not just using our beaches, bathrooms,
and our lifeguards, but are bringing revenue to our island. We’re always looking for more meeting space so people can
gather, not just for weddings, but can have reunions and other events. I’m here to support this.
Mr. Parks – Is there anybody else from the public that would like to address this issue? [There were none.] Are there
any other questions? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion or discussion?
Mr. Bishop – Motion to approve.
Mr. Marion – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor of approval, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Article 9, Section 9-050, Technical Codes Adopted
Ms. Otto – It has been required policy on Tybee to install footings as described in this proposed Text Amendment for a
long time but was never adopted. What is before you is a proposed addition to Article 9, Section 050 that would make it
an ordinance that these are the construction size footings required within the City of Tybee Island.
Mr. Parks – How were these arrived at?
Ms. Otto – They came from Chatham County, Mr. Gregori Anderson, who is head of the Chatham County Building Safety
and Regulations Department. He is an active board member with the International Code Council. The requirement in
the International Code Council for footings is not as substantial as required by this proposed ordinance. Given Tybee’s
proximity to the ocean and the possibility for scour or wave action, we don’t want the footings washing out should we
have a storm surge. There was a recent push by the Department of Community Affairs for the City of Tybee Island to
provide them our exceptions to the International Codes that we enforce. There are already two on the books which are
the requirement for copper wiring and the requirement for two means of egress from a single-family home. This was
12
discovered, although it has been enforced and required for years, but had never been adopted, as an exception to the
International Codes.
Mr. Parks – Is there any part of the International Code Council codes that are listed in 9-050 that already have footing
requirements that would have to be noted that this supersedes?
Ms. Otto – Listed in section A at the top of your staff report are all of the various technical codes that Tybee has
adopted. The first item would be an exception to the International Building Code and number six would be an exception
to the International Residential Code.
Mr. Parks – Are we required to note that it is an exception to those?
Ms. Otto – With the document that we submit to the Department of Community Affairs, we have to declare from which
books we are proposing this. We have to tell them what exceptions we are making to these standard building codes.
Mr. Bishop – The last sentence, “All footings shall have reinforcing steel as required.” As required by pattern, plan, or
something else?
Ms. Otto – That reinforcing steel is in the technical code. What we’ve got here is a deeper, wider footing but it would
still have the same reinforced steel in it.
Mr. Bishop – Is that the same rebar required by the International Building Code?
Ms. Otto – Yes, but it is deeper in the ground and wider than what that code requires. The thought pattern is if we had a
storm surge there is going to be wave action, especially in the velocity zones, that are going to beat those piers. The
intent here is by having a more substantial footing that those are going to withstand that repetitive action against it so
the footing is not going to fail which is going to make the foundation of the structure fail.
Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Do I have discussion or a motion?
Mr. Callahan – Motion to approve.
Mr. Bishop – Seconded.
Mr. Parks – I have a motion and second for approval. Those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Article 3, Section 3-080, Off-street Parking Requirements
Ms. Otto – This is from City Council. In Section 3-080(E) is the table of the dimensions we require for parking spaces and
the drive aisle widths that are required. It is a concept not often grasped that when you use diagonal parking, it changes
the dimension of the space at the curb. For example as shown here [referring to PowerPoint], if you are using 45-degree
parking, it is not going to be a nine-foot width at the curb; it’s going to be a 12-feet, 7-inches because of the angle of the
parking. If you measured the angle, it would be 9 feet wide but at the curb it takes 12-feet, 7-inches to accommodate
that space. It was proposed by Council that this additional information be provided in Section E so that those who are
calculating their parking plan have this information. We have had plans come in where the required space was 9 by 18;
they took the distance of the curb, divided by nine, and marked hashes of how many spaces were there. You’ve got to
divide by 12-feet, 7-inches on a 45-degree space to be able to determine how many spaces fit along the length of your
curb. It’s further guidance that is available but by including it in this ordinance it would all be in one place to better
calculate and provide plans that are correct.
Mr. Parks – Are there any questions? Do I have a motion?
13
Mr. Callahan – Motion to approve.
Mr. Marion – Second.
Mr. Parks – I have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Article 2, Definitions
Ms. Otto – There is no definition in the Land Development Code or the Municipal Code for “kitchen.” By adopting one it
would be a tool for many different purposes. The primary reason it is before you this evening is because of the water
and sewer rate sheet which I provided to you. As you will see, there are a couple different places on there where it
refers to “per kitchen” or “no kitchen” and that is going to be a consideration on the cost of a water and sewer account
for a particular property. There have been various discussions over the years as to what constitutes a kitchen. You may
recall recently you had a bed and breakfast before you and it was challenging to determine whether the guest cottage
did or did not have a kitchen because it had a sink and refrigerator but it didn’t have a stove; it had a microwave. The
utility staff is constantly challenged on how to categorize such situations based on the water/sewer rate table. That’s
just one source of what this definition will do. We’ve not had a new hotel built on the island but when Article 3 was
modified, the parking requirements for a hotel now include a number of spaces based on whether a hotel unit does or
does not have a kitchen. I have provided three different options with the third one being taken from the proposed
Chatham County / Savannah Unified Zoning Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted. They are going through the
process of combining Chatham County and City of Savannah ordinances into one unified code. The other two definitions
came from the American Planning Association’s dictionary of options and even there you can see they draw those from
different municipalities and there are differences there too.
Mr. Marion – Based on the three options before us, my opinion is number three. It best suits what I think would be a
kitchen however I do find some redundancy in the microwave being categorically listed because I think it falls into a
category of ovens. Since that is adopted essentially from the Chatham County language that has not been approved yet,
it means we can probably blend or change some of this language.
Ms. Otto – These are just proposals, anything you want to come up with is fine.
Mr. Marion – In my opinion option three is a great choice to lead with potentially. However, I would recommend that
we take microwave out because to me a stove or range, actually an oven, would constitute a variety of ways to cook
meat at a high temperature or various other things.
Ms. Otto – If there was a room that prepared food but it had a sink, refrigerator, and a microwave, it would not be a
kitchen?
Mr. Marion – It would be a kitchen. Microwave ought to be considered essentially an oven and therefore not
necessarily needing to be definitely stated as a microwave. In other words, what is the oven equipment that is involved
in the room? Oven to me is categorically pieces of equipment that perform the same task.
Ms. Otto – Including a microwave?
Mr. Marion – Yes.
Mr. McNaughton – My problem with number three is you could still cook with a hot plate and not have a sink or a
refrigerator; you would still be using a kitchen. My preference is option one as the intent is part of the building. If it has
the connections of three prongs for a stove or range, it’s a kitchen.
14
Mr. Marion – If we’re looking at the aspect of a kitchen, wouldn’t we need appropriate water utilization to maintain
health and safety for that food preparation such as clean up and various other items, that’s why I prefer option three.
With a sink involved, presumably the sink is to dispose of and maintain a certain level of cleanliness in mitigating any
kind of potential for disease or sickness.
Mr. McNaughton – You would need water in a kitchen, yes, and a garbage disposal. Those aren’t in the definition. You
assume that water is used in the preparation of food.
Mr. Parks – I’m an option one kind of guy but I wish it said microwave. I can live without water in it.
Mr. Bishop – I find problems with option one by the way it states any room or part of a room, principally used. What
does that mean, how do you define principally? I know the negativity associated with intention and the establishment
of proving intentions. That has some negative connotations to me as far as being able to truly define something. I think
option three states it is an area for preparation of food as it has a sink, refrigerator, stove or range, and oven or
microwave, and if any of those are missing it is not a kitchen. When you’re planning a kitchen, what do you look at as
items in that specific area and it’s a sink, refrigerator, stove, oven or microwave. If any of the above components are
missing, the area shall not be considered a kitchen.
Ms. Otto – Does option three allow it to be a sink, refrigerator, and a microwave and still be a kitchen or is it not because
it doesn’t have a stove or a range?
Mr. Bishop – If you have a sink, refrigerator, stove, and a microwave, you have a kitchen.
Ms. Otto – If you only had a microwave, you would not have a kitchen?
Mr. Bishop – You would not have a kitchen.
Mr. Parks – If you had outlets for a stove or range but you don’t have a range?
Mr. Bishop – Outlets are not used for the preparation of food, the appliances are.
Mr. Callahan – You can’t use the appliance without the correct outlet.
Mr. Bishop – The preparation of food cannot be completed by the use of an outlet. It takes the appliance.
Mr. Callahan – You can have the appliance all day long but if you can’t plug it in you can’t use it.
Mr. Bishop – Therefore you do not have a kitchen.
Ms. Otto – Staff generally gets one opportunity to look at the property. If there is an outlet but nothing is plugged into
it, that’s going to be ruled one way. It is possible that the next week a range is delivered that should have been plugged
into the outlet, and we are not back in there to determine that, yes, this is now a kitchen. What I’m hearing the Chair
say that if it is designed, because it has the outlet for the range, then it does constitute a kitchen even though there may
not be something plugged into it. If we are requiring an illegal bath to be removed because it is below base flood, it’s
not just remove the toilet, it’s the concrete and plumbing so that next week they can’t put it back; it has got to be
permanently removed. One requirement would be permanently remove that outlet for the stove for it not to be
considered a kitchen.
Mr. Bishop – If you added that kitchen means an area used for preparation of food which contains a sink, refrigerator,
stove or range top, and oven or microwave.
15
Mr. Callahan – Or utility connections suitable for servicing, extracted from option one.
Mr. Bishop – Or utility connections suitable for servicing, I can live with that.
Mr. McNaughton – What is the difference between a stove and an oven?
Mr. Bishop – A range top could be strictly the cooking surface. You can have the stove as a separate item.
Mr. Marion – I think that number three, given the classification and the standard met if one walks in and sees these
items, there would presumably be electricity. The outlet aspect referenced in number one, which is the American
Planning Association, we could take the language of the utility connections suitable for servicing specific to the kitchen’s
needs and make an inclusion into option three and I’ll make a motion for it to be approved as a recommendation.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor of the motion, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Discussion - Develop ways to not penalize owners that apply for variances due to the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012
Mr. Parks – Do we have any discussion on this?
Mr. Bishop – I would like to make a motion, because of the significance and timeliness of this, that this Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 be tabled until our next meeting.
Mr. Callahan – I would like to see it as a workshop.
Mr. Parks – We could meet an hour early next month to start discussion. If we give it an hour in a workshop
environment, it serves as a public hearing and it also gives us time to focus on this.
Mr. Callahan – Did anybody else have any confusion as to what the Mayor has asked?
Mr. Bishop – Absolutely.
Mr. Parks – Dianne, can we charge you with coming back with a clarification of what the Mayor would like from us?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Parks - I would like a motion that we meet an hour early at the next meeting to discuss the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act.
Mr. Bishop – So moved.
Mr. Marion – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor, please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Mr. Callahan – Motion to adjourn.
16
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – Meeting is adjourned.
Meeting ended at 8:50
Minutes by Jerris Bryant