PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting March 9th, 2004

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Herb at 7:35pm on March 9th, 2004 at City Hall.

Present: Commissioners Gary Moore, Rodney Hammond, Craig Belt, Skip Johnson and Chairman Bob Herb

Guests Present: Charles Dean, OEO Charles Sewell, Joe Voyles, Clay Keller and Billy Cassels.

Chairman Herb said that there were three variances to be heard that night. He also clarified they would not be able to officially talk to Charles Dean at the meeting as it was not advertised as part of the public hearing. He said he would be closing the meeting after hearing the variances, and Herb and Sewell would be discussing the plans with Dean. He said the other commissioners would be welcome to stay should they wish to do so.

Old Business: Approval of Minutes from the February 5th, 2004 meeting. Chairman Herb stated that he had completed the minutes by memory as the recorder had malfunctioned. There was discussion about minor changes.

The Minutes were approved as amended

New Business
• 186 Lakeshore Drive

The request is to build within the front set back at 58 feet verses a required 65 feet per code 39-804-4. Also a second variance to build within a stream buffer set back at 28 feet verses the required 35 feet as in the definitions Chapter 22-104.

Joe Voyles explained since requesting the original variance, they had spun the building, and they had moved the house to be in compliance with the side and rear lot line, and the side of the house with the stream buffer is at 35 feet. Voyles also explained that the curve of the road now also means that the house is now only out of compliance by two and a half feet at the front set back due to the moving of the house to comply elsewhere. Clay Keller had plans for the Commission to look at.

Sewell clarified that the house was now not within the stream buffer set back of 35 feet. He explained the current lot lines. The Commission compared the original plans with the proposed plans. Chairman Herb explained the drip lines of the roof are where the house lines are located. The retaining wall is exempt from set back regulations as it is landscaping and it is not considered to part of the house. Keller showed pictures regarding the measurement.

Commissioner Johnson motioned that they approve the variance as requested. Commissioner Belt seconded the motion.

In discussion Moore asked why there was a need to grant a variance to the 65 foot set back requirement.

Voyles said he wanted to make sure that the roof overhang was covered by the variance.

Chairman Herb suggested the motion be amended to allow a 33 foot set back versus the required 35 feet at the stream buffer, and grant a front set back of 61 feet versus the requirement of a 65 foot set back.

Commissioner Johnson agreed to amend the motion to those figures, and Commissioner Belt agreed.

All were in favor of the motion and the variance was approved.

• 468 Lakeshore Drive
A variance to locate an accessory garage structure within the front yard Code 39-401-1

Joe Voyles said he was not aware originally of the need for a variance for this structure. He said he thought if it met all the set backs it would not be an issue. Sewell saw it after the permit had been issued. The structure is attached to the house by a foundation and roof line but there is no heated space between the two. He said both the house and garage are conforming, and he provided pictures.

There was discussion regarding the setbacks from the house next door. Chairman Herb reminded the group that the variance was for this house and not the neighbor’s house. Sewell pointed out that a breezeway is not considered attached to the house.

Voyles showed pictures of the property.

39-1401 – Variance Guidelines-Chairman Herb read and reviewed the following:
Such variances may be granted in individual cases if the Planning commission finds that:
a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and
b. The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and
c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and
d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and
e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public nor impair the purposes or intent of this Ordinance, and
f. The variance is granted for a use of land or building or structure that is not prohibited by this Ordinance.

Chairman Herb said that the garage met all the setbacks, and that the variance was to approve an accessory structure in the front yard.

Commissioner Johnson motioned to approve the variance request as submitted and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion.

All were in favor of the variance and the variance was approved.

Chairman Herb also explained that regardless of the decision on the variance request by the P&Z; the decision is subject to appeal by anyone for a period of 15 days.

• 3945 South Berkeley Lake Road

To expand a non-conforming structure Code 39-602-1, and a variance to build an accessory structure in the front yard Code 39-401-1.

Cassels said he wanted to withdraw the variance to expand a non-conforming structure as he would not be expanding the non-conforming structure now.

Cassels gave out copies of the plat of his property and the structure he wants to build. He said he had a ranch house with no storage and no basement. He also wants a workshop, instead of using his garage. He explained where the accessory building would go, and that it would not be seen from South Berkeley Lake Road. He said it would be 116 feet from the street, 52 feet from the Dennison property next door and 54 feet from the Lackey property on the other side.

Commissioner Hammond moved to approve the variance as requested, and Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Moore said that although the structure would not be visible from the road, that it would still be seen by the neighbors. He said just because it cannot be seen, the variance says that accessory structures should be avoided. He said he understands the need for extra space, but the variance says that a shed type structure is not allowed.

Cassels said he had talked to both his neighbors about it. However Chairman Herb said they could not take that into account as neighbors sell houses eventually.

Commissioner Herb read from the code 39-401.1
Accessory Uses or Structures
Accessory uses or structures shall be permitted only in rear yards, except as otherwise provided in this resolution. An accessory use or structure shall be set back not less than 12 1/2 feet from any lot line.

He also read 39-1401

Such variances may be granted in individual cases if the Planning commission finds that:
a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and
b. The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and
c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and
d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and
e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public nor impair the purposes or intent of this Ordinance, and
f. The variance is granted for a use of land or building or structure that is not prohibited by this Ordinance.

Commissioner Belt asked if the drawing accurately reflects what Cassels was going to build.

Cassels said it did. He said electricity would run to it for power tools and lights. He said there may be a utility sink too. He said it could not be used for living in.

Commissioner Moore said it he had difficulty in seeing how this could be granted as it said the opposite of what the variance allows.
Cassels reiterated what he wanted to use it for.

There was more discussion about whether the structure would be seen by the neighbors and from the street.

Commissioners Hammond, Belt and Johnson voted to approve the variance, Commissioner Moore voted against. The variance was therefore granted.

Chairman Herb suggested that they hold the next meeting on Wednesday April 7th at 7:30 pm to hear one more variance. He said that he would confirm with everyone by email.

OTHER NEW BUSINESS
There being no further New Business the meeting was adjourned at 8:21 PM.