|
First draft minutes for September 27th, 06 |
|
|
|
|
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting September 27th, 2006
Draft Minutes
Call to Order: Chairman Bob Herb called the meeting to order at 7:35pm on Aug, 2006 at 4040 S. Berkeley Lake Road.
Present: Chairman Bob Herb. Commissioners Dan Huntington, Craig Belt, Gary Moore and Rodney Hammond. Jackie Wall(P and Z Clerk, and City Clerk)
Guests Present: Kathy Sanders, Jeff Gregg and Dick Lackey
Old Business:
Minutes: Commissioner Hammond motioned to approve the minutes for the August 7th, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Huntington seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.
• Review of 39-807 Driveway Run-off control
Chairman Herb said that council had requested further review of the changes to this ordinance. He said he had also received some suggestions from Randy Kirkus, Chair of the Public Works committee, and he had responded to them. He suggested that the Public Works committee be invited to join P and Z at the next meeting to discuss it.
Chairman Herb described an administrative variance he had already approved.
• 600 Hilltop Lane (Lot 76, 77,Sec.7 - BL): Variance to expand a non-conforming structure (39-602-1); House is currently non conforming with its front set back being at 43’ vs required 65’. The expansion is for a side deck that will be in full conformance and will not make the existing non conformance any more imposing.
New Business
• 3695 North Berkeley Lake Rd (Lot 3a Section 3- BL,DC) ): variance to expand a non-conforming structure (39-602-1) and variance to reduce the front setback from 63’ to 52’ vs. required 65’’ (39-804.4)
Kathy Sanders explained the work they had done on their work so far on their property and why they wanted to add the additional garage on the existing pad next to their garage
Chairman Herb said that he did not feel that part a) of the following could be applicable to this situation as there were no extraordinary conditions because of the size shape or topography of the lot.
39-1401 Variances - Application for, Procedure and Notification
a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography.
Mrs. Sanders withdrew their request.
• 134 Bayway Circle (Lot 33 & PT 34 - BL, DC): variance to expand a non-conforming structure (39-602-1) and variance to rebuild within side setback at 11.5 vs. required 12.5’ (39-401.2)
Mr. Lackey explained the existing boathouse and how he would like to rebuild a new one, which would conform better than the original dock but still need to be within one foot of the side setback. He described what would be seen from both sides and the lake.
Chairman Herb said the new boathouse would also have to conform to the following:
39-401.2 Boat Houses and Docks.
Boat houses and docks shall not extend more than 25 feet into the lake from the natural shoreline; shall be at least 12 ½ feet from the side lot line, projected into the lake; shall be at least 75 feet from the opposite shore; shall not exceed 14 feet in height from the mean water level; shall not have a total footprint that exceeds 875 square feet; shall not have a total roof footprint that exceeds 675 square feet; shall not have an area enclosed on two or more sides with any material including, but not limited to, screening and glass; and shall not have an enclosed area greater that 100 square feet.
Hammond motioned to approve the variance as the submitted without the decorative side treatments. Belt seconded the motion.
There was discussion about the other options that were open to Mr. Lackey in order to remain in conformance with the ordinance. There was consensus that a handrail would be a good idea.
Huntington motioned to amend the variance to approve the variance request with exception of lattice to be replaced by a hand rail no higher than 42” with the railing below covering no more than 50% of the opening. No architectural lattice work on either side. Belt seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed
• Consider request by Berkeley Lake Partners, LLC for annexation of the detention pond at 3990 Peachtree Industrial Blvd to be incorporated into the City of Berkeley Lake.
In discussion it was noted that this had been one of the original conditions of their application to develop this lot. The commission unanimously felt that this should be followed through.
Hammond motioned to approve the application by Berkeley Lake Partners, LLC for the annexation of the detention pond at 3990 Peachtree Industrial Blvd to be incorporated into the City of Berkeley Lake. Belt seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.
• Consider request by Berkeley Lake Partners, LLC to rezone the detention pond at 3990 Peachtree Industrial Blvd from M2 to O&I to be incorporated into the Berkeley Lake Village commercial development.
Hammond motioned to approve the application for rezoning by Berkeley Lake Partners, LLC 3990 Peachtree Industrial Blvd to rezone the detention pond at 3990 Peachtree Industrial Blvd from M2 to O&I to be the same as the rest of the property. Belt seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.
• 39-1201 Building permit required.
The clerk reviewed the changes made since the last meeting regarding the use of ‘building permit’ instead of ‘use permit’ to conform to current practice, and the new requirement of a current survey. The commission agreed these changes were a good idea to update the ordinance.
Belt motioned to approve the ordinance to delete 39-1201 to 39-1204 of chapter 39, and replace it with a new article 39-1201; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to provide for an effective date; and for other purposes. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.
• 39.602.2 Continuance of a Building Occupied by a Non-Conforming Use
A building occupied by a non-conforming use at the time of enactment of amendment of this Ordinance may be retained except that it shall not be:
1. Enlarged or rebuilt except in conformance with this Ordinance, but it may be repaired to the extent necessary to maintain it in a safe and sanitary condition.
2. Rebuilt, altered or repaired after damage exceeding 40% for principal structures, and 25% for accessory buildings, of their replacement cost at the time of destruction, except in conformity with this Ordinance.
The clerk asked for consideration of a change to this section of the ordinance because of the ambiguity of the language, and the difficulty in enforcing it. She was asked to research wording that other cities use for similar conditions and to bring it back to P and Z for consideration at the next meeting.
• Annexation of Hermitage Plantation subdivision
The clerk asked the commission (on behalf of the Mayor) to consider any implications that may arise from the possibility of an application from Hermitage Plantation for annexation.
The main concerns were that the City’s current zoning code would have to apply to them as it is and that no changes could be made.
There was a motion to adjourn at 9.15 pm by Commissioner Moore. Huntington seconded the motion and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.
|
