HomeMy Public PortalAbout20131119_PC_Minutes.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Tom Borkowski
Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Rob Callahan Dianne Otto, CFM
Tyler Marion, Vice Chair
David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
Vice Chair Tyler Marion called the November 19, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order.
Commissioners present were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tom
Borkowski.
Mr. Marion made an announcement about openings on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Marion – The first order of business is the minutes of the October 15, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion?
[There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Mr. Bishop made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Callahan seconded.] All
those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.]
Mr. Marion – Do we have any recusals or disclosures? [There were none.]
Variance – Lot 2 Van Horn – Heather Rogers
Ms. Otto – This is a Variance request for setbacks. The property is currently vacant and was recently purchased by the
applicant who bought lots 1 and 2. This is zoned R-1 where the required setbacks are 20 feet front and back and 10 feet
on the sides. There are two trees located on lots 1 and 2. The request is to have a rear setback of 8 feet instead of the
required 20 and on the left side, which is the north property line, to have a 5-foot setback rather than the required 10
feet. The applicant prepared a narrative for you to explain the reasoning behind the request. In your packet is the
survey and the proposed footprint as applied for through this Variance.
Mr. McNaughton – The Variance requires that there be unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of
surrounding properties. The tree overhangs but it is actually on lot 1. Does that still qualify for a Variance?
Ms. Otto – That would be the interpretation of each of you of what characterizes an exceptional feature or uniqueness.
It is difficult for me to quantify that for each of you since everybody has got their own impression of what that may
mean. Tybee has a history of wanting to preserve its trees, especially the large oaks with the big canopies, which both of
these trees are. One has the stump on lot 1 but the canopy overhangs lot 2. That the owner owns both of these is
motivating her to preserve that tree for both of the properties that she owns. I couldn’t give you a recommendation on
whether you should decide it is or is not an exceptional feature for this property.
Mr. Bishop – We are actually considering the canopy aspect versus the tree, correct? The Variance is for lot 2, and the
canopy that overhangs is lot 1, is that correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes, the canopy overhangs onto lot 2 but again she does own both properties. What I would call the stump
of the tree is just off the property line maybe 1 or 2 feet. I don’t know if what is shown as the trunk of the tree is to
scale of what he actually saw in the field or if that is just a trademark that gets stamped on everything no matter how big
2
the trunk of the tree is. It looks like a common tree that I see on a lot of plans but I don’t know that the tree is to scale.
It is very close to the property line and the canopy is definitely over the property line.
Mr. Bishop – When I was at the property, there were a number of stakes and strings placed on the property. I presume
that was with regards to the proposed setbacks if approved.
Ms. Otto – I presumed that too and the applicant can specify for us. I believe what we were seeing is the proposed
footprint and the existing property lines.
Mr. Bishop – On the applicant’s statement for reasons to approve, there are some statements with regards to clearance
of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree in order to maintain the tree. What is that based on? Is that from an arborist?
Ms. Otto – That is a standard root protection dimension that is given by arborists. Tree protection guidelines are to be
at least 15 feet away to not damage the significant roots that are coming from that tree. It generally says that the root
system is as large below ground as the canopy above but 15 feet for this size tree would be the significant root structure.
Mr. Borkowski – I can understand why they would want to have a 5-foot setback on the side but I don’t understand the
rationale for wanting 8 feet instead of the 20 on the back.
Ms. Otto – We will have her answer that question. Part of the issue here is that this is not a rectangle property; it has an
odd shape at the front property line; it is at an angle. You normally don’t see houses designed at an angle like that.
Some of the front that is potentially buildable area is not being used because of that odd angle at the front property line.
Ms. Bramble – Is this considered a substandard lot?
Ms. Otto – Substandard generally is speaking to lot size. This is 6,407 square feet on lot 2. For R-1 it is a substandard. In
that zone you have a requirement of a 12,000 square foot lot. Yes, it is a substandard lot of record for size. That it is
angled would not make it substandard.
Mr. Marion – Do we have an applicant that would like to speak on this issue?
Heather Rogers came forward and introduced herself. Obviously we are intent on keeping the 24-inch oak. Mr. Bishop,
you had talked about the 15-foot clearance for buildable area and that is for piers and pilings. A lot of times they want
you to go on the drip line of the tree. We really want to keep the tree and we want to have a house that is of good size.
We have a family of four and have in-laws that come all the time. We want a three bedroom house. I feel like we are
close enough to the bunker and there is not a lot of buildable area beside my lot. I don’t feel like we are going to be
impeding anybody else’s property by moving a little bit. A lot of it is going to be covered porch and screened porch
especially on the back and sides.
Mr. Callahan – Do you have an actual design?
Ms. Rogers – I’ve sketched out a little bit of design. We have a really great view of the lighthouse from the southern side
of that lot. It is in preliminary stages but there are open porches on the sides. The majority of the house, in the
preliminary stages, is to the north side of the lot, closer to the bunker.
Mr. Callahan – Did you just say you sketched it out?
Ms. Rogers – Yes.
Mr. Callahan – You are the designer of record at this point?
3
Ms. Rogers – Yes.
Mr. Callahan - Have you looked at alternatives or various options to see if something might fit that wouldn’t require a
Variance?
Ms. Rogers – The issue with that is where the canopy falls at the 24 feet. It starts about 9 feet and goes up 12 to 13 feet.
It starts at approximately where our first floor level would be. On the front edge it’s taken over by that tree because of
the height of it as well. It gets very narrow on that lot and hard to fit everything.
Mr. McNaughton – Would this be your permanent residence?
Ms. Rogers – Yes.
Mr. Borkowski – I was trying to determine what the dimensions of the structure are, front to back, that you have here. If
you have a 20-foot setback and you have 112 feet, then you would still have 70. If you had regular setbacks front and
rear, you would have 72 feet front to back on the structure.
Ms. Otto – One hundred twelve is the north property line; the south line is much shorter because of that angle.
Mr. Borkowski – I see what you are saying. What is it?
Ms. Otto – Let me scale that for you.
Mr. Borkowski – I’m trying to figure out how many square feet you would have on two stories. I understand what you
want but I’m trying to equate the hardship because that is what these Variances are for. We’ve turned down other
people because it was a desire rather than a specific hardship and we are trying to be consistent to everybody that
comes before the board.
Ms. Rogers – On my narrative to approve the Variance, I’ve shown the square footage of the existing total buildable area
in regards to the existing setbacks and that is 2,622 square feet. This tree obstructed area [referring to PowerPoint] is
around 433 square feet. I also took off for this part because I don’t want an angled home and that is another 270 square
feet which equals an actual square footage of 1,917 square feet. When I add back what I’m asking for, that is adding 880
square feet which makes a total of 2,797 square feet which is only 175 more square feet than what is the actual
buildable area of the lot. That is not taking out the little area I’m not going to be able to use anyway because it’s an
acute angle here. When I ask for that square footage I’m just trying to get back to what I’m allowed and I’m not
necessarily going to use all of it but I need to be able to make a straight house.
Mr. McNaughton – Have you considered a house that would straddle both lots?
Ms. Rogers – We have. For us it would not be economical to combine the two lots and it doesn’t really help anyway
because I still have a tree in the middle of it.
Mr. McNaughton – You could basically do a U-shaped house straddling both lots and avoid the tree.
Ms. Rogers – With a tree in the middle of it? I haven’t laid it out like that.
Mr. Borkowski – When you are saying 2,700 square feet buildable, that is for one level?
Ms. Rogers – That is just one level.
Mr. Borkowski – You have the capacity of a 5,400 square foot house.
4
Ms. Rogers – Right.
Mr. Bishop – Let’s take Pearwood Street, the back of the house. Normally that would be a 20-foot setback and you are
asking for 8. Why is that?
Ms. Rogers – I’m trying to get out of the tree canopy. The original thought was to go on the back setback because it is
20 feet and I need a little more room to get the house moved back. When I talked about the root system and keeping
the piers away from that, it made much more sense to go this way because we are about 5 feet off from the root system
to make a 15-foot clearance. To push it towards the back is also trying to get out of the tree canopy and stay away from
that 15-foot radius.
Mr. Borkowski – If you didn’t have the setbacks, what would the buildable area be?
Ms. Rogers – If I didn’t have them, around 1,900 square feet.
Mr. Marion – Dianne, for a substandard lot, have we had scenarios such as this in the past and what direction have we
gone?
Ms. Otto – It has not been very long ago that there was a lot on South Campbell. It had a lot of frontage but it didn’t
have a lot of depth. The depth also had a 25-foot buffer off the marsh. There was a young couple that came forward
asking for a Variance. I don’t recall the Planning Commission’s action on it but the Council action was in their favor and
I’ve been told this week that their plans are forthcoming. They are going to move forward with the Variance that was
approved.
Ms. Otto – I was asked what the approximate south property line is, the lot line running between lots 1 and 2, and next
to the large tree is approximately 90 feet.
Mr. Bishop – Without a Variance, you are talking about 1,900 square footage on each floor, is that correct?
Ms. Rogers – That’s approximate.
Mr. Bishop – Both floors will be 3,800 square footage.
Ms. Rogers – Yes. That is if we choose to do a second floor.
Mr. Bishop – I thought you indicated that it was a multi floor.
Ms. Rogers – No. The only thing we had talked about was a loft underneath, like a dormered roof, but not a true two-
story.
Craig Harrison came forward and introduced himself. I’ll be the contractor on this project. The whole reason for the 8
feet in back was to push it as far back from the tree canopy as possible without trimming back any of the tree and
interfering with the root system. The same reason for the side setback as well, the north side, is just to get the house
back as far into that corner to avoid that tree. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the house is going to extend all the way
to the forward setback line and then be able to build a 1900 square foot house on one level; it is just to avoid that tree
entirely. After the tree canopy is taken into consideration with the existing setbacks I think you end up with roughly 15
or 16 feet of building area in that front and if you had any outdoor living spaces as well you end up with a very narrow
area to build on. It doesn’t lend itself well to a good design.
Mr. Callahan – That tree has been called a live oak in some of this written material. Do we know if that is what it is?
5
Mr. Harrison – That is what it has been identified to us.
Mr. Callahan – It is roughly two feet in diameter at this point, is that correct?
Mr. Harrison – I think it is 24 inches.
Mr. Callahan – I don’t have any idea what that equates to in years but live oaks live a long time and get a lot bigger than
that. What is going to happen to whatever house you design fifty years from now when the tree has spread even
further?
Mr. Harrison – An even better point to move it as far back as possible.
Mr. Borkowski – Then you have the other tree at the other end.
Mr. Harrison – The other tree is a laurel oak and I don’t think it has the same classification.
Mr. Bishop – You are the potential builder. I completely concur on saving the tree – a live oak is extremely valuable.
What options might be available in order to not seek a Variance?
Mr. Harrison – There are probably lots of unconventional options for a house design. If the Variance isn’t granted, that
will have to be explored. They want a home that is consistent with the Tybee Island design. You could have something
that is a long, narrow house, like a double-wide. That is what that lot would allow staying with the existing setbacks.
Ms. Rogers – Definitely the style of the house we are trying to keep within the historical parameters of the area
especially with having the bunker next door. The whole design of the house is meant to be more turn of the century
cottage which is square or rectangle with some side porches but definitely nothing contemporary at all. We’ve tried to
keep all of the porches on that side and on the front. We are including design aspects to stay out of the tree.
Mr. Bishop – With regards to an arborist, have you had any consultations to ensure that what you are anticipating doing
is in fact the best way to go to save the tree?
Ms. Rogers – This information came from an architect. I also spoke to the arborist in town who suggested a standard 24-
foot at the drip edge. The architect assured me that 15-foot is the minimum that people want to get.
Mr. Marion – Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address this? [There were none.] At this time I
will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Mr. Callahan – Dianne, this is less than a 12,000 square foot lot in an R-1 zone, correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Callahan – Do we need to address this as well?
Ms. Otto – No, it is a lot of record. The current lot exists as it is shown on the survey and as shown on the SAGIS map.
You will see one large parcel on the SAGIS map. The owner that she bought lots 1 and 2 from has retained ownership of
3 and 4. They are lots of record that he had combined under one PIN. Since she has now purchased them, each lot will
now be assigned a PIN or she could choose to have one PIN for lots 1 and 2 because she owns them both. Each of those
four lots are lots of record as the surveyor shows on the survey. They are lots of record; they are not being newly
created and because they are lots of record they don’t have to meet the 12,000 square foot requirement for an R-1 lot.
6
That would come into play if she owned a large tract of property and she was creating new lots. As it is, that is not a
factor in this request.
Mr. Bishop – Dianne, because of the nature of our Land Development Code’s definition of a request for a Variance, in
your opinion, the 15-foot aspect with regards to the tree, do we have precedence where that would potentially
constitute exceptional or other physical conditions?
Ms. Otto – There is precedence. I can picture a location at the south end that had, years ago, been granted a Variance
because of a tree and it is not the only one. There have been others that were allowed setback Variances to
accommodate construction to save a tree or trees on a lot.
Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to deny.
Mr. McNaughton – Second.
Mr. Marion – I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the denial, please signify. [Bramble, McNaughton,
Callahan, and Borkowski were in favor / Marion and Bishop were opposed. The motion to deny was approved 4-2.]
Text Amendment – Section 3-080(D)(6) – Commercial Off-street Parking, Bicycle Racks
Ms. Otto – This comes to you from the Bicycle Friendly Committee. Like Planning Commission, this is a committee of
appointees by City Council. The Bicycle Friendly folks are asking for consideration for commercial parking lots. The
current code allows 1 required parking space to be substituted with a rack or racks that accommodate 8 bicycles. What
is before you is a request to increase that for larger size parking lots. A lot that has a required parking space
requirement of ten or fewer would still only be allowed the 1 substitution. If a parking lot requirement falls between 11
and 49 spaces, they would have the option to substitute 2 required spaces for what would be the equivalent of racks for
16 bicycles. For a lot that is required to have 50 or more parking spaces, they would be allowed to substitute up to 3
required spaces with bicycle racks.
Mr. Borkowski – Previously there was just one no matter how many parking places were there?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Borkowski – This gives them the flexibility to have more, it is not a requirement, correct?
Ms. Otto – It is not a requirement and it would be at their discretion. We’ve seen some of the larger lots that have been
required for some of the larger commercial projects. By the time you get over a threshold at some point, you end up
with more parking spaces than you need in some areas. This would allow some of the larger ones, and I’m picturing 211
Butler, you’ve got a substantial parking lot there. They actually installed more than they had to but for the most part
that parking lot is not filled. It would give discretion to a developer who has crossed over the point of actually needing
so many spaces to instead accommodate bicyclist instead of having to designate more parking spaces. There is a note in
this proposal that any substitution of bike racks would not reduce the number of required handicapped spaces. The
calculation for the number of spaces that have to be ADA accessible would remain on the total number required.
Mr. Bishop – This just allows us to really push the idea to be bicycle friendly and green.
Ms. Otto – It does.
Mr. Marion – Any other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anyone from the public that would like to
address this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Is there discussion or a motion?
7
Mr. Bishop – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Borkowski – Second.
Mr. Marion – I have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Section 6-080(H) – Signs in Parks – Conservation District
Ms. Otto – At the entrance sign to the island after you cross the bridge and in Memorial Park, those are the two
locations where residents can apply to have banners put up. The current ordinance is Article 6, Section 080. Since it was
put into place it has not been modified in any way. What is before you would assist staff in administering these banner
permits. One of the changes it specifies is the number of days. All special events want to make use of these locations
and the coordinator often has to deny or not be able to grant as many days as needed for their events. One proposed
change would allow banners to be placed 8 days prior to an event; current ordinance allows 15 days. It would require
the removal of a banner within 24 hours after the event; now it is 2 days. This is an attempt to free up those spaces and
allow more banners to be installed by different organizations. There is currently no charge to use these sites and this
ordinance would amend that to a $10 fee per permit issued. Permits are generally multiple days and it would be $10 for
the entire permit, not $10 per day. Finally, it does give precedence to a one-day event that has never had a banner
permit over any other banner permit previously issued. The routine events happening every week or once a month, like
the Legion dinners, they have received their banner permits and they, by right, can have those spaces. We are running
into situations because there are so many Legion dinners every month that occasionally there is a new event that has
applied that has not been able to get a permit because it has already been reserved. It would only occur one time for
one new event and it would allow them to overstep someone that is perhaps month to month been granted permits.
Mr. Marion – So I understand correctly, if I’m the American Legion and I want to have a chicken dinner every Thursday
for the next ten years, I would pay one $10 fee and that would reserve my space?
Ms. Otto – No. In that situation you are granted a monthly permit and it would be $10 for each month. The Facilities
Coordinator is Karen Reese and she is a Department of Public Works employee and works in City Hall. She and the City
Manager have reviewed this and both had input on this wording before you this evening.
Mr. McNaughton – It sounds like there would only be one banner at a time so why would someone be bumped when
the ordinance says there is no limit to the number?
Ms. Otto – There is a limit. The Tybee sign location can accommodate two banners; there is a higher and a lower space.
At Memorial Park, it is two-sided so it could theoretically hold 4 different banners but you typically see two, the top and
the bottom one. The first paragraph is current ordinance talking about the permit signs. These banner permits which
are discussed in the second paragraph, are not related to the first paragraph.
Mr. McNaughton – It confused me.
Ms. Otto – When the banner concept came into play several years ago, this was identified as the code section to add it
into but that first paragraph is the original code section for that zoning district.
Mr. Marion – Looking at the $10 cost per permit, how did they come up with that number and did they consider an
elevated cost during peak season or holiday times?
Ms. Otto – To my knowledge, no. There was a request by the Facilities Coordinator that a fee be imposed and the City
Manager communicated the $10 fee to me; I don’t know how she came to that. For businesses who want to install
temporary banners, the Planning and Zoning Department works with those and there is a separate code section. The
fee for those is $15 for a 30-day period with a limit of three 30-day periods per calendar year.
8
Mr. Marion – Does the City of Savannah impose the same type of fee?
Ms. Otto – I don’t know of a location in Savannah that allows these non-profit banners. I should mention that it had said
they were for advertising special events. There was a question what constituted a special event and there is language
now to clarify that it is a City approved special event. A special event for me may be my husband’s birthday but that is
not the intent of these locations. It is intended to be as it now states for City approved special events.
Mr. Bishop – If it is an off-island event, but a non-profit wants to advertise here, can they do so?
Ms. Otto – No. The City approves special events and/or events sponsored by Tybee Island non-profit organizations that
have qualified for City of Tybee Island community service award. The first special events category that the City approves
are those who work with our Main Street Coordinator with a special event application that goes before Council. These
are things like parades and festivals that actually have to apply and there is a range of different ones that must have City
approval to occur within the City. The second category is the non-profit organizations that qualify for a community
service award. Each budget year, non-profits within the City are notified that it is time to apply for their annual budget
grants, as they sometime call them. Instead of saying grant, it says it is a community service award and those are groups
like the Garden Club, Tybee Beautification, American Legion, and all the different non-profits that receive funding from
the City on an annual basis. This would limit it to only those two categories as being eligible to use these two locations
to post their events.
Mr. Borkowski – The maximum duration is 30 days?
Ms. Otto – No. The 30 days are the ones that staff issues for commercial locations. Typically when a new business goes
into a location they haven’t ordered their permanent signage and they want to put up a banner. This ordinance that you
are considering has nothing to do with those locations. Those are handled in the Planning & Zoning Department and
they are eligible for a 30-day banner permit at $15 to temporarily mark their site until their permanent sign arrives. The
ones before you are not for commercial locations.
Mr. Borkowski – How long can they have them up?
Ms. Otto – Eight days before and it has to be down within 24 hours after the event.
Mr. Borkowski – How long can the event be?
Ms. Otto – The events that I’m accustomed to seeing are generally either single day events or maybe a 3-day weekend
event. I think Pirate Fest ran 4 days. It would be the duration of the event. I think the Wine Festival is now stretching
into 4 or 5 days but it is the duration of the event for $10.
Mr. Marion – Do political banners fall into this category and will those individuals be required to pay a fee as well?
Ms. Otto – With this language, if adopted, they would not fall into either of these 2 categories.
Mr. Marion – Would they just seek permission to hang a banner?
Ms. Otto – They wouldn’t be eligible to apply. They don’t fit the criteria as this proposal is worded.
Mr. Marion – Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this? [There were none.] At this time I will
close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Ms. Bramble – I move that we approve as written.
9
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Marion – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Article 8 – Flood Damage Prevention
Ms. Otto – Currently the City of Tybee has adopted what is called a 1-foot freeboard. The flood insurance rate map, as
distributed by FEMA, tells homeowners to what base flood elevation construction is required for new construction and
substantial improvement. In September 2008, Tybee adopted that construction had to exceed that by one foot and it is
called the 1-foot freeboard. Because Tybee has adopted this higher regulatory standard, the City receives credits on the
Community Rating System which currently Tybee is a class 7. The request is whether it should be considered increasing
the 1-foot freeboard to perhaps 2 feet or 3 feet to increase the number of credits the City receives so that we can at
least maintain our Class 7 rating and perhaps improve on it. The Community Rating System does offer many points in
this category if you adopt this higher regulatory standard. When the 1-foot was adopted in September 2008, all of
Chatham County adopted it. It came from the State of Georgia’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and it had the 1-
foot in it. Chatham County, City of Savannah, Pooler, Garden City, adopted the 1-foot freeboard. There is no other
municipality, that I am aware of, that is pursuing increasing the amount of freeboard. This is something that Tybee has
identified working under the Biggert-Waters Act. As you know the potential increases to flood insurance could be offset
if Tybee had a better classification under the CRS program. Currently everyone gets a 15% discount under the Class 7
and if we can maintain that or improve it, it would at least keep the 15% discount or improve it to 20. There are
numerous materials in your packet from the CRS manual and from Article 8 and the different places where it talks about
the current 1-foot requirement. If it was proposed to adopt a change, each of those would be corrected to perhaps 2-
foot or 3-foot, whatever your will may be on this item.
Mr. Marion – This is a big benefit to the island.
Ms. Otto – For those that have flood insurance.
Mr. Callahan – The chart on page 430-12, showing the 1-foot, 2-foot, and 3-foot freeboard and various restrictions,
where do we fall right now?
Ms. Otto – Right now we fall under 1-foot and we do not prohibit fill. We would fall under the first one that says “No
Fill” in restrictions. Currently we are getting 100 points.
Mr. Callahan – Are you recommending that we go for 3 feet and put further restrictions on it?
Ms. Otto – I’m not recommending anything. This has been sent to you by City Council. They received a
recommendation from Jimmy Brown, who is the Emergency Management Coordinator for the City and our CRS
Coordinator. When he was tasked with finding additional activities to do for credits, he reported back to Council that
adopting a higher freeboard would be one recommendation he had. His second was identifying open space areas under
the CRS manual that you can get credits for. It doesn’t require any action yet as they are still surveying and identifying
these potential open space areas that could be designated. Because this is in Article 8, it is a Land Development Code
change if we were to adopt a higher freeboard. This came to you after Jimmy Brown had given his report to Council and
they directed that Planning Commission consider this item.
Mr. McNaughton – If the City adopted a higher freeboard would that only apply to future new construction?
Ms. Otto – It would apply to new construction and to what are called substantial improvements. At times we receive
permit applications for a significant amount of work on a home that is not currently at base flood elevation. If they
choose to improve beyond 50% of the value of the structure, they are required to bring the entire structure into
compliance and that would mean retrofitting to the freeboard Tybee currently has on the books and now that is 1-foot.
10
Mr. McNaughton – If the City went to 2 or 3 feet and if no houses were retrofitted for the higher freeboard, or there was
no new construction, would we still get credit?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. McNaughton – Does anyone have a cost benefit analysis because there is obviously a cost for lifting?
Ms. Otto – I don’t have that information. I know when Tybee adopted the 1-foot because it was statewide and Chatham
County. I heard at that time it was an additional $10,000 on a typical home to add that extra 1-foot. I don’t know if that
would extrapolate that if it is 2 feet now, is it $20,000; I don’t know if it is $10,000 per foot or not. I did spend some
time looking at elevation certificates to prepare for this evening’s meeting. I looked at 12 elevation certificates for
single-family homes permitted within the last year. Of the 12, I broke them out into whether they were meeting Tybee’s
1-foot requirement or were they exceeding it and going into the 2-foot, 3-foot, or building over the 3-foot. One chose to
meet the 1-foot freeboard that Tybee has adopted, 1 chose a 2-foot freeboard and 3 used 3-foot freeboard. These
homeowners, without the City having done anything, in addition to the 15% discount they are receiving because Tybee
has a Class 7 rating, they have exceeded FEMA’s requirement by 3 feet. Because they have done that, they will get a
discount on their flood insurance because of their home exceeding the requirements. If you exceed their base flood
elevation by 3 feet or more, that is the maximum, you receive the best rates on your structure. Seven of the 12 were
actually built 4 feet or higher above base flood elevation. The reason this is so typical on Tybee is because we tend to
have small lots and when homeowners must elevate to meet the base flood elevation and another foot for the
freeboard, they choose to elevate for parking under their house and have storage and access stairs into the house. Of
the 12 that I looked at from recent projects, 1 was at 1-foot, 1 was at 2-foot, 3 were at 3-foot, and 7 were built 4-foot or
higher than they had to be. There is another component to this. On the freeboard, we require the habitable space to be
a foot higher than base flood but also require the equipment that services the structure to meet the 1-foot freeboard.
What you typically see at Tybee are outside condenser units on platforms. When I’m working with contractors I
recommend that they get the platform the same height as they are elevating the house to take advantage of that
discount. If the house is 3 feet or more higher but the mechanical unit only meets the 1-foot freeboard, they are not
going to get the best rate they could get. Of the 12 elevation certificates, not all of them were finished as some of these
are still under construction; there are 6 that currently have their equipment set. Of the 6 that are finished, 1 met the 1-
foot requirement, 2 met the 3-foot, and 1 met the 4-foot. What is important in adopting this freeboard is to think not
just about the finished floor of the living space but also if we went to a 2 or 3-foot freeboard, the equipment has to be
up that high as well so you would see higher platforms.
Mr. McNaughton – Are any of the houses with the 4-foot freeboard coming anywhere close to the 35-foot height
restriction?
Ms. Otto – No, they take that into account. They come close but they don’t exceed it. With a 10-foot garage, a 10-foot
first floor, a 9-foot second floor, and a flat roof, you can get your 35 feet in that space. It affects the roof structures
more than anything.
Mr. Callahan – Going back to the chart that I referred to earlier, could you help us understand what the 2 restrictions are
in dealing with fill and compensatory storage?
Ms. Otto – I understand the fill. FEMA would choose for a higher regulatory standard for a community to adopt no fill.
That would keep homeowners from not bringing fill onto the property and artificially using that to elevate out of base
flood. They would prefer that natural be left natural and we don’t have an ordinance that prohibits fill. It is not unusual
for a lot to be elevated but we do require a drainage plan so that the higher elevation is not going to cause drainage
issues to the adjacent properties. With the storm sewer system we have, homeowners generally choose to elevate the
ground and have a higher elevation because of the fill. We base the average grade that the 35 feet is started on before
any fill but we don’t prohibit fill from being used.
11
Mr. Callahan – It’s usually only a foot or 2, correct?
Ms. Otto – It’s not mountains.
Mr. Callahan – You are saying this no fill restriction will mean none.
Ms. Otto – No fill would be allowed, you would have to build at natural grade.
Mr. Callahan – What about the compensatory storage?
Ms. Otto – I do not know enough to talk to you about that tonight but I would be glad to look into it.
Mr. McNaughton – If we had fill prohibited we would get a substantial number of points, correct?
Ms. Otto – Yes, there are a lot of points available there. I don’t know of any other communities that have adopted the
no fill. Griffin, Georgia is currently a Class 5 community and I would be curious to know if that is one of the avenues they
have chosen to receive additional credits. They have adopted the 3-foot.
Mr. Bishop – You mentioned Jimmy Brown in his discussions with Council was indicating that by going from 1 to 2 or 3,
that would be a way of generating additional dollars of savings on flood insurance. How did he equate from 1 to 2 to 3
to the amount of dollars? How does changing the additional freeboard equate to dollars and does that equate to what
is going to be required since Biggert-Waters is currently being challenged in court as well? I’m concerned about dollars
and cents to our property owners who may find themselves in renovations having to spend more dollars because of
additional freeboard because of Biggert and Waters and others. I have a question on how all this equates to our
citizenry and I don’t know what Jimmy found.
Ms. Otto – I think I can touch on it but I certainly can’t answer all of that for you. The way the community rating is setup,
it takes 500 credits or points to move up or down the scale. Tybee used to be a Class 8. By additional activities under
the CRS program, we received enough points to get a Class 7. When that happened in 2009, Tybee only had 4 points
over to be in a Class 7. It would take 496 more points to get a Class 6. Jimmy Brown has identified open space and
freeboard because those are big targets to get big points. That is where FEMA has identified if you adopt higher
regulatory standards in these areas and designate lots of open space and higher freeboard, which is good for the
community. If an event occurs these homes are less likely to be damaged because they exceed the requirements. Open
space preservation allows the displaced water to go somewhere that is not damaging something. They like those two
areas and that is the areas that Jimmy is promoting for Tybee to get these 496 points for a Class 6. Another twist in all of
this is when the 2009 Class 7 rating was granted, it was under a different manual. Just this year, FEMA put out a new
CRS manual and they have shifted where you can get points. That table that we looked at for the 1-foot freeboard may
not have been as many points under the old manual as the 100 points it showed for the 1-foot freeboard under the new
manual. They bumped up the open space credits and lowered the points for doing the outreach activities that Jimmy
does to educate the public. They have added some new activities where you can create different things to get different
points. When you think about the Class 7 that we have now and the 5-year cycle visit next year, the incentive is to find
groups of 500 points that would shift the next class rating. The talk about how does that compare to Biggert-Waters and
the potential increases to flood insurance, I don’t know. I know under Class 7 that residents get a 15% discount. If we
were able to obtain a Class 6, it would be a 20% discount. The City’s position is if we can do that and offset these
increases that are being proposed, as a City that is what we need to be doing.
Mr. Callahan – Going back to the chart, where did you say we stood right now?
Ms. Otto – Currently we have the 1-foot freeboard. To my knowledge, we don’t prohibit fill and we are not doing
compensatory storage.
12
Mr. Callahan – We are currently getting 100 points.
Ms. Otto – Yes. I should say we are going to get 100 points under this new manual. I don’t know how many points were
granted under the 2009 manual.
Mr. Callahan – If you look at the 3-foot line and go over to “Fill Prohibited” you get up to 500 points which is a difference
of 400 points.
Mr. Marion – Is there any way we can have Mr. Brown talk to us to define the unknowns?
Ms. Otto – I think you have the power to request staff to assist you.
Mr. Bishop – You said Jimmy presented this to Council. Did he have a recommendation?
Ms. Otto – Three.
Mr. Bishop – If you move to the “Fill Prohibited” that simply says you won’t build on fill and that still allows piers and
other things to be used. You can still fill you just can’t build on the fill with a foundation, is that correct?
Ms. Otto – My understanding is if you are issued the topographic survey that was taken predevelopment that would be
the same topographic results after the development. You wouldn’t have changed any elevations on that property
throughout construction other than perhaps installing swales that will direct the flow better but you are not going to
bring any fill in to artificially elevate it.
Mr. Bishop – I tend to agree. My main concern with all the issues concerning Biggert-Waters is I don’t know the nexus
here and I don’t know what the impact of our freeboard change would be if there is any.
Ms. Otto – The Biggert-Waters, or the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, is impacting homes not built FEMA compliant
for the most part. Construction as we currently have with the 1-foot freeboard won’t see an impact from Biggert-
Waters currently because that is not where they are focusing their proposed rate increases. They are focused on
secondary homes and structures that have been grandfathered over the years with subsidized premiums.
Mr. Bishop – It will have an impact on substantial improvements of existing residences.
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Bishop – I know the new construction is primarily not going to be an issue.
Ms. Otto – Correct.
Mr. Marion – What is the impact on the existing residents or what is the percentage of the ones that would see an
impact for improving their home at 50% or more?
Ms. Otto – We have many of them. They have to choose wisely because of our additional higher regulatory standard of
5 years on those improvements. Residents are delaying improvements to stay below the 50% and not have to come into
compliance. FEMA requires a 1 year 50% rule but Tybee has adopted a higher 5 year so the improvements over a 5 year
period can’t exceed 50%. If the homeowner has exhausted all 50% in the first year, they have to wait 4 more years
before they can do any further improvements to their structures. What I’m generally seeing is homeowners are not
choosing to make their homes FEMA compliant.
Mr. Bishop – Mr. Brown recommended 3 items based on his research.
13
Ms. Otto – Based on the schedule of points available.
Mr. Marion – Can we appeal to staff to have Mr. Brown attend our next meeting so we can get some clear answers.
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. Marion – Do we have anyone from the public that would like to address this?
Rusty Fleetwood came forward and introduced himself. Just as you had a lot of questions regarding the proposal that
was presented to Council, I don’t think right now that anybody has enough information to determine the pros and cons
of all the impacts this may have. I know Jimmy is on it and he has looked at it. It was basically thrown into everybody’s
lap and the effects can be far ranging on both ends.
Mr. Marion – Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this? [There were none.] Are there any
more questions? [There were none.] Dianne, do we table this for our meeting in December?
Ms. Otto – Yes, December would be good.
Mr. Callahan – Do we need a motion?
Ms. Otto – No. I will take it as staff direction to have the CRS Coordinator here at the December meeting.
Text Amendment – Section 3-060(A)(9) – Bed and Breakfast (Residential), Parking for Special Events
Ms. Otto – Before you is a proposed change to item (A)(9). This section talks about the allowance that residential bed
and breakfasts may apply to have small special events not to exceed 20 guests. There have been questions every time
this has come up about whether additional parking needs to be provided for a bed and breakfast that is granted the
allowance to have up to 20 people at a special event. It was recommended to bring this before you to determine
whether or not to impose such a requirement. This is open for denial, approval, or modification as you see fit. The text
before you would require that 4 additional parking spaces be required on the property if a bed and breakfast is to be
granted this special event allowance. What has been done is a lot of discussion but never any firm determination on
whether the number of spaces required for the owners and the number of guest units are adequate. Are they the same
people attending the special events? Do we need any more parking? The code never spoke to it. As proposed, this
would clarify 4 more parking spaces are required if you are going to apply for special events.
Mr. Marion – When it comes to this ordinance, how many are on the island that fall into this category?
Ms. Otto – Two that I can think of. Two residential bed and breakfasts have been through the process and been granted
allowance to have special events of up to 20 people.
Mr. Marion – Can you tell me which ones they are?
Ms. Otto – The Lighthouse Inn on the corner of Meddin and Cedarwood and the one operated by the Kildays which is
Tybee Inn.
Mr. McNaughton – The intent of this is to have 4 additional parking places on the property? We should add the words
‘four vehicles on the property’. To me it sounded like I need 4 more parking spaces anywhere I can find them.
Ms. Otto – I understand what you are saying. I can tweak that language to clearly state that 4 additional parking spaces
on-site are required.
14
Mr. McNaughton – Since we don’t know how many parking spaces there are on the current bed and breakfasts, could
any of them meet that requirement?
Ms. Otto – I did not review the 2 that have been granted as this would not be applicable to them. This would be any
that came before you if this were adopted. If I recall, the one most recently denied only exceeded the number required
for the owners and the number of guest units by 1 so she would not have qualified under this proposal.
Mr. Marion – Do we see any potential unseen hardships by creating a scenario where there is somebody that wants to
have a bed and breakfast but they have no space because of a substandard lot their house is on and nowhere to put the
4 vehicles?
Ms. Otto – It would be a hardship. It wouldn’t be a hardship being a residential bed and breakfast but to have the
special events for less than 20 people, they would not meet the criteria.
Mr. Marion – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anyone from the public that would like to address
this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Ms. Bramble – I’m not sure if this will work because we have such a parking issue.
Ms. Otto – Your comment at a prior discussion was maybe 4 isn’t adequate. You said, I believe, that people don’t come
4 in a car; they come 1 or 2 in a car. If you had a recommendation for a higher requirement, that is certainly something
that you can recommend.
Mr. Borkowski – I think what this does is protect the people in the residential areas. If the bed and breakfast wants to
have a special event and provide transportation from an alternative parking lot, that is the responsibility of the bed and
breakfast. If they want to have the event and are going to have extra cars, they need to hire a shuttle or something; it
doesn’t have anything to do with the City. When they say not to exceed 20 guests, does that mean people in addition to
those staying there?
Ms. Otto – That is another aspect of this. The owners of the bed and breakfasts say the guests at the inn are the guests
at the special event. Maybe this needs more work to clarify that it does not matter whether they are guests or not, the
limit is 20 people at the facility at any one time and the parking that is to be provided is ‘X’ or whatever you come up
with.
Mr. McNaughton – If this was adopted requiring 4 additional parking spaces beyond their requirements and someone
wanting to hold a special event was willing to bus the people in, would they be prohibited from having this special
event? If they bussed the people in but didn’t have the 4 parking spaces, could they even hold it?
Ms. Otto – The first sentence says they must come for Special Review. If they are granted special events then they could
do it that way.
Mr. Marion – I think at this point it is safe to say we should re-address this in December.
Text Amendment – Section 3-220 – Amusement Parks
Ms. Otto – I had input from you at the last meeting on this item and this proposal certainly doesn’t represent
everybody’s input that evening. There was some opinion that this section should be struck from the code to match what
the City has been allowing. What is before you falls more towards what the City is allowing. This has been through the
City Attorney’s office for review and initially went with discarding the amusement park theory since we don’t have one.
The City Attorney was not in favor of removing it due to the potential some developer could apply for it and we didn’t
have anything on the books about amusement parks. He would prefer that the language stay in but add to it the
discussion we had about these areas of commercial amusement within a festival. This now includes both and it does go
15
to the previous discussion that such areas, whether it is an amusement park or an area of amusement, is required to be
securely fenced with prominent signage at each entrance that no alcohol is allowed beyond this point. For the
amusement park it prohibits the sale and consumption on the property; for the area within, it is just the consumption.
Mr. Borkowski – I like it.
Mr. Marion – A fundraiser, for example, movies on the lawn between the YMCA and the park by the playground, and
let’s pretend this has been approved by Council so there is a beverage permit and general concessions. In this particular
scenario, this one-time event might also have bouncy houses where they can slide down. Would that fall into this
category as something that would need to be governed by this ordinance as opposed to Pirate Fest where they had the
Ferris wheel and other things fenced off?
Ms. Otto – The first one you described, was that open to the public?
Mr. Marion – Yes.
Ms. Otto – Yes, for that area of amusement where the bouncy houses or slides are, under this ordinance it would be
required to be fenced and no alcohol beyond this point.
Mr. Marion – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anybody from the public that would like to address
this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. McNaughton – Second.
Mr. Marion – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Consideration of adoption of updated Zoning Map – Section 4-020 – District Boundaries
Ms. Otto – This final item has been a long time coming. If you recall there had been 3 areas identified after the C-2
charrette was done for potential rezoning: Eagles Nest, Laurel Avenue and the North Wave area. With those 3 having
been dealt with, the next task was to adopt a zoning map that reflects all of the changes that have occurred. We have
not had an updated zoning map since 2008. The official map is in the room as is the proposed zoning map that is for
consideration this evening. Rather than the black with red lines of the current map, this new proposed zoning map is
colorized to depict the different zones. There is an 11 x 17 that we are continually tweaking. It has changed a little since
your packets have gone out but for the most part you are seeing a finished product. The City Attorney’s office has put in
feedback on how that text box that says “Map Officially Adopted” will be modified to reflect this next adoption date.
We have worked with the Coastal Regional Commission that has been working to make this map all it can be. The goal
here was to get it as large as our current zoning map when it prints on 11 x 17 so you can identify individual parcels. You
can identify the zoning for those parcels based on the color and legend in the table below of what each color represents.
There are no proposed zoning changes for any lot on this map. There is no rush on this but I don’t expect this to take a
long time either. If there are any issues you would like us to work with the map preparer to make clearer for you, please
let us know. If you want to see it back with changes or if you choose to move forward and send this to Council, it is
going to be probably February of 2014 before this will get through the required readings before Council and officially
adopted. It is an important item that if not properly handled could negate all prior zoning on the island. We must move
very cautiously with this and have it properly advertised and conduct meetings and public hearings appropriately.
Mr. Borkowski – Which one is the current map?
Ms. Otto – The one with the red lines is the current map. The one at your seat this evening is the most recent version of
the colorized. When the packets had to go out last week we were still fine-tuning through emails with the Coastal
16
Regional Commission on how to make it a little clearer and a little easier to understand. It is hard to get so much
information on an 11x17 sheet but that is the largest size that staff is able to print in color. It will have to be taken into
Savannah to a printer that can print the larger versions that will be the actual official map.
Mr. Marion – Are you asking for a vote?
Ms. Otto – If you are comfortable with moving this forward to Council, it will be on December 12th. The City Attorney
has advised he would like it introduced at their meeting in December but then have 2 public readings which would be
January and February. Because of the critical nature of how a city adopts a zoning map it needs to be very, very
delicately processed so it is not challenged later.
Mr. Marion – The City Attorney is suggesting they would like to have this introduced at the December Council meeting?
Ms. Otto – There is no rush. If you are ready tonight to move it forward to Council, it would go to them in December. If
you prefer it come back to you in December that is fine too.
Mr. Bishop – Is the ordinance with Teresa and Byers, is that incorporated here?
Ms. Otto – Yes, the one lot that was rezoned is under the word ‘Lane’.
Mr. Bishop – Okay. This incorporates everything that has been done as of today?
Ms. Otto – Yes, the most recent being the lot you just mentioned.
Mr. Callahan – Other than the misspelling of Tybrisa, I suggest we approve it and move on.
Mr. Marion – Are there other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anyone from the public that would like to
address this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing.
Ms. Otto – Other than the spelling of Tybrisa, did you see any other corrections?
Mr. Callahan – No, I didn’t. I move that we approve it and move it along to Council.
Mr. Borkowski – Second.
Mr. Marion – I have a motion for approval and a second. All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous). Do I
have a motion for adjournment?
Mr. Callahan – I make a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Marion – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Meeting ended at 8:45 PM
Minutes by Jerris Bryant