Present: Chairman George Sipe, Skip Johnson, David Hanson, Bob Herb and Juan Armendariz

Guests Present: 3

3481 Mansions Parkway - Commission Chairman Chairman George Sipe began the meeting by stating that there had been one Administrative Variance granted to construct within the 50-ft. front setback, which is established by the plat. One corner of the new construction is located at 48 feet. This request was well within the rules for an Administrative Variance.

519 Lakeshore Drive – To construct a plant shed within the rear set back. Mr. Andreu presented a presentation of his drawing and pictures of the proposed 8’x8’ structure. With a gabled roof the height will be approximately 12 feet. The structure has no floor, electricity or plumbing. The location is about the only place it can be constructed because of the location of the septic tank and aesthetic as well as convenience reasons. The use will be for garden and tool storage. He has talked with the neighbors and they seem to have no objection to the structure. The Commissioners asked many questions.
Commissioner Johnson motioned to accept the variance request. Commissioner Herb seconded the motion. Chairman Sipe stated that it comes down to the intent of the code for a 40ft. set back. Part of the idea of the code is how much structure is imposing on neighboring lots. This structure doesn’t seem to present any sort of major imposition. One of the risks of approving a variance of this nature is that if Jack sells his house the next homeowner may want to come in and make the structure more permanent by pouring a concrete floor or fully inclosing the structure. We could place restrictions on the variance, which would allow Jack to build what he wants to build without the possibility for future changes. The restrictions named were the following: No plumbing, no electricity, no solid floor and to remain partially open on one side. Commissioner Johnson amended the motion to include the restrictions named. Commissioner Herb seconded the motion. The motion passed with commissioner Hanson abstaining.

Variance Guidelines: For a Variance to be granted each one of the following should to be true; 1. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. 2. The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship to the owner of the property. 3. Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved and such conditions are not the result of the individual property owner. 4. If granted, the Variance would not cause substantial detriment to the public nor impair the purposes or intent of this Ordinance.

Approval of the Minutes – The Minutes of the June P&Z meeting were unanimously approved.

Chairman Sipe discussed the Special Called Meeting of Council where City Council’s decision was to appoint the Mayor as the lead with the developers of the Parson’s property. Chairman Sipe further stated that Council Member Reynolds spoke against the idea while the other Council members were in favor of the appointment. The Mayor also spoke against the idea expressing her confidence in the P&Z as being the right place for the leadership over the developers. There was a time for Citizens Comments at the meeting and Chairman Sipe stated that he spoke for the P&Z by stating that at all times in the past the P&Z has taken the lead and that we have the experience. Neither council nor the Mayor has the experience in the development process. He stated that he reminded Council that the P&Z has in the past only been responsible for coming up with the best result in the City’s interest and then forward the recommendations to Council for a decision. The process that Council approved breaks that process. Chairman Sipe further stated that he had asked Council if there was any reason that any of them could state not to have the P&Z take the leadership in this process and no one had an answer to that question. The vote was taken and except for Council Member Reynolds, it was in favor of having the Mayor take the leadership. This was against the Mayor’s wishes.

There were questions asked by the P&Z as to whether the decision by Council is the best way to protect the citizens. Chairman Sipe stated that he believes that it is a dangerous experiment and that it is unprecedented and there is a lot of risk inherent with it. This is a
project with some complexity as well as some history, which this Council is not familiar.

There were also questions asked by the commissioners about why this project is so much more important than any other project in the past. Chairman Sipe stated that he did mention to Council that this project is not the largest that the City has ever undertaken. Clearly Miramont and Berkeley Walk were much larger projects. This new process essentially blocks the P&Z’s expertise from being engaged. When there are issues about if a permit should be issued, the OEO will not necessarily consult with us. The developer will not see us as the primary point of contact. The Council’s main focal point is for the Mayor to be sure and report every thing that happens to the Council. What they are really saying is that they will be acting in the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission and they might ask us questions on occasion. Chairman Sipe stated that Council really does not give a clear reason why they are making this decision and if the citizens are interested in this issue, they are going to have to approach the City Council and ask them. The P&Z commissioners are not the elected officials and Council is most certainly empowered to make this decision. Chairman Sipe stated that it would be his wish that Council had a member with some P&Z experience in Berkeley Lake.

A question was asked about why the City has hired an engineering firm and is this firm taking the place of the P&Z? Chairman Sipe stated that even though people have tried to minimize this issue, others recognize that the engineering firm hired by the City has not been running at the direction of the P&Z. Usually the P&Z is the one who engages the engineering firm and tells them what needs to be done. The P&Z directs the engineer to interpret technical issues as opposed to having the engineer try to interpret ordinances which is the job of the P&Z. In this case this engineering company has engaged in a lot more than merely the technical aspects of the proposal. They are in fact framing the issues, which has in the past been the job of the P&Z. Chairman Sipe stated that he has objected to the engineer taking that role and that is why he has asked the question about whether Minutes were taken when City Manager John Rockers met with the City engineer and the developer. Mr. Rockers states that no Minutes were taken during those meetings. The only results we have from those meetings are the reports from the engineers. That is a contrast to what would happen if it had been done by the P&Z. We do not discuss anything with the developer except in open meetings with Minutes. That is a major issue. In response to questions about the status of the development Chairman Sipe explained that the developers want to clear the land and they also want to obtain a variance for the 50ft. buffer between them and the firehouse. We have not received any requests for a variance at this time. In regards to the question of sub division of the property, the commissioners agreed that there would have to be provisions in the plat and in some type of deed covenants which would insure that the City’s interest in security and in the ongoing upscale maintenance. Chairman Sipe stated that while the P&Z will probably be consulted for the 50ft.variance, the P&Z will unlikely be consulted on the issue of sub division in so far as we are not legally mandated, only in this loophole case, to consider that. Council is free to make whatever decisions and manage the process and do whatever negotiations they so desire. Chairman Sipe further explained that there had been a questioned asked as to whom could represent the City’s interest in dealing with the developer? If it was a residential development, it would be the P&Z. Since it is not a residential development, no one has the responsibility by way of Ordinance. Up until this point, the engineering company has been doing it at the discretion of Council. Nothing gives them the legal mandate to take the lead except having been appointed by Council. However, they were saying that nothing directs the P&Z to take the lead and that is the legal question. It is a bogus question because the same applies to them as it would to the P&Z. In other words the P&Z could be directed by Council to take the lead. The question asked by the engineering firm at the meeting which was attended by myself, the City Manager, the Mayor, and Council Member Ken Massaroni was, “is there any legal restriction to the P&Z taking the lead?” Those present at that meeting, with the exception of the engineering company decided, that the P&Z could be the lead for this project. I was directed to check to see if there was a legal problem to stop this decision. The Mayor asked me to contact the City Attorney the next day, which I promptly did, but he was unavailable and I spoke at length with his Administrative Assistant and she understood what the question was and agreed to communicate it to the City Attorney. I later found out that the engineer himself directly contacted our City Attorney and asked a different question than I was charged to ask. He asked if there was anything mandating that the P&Z take the lead. The City Attorney correctly said that there was not. This caused some degree of confusion and the Council in so far as they were interpreting this statement as that the P&Z could not be charged with taking the lead. The full context of the question together with the answer wasn’t made clear. Chairman Sipe further stated that Council has no experience at all in zoning issues, and they don’t understand the risk they are taking.

Chairman Sipe stated that if there was no other topic needed to be discussed that there was no other business to be scheduled for a future meeting at this time.

The meeting adjourned at 8:21PM