|
|
Full P&Z Minutes from May 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 South Berkeley Lake Road
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
May 23rd, 2007
7:30 P.M.
Full Minutes
Those in attendance at the meeting were as follows:
Chairman: Bob Herb
Commissioners: Craig Belt, Rodney Hammond, and Frank Lombardi
City Administrator and P&Z Secretary: Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present/Guests: None
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Herb opened the meeting at 7:40 P.M. on May 23rd, 2007 at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
a.) Minutes from the March 6th, 2007 P&Z meeting
Herb asked for changes to the minutes.
Belt asked about amending paragraph 6 on page 2 to say “Belt asked to clarify the purpose of advertising meetings.”
Commissioner Lombardi motioned to approve the minutes for the March 6th, 2007 meeting with the suggested change. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
b.) Update from May 17, 2007 City Council Meeting
Herb asked Lombardi for an update about the report that he delivered at the May 17th Council meeting. Lombardi stated that he came away with three main points that council was trying to make. 1) Council wanted P&Z to look at having regularly scheduled meetings to be more in line with what other cities do. Lombardi responded to council that as-needed meetings are more responsive to citizens. 2) Council raised a concern that business that came to P&Z did not always come back in the time frame that council wanted it. Lombardi suggested to council that the reason that may have happened was because of a lack of communication regarding a deadline. He asked council to communicate what they need and when it is needed by. 3) Council may be looking for some business to be handled via email to get a consensus of P&Z commissioners on some items. Lombardi questioned whether this was even legally possible. He also understood that council was interested in hearing what each individual commissioner thought when they voted.
Herb clarified that the end result is that meetings will continue to be scheduled on an as-needed basis.
Hammond stated that the benefit to this is that now council will communicate more specific information when they have time-sensitive business and provide deadlines for when they would like feedback from P&Z.
Belt stated that he couldn’t attend the council meeting on May 17, but that he had read the minutes and felt that Lombardi had communicated P&Z’s position quite well.
Belt asked about the one piece of business that had been delayed being something about driveways. It was clarified that council gave an example that Chapter 39-807 Driveway Water Runoff Control was one that wasn’t forwarded to council in a timely manner. Herb responded that what happened with that was due to citizen comments. Herb stated that P&Z changed it twice and submitted it to council. A citizen didn’t agree with it and that citizen was invited to come to P&Z and represent his opinion, but the citizen never came.
Belt stated that he wasn’t aware that P&Z had delayed any council business, but that he didn’t see any reason why it would be a problem for P&Z to meet council’s deadlines.
Lombardi stated that council agreed to communicate the need for P&Z to address city business, including the nature of the business with a required response date.
Hammond stated that he understood the point that every other city holds regularly scheduled meetings, but the reality is that it doesn’t work for us because of the volume here.
Lombardi stated that there were only 5 meetings last year, so they would have cancelled 7 meetings.
Herb stated that meetings have been scheduled on an as-needed basis at least as long as he has been involved with P&Z, which has been for the past 12 years.
Commissioners thanked Lombardi for being at the last council meeting to represent the opinions of P&Z members.
III. PUBLIC HEARING
There were no citizens to comment at the public hearing.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
a.) Conisderation of Municode Changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 78
Herb explained that the intent was to take the existing code and drop it into a new format. Threadgill responded that it was her understanding that the zoning ordinance didn’t undergo any substantive changes in the process with Municode, but that the ordinance was reformatted to become uniform with the entire city code.
Herb asked if P&Z could change any errors that were noted in the new Municode version. Threadgill responded that she understood that it would be alright for P&Z to do that.
Herb noted an error on page 13 in Section 78-89(a), which says that accessory structures should be set back 12.5 feet from any lot line. Herb suggested amending it to say “should be set back 12.5 feet from any side lot line, and not less than 40 feet from the rear lot line.”
Lombardi asked if this regulation would apply to a boathouse. Herb responded that this didn’t apply to boathouses because there is a separate section which applies to boathouses.
Belt asked about how significant it is that this change wasn’t picked up in the Municode version and whether there is cause for concern about other substantive regulations having been modified. Herb stated that the verbiage he has suggested isn’t in the existing code either, but he is recommending that it be added at this point because that is the way that the code has been applied.
Belt asked about the origin of the new Chapter 78. He asked if it was the same as our existing code just moved and renumbered. It was clarified that this is not just boiler palte code.
Lombardi asked about requiring things like accessory structures such as tool sheds to be required to be setback 40 feet from the rear lot line. Is that the intent? Herb said that that is the intent.
There was further discussion.
Herb’s next correction was to page 20, Section 78-200. He stated that Chapter 78 needed to be updated with the ordinance that had been adopted on December 21, 2006, which was not incorporated into this section. Threadgill explained that when Municode went through this process, it began close to a year ago to the best of her understanding from prior staff members. Therefore, there are changes to the code that have been made that were not incorporated into the new Municode version of the city code because they were made after Municode began its process.
Herb asked if P&Z could just make the recommendation now that these changes are made to incorporate codes that had been passed during the time that Municode was working on the existing code and that weren’t included in the new Municode version. Threadgill stated that she thought that would be appropriate.
It was noted that the code change that had not been incorporated was Section 39-807, and Herb wanted to replace 78-200 in the new Municode version with 39-807, which was adopted December 21, 2006.
There was further discussion.
Herb’s next correction was to page 30. He noted that there were several places where the Ordinance Enforcement Officer is referenced but the Building Inspector is not referenced. Herb noted that those duties had been split. He suggested that Building Inspector be added anywhere it says Ordinance Enforcement Officer.
Hammond asked whether the duties of the Ordinance Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector should be separated out so it’s clear who is responsible for doing what.
Herb responded that we could come back to clarify that, but that the change he’s suggesting is that the ordinance just be changed to be inclusive to allow both to have the responsibility for enforcement.
Threadgill explained that this section of the ordinance 78-317 – 78-321 was another example of a code change that hadn’t been incorporated in the Municode version and that Chapter 78 needed to be updated with the code change that took place in October. On October 19, 2006 Section 39-1201 was incorporated into the existing code, but had not been included in the new Chapter 78.
After much discussion, it was determined that Section 39-1201, Adopted October 19, 2006, would replace Section 78-317 and that Sections 78-318 – 78-321 would be removed.
Herb’s next correction was to page 33, Section 78-366. He stated that the change Municode made when this section was reformatted changed the intent. The Municode version removed the word “and” after each condition that is required to be met for a variance to be granted. He suggested that the way it now reads is that an applicant would only have to meet one of the conditions enumerated in this section, 78-366(a).
Herb suggested the following changes to Section 78-366(a). 1.) Add “and” at the end of paragraphs 1 - 5. 2.) Drop “and” at the end of paragraph 6. 3.) Move paragraph 7 so that it is incorporated into the paragraph heading Applications for variances before the last sentence beginning with “such”.
Herb’s next correction was to page 34, Section78-367. Section 78-367(a)(2) should be changed to place a period where the semicolon is currently and remove the word “and.” Section 78-367(a)(3) should be removed and 78-367(a) should be amended to incorporate the verbiage of 78-367(a)(3). Section 78-367(a) will now read “Such variances must meet one of the following conditions and the chair of the planning commission must conclude that the request would be granted if heard by the full planning commission (and subject to all requirements for variance consideration).”
Herb’s next correction was to page 35 Section 78-369(a) to add “building inspector” after “ordinance enforcement officer” throughout that entire paragraph.
Belt asked if we could do a search throughout the document to find if we needed to add building inspector in other places where ordinance enforcement officer is listed. Herb responded that he thought he had caught them all. Threadgill offered to double check that as well, but noted that she did not have an electronic version of the work done by Municode yet.
Lombardi asked if the city had always had a position for the building inspector. Herb described that there was not always a building inspector position in the city and explained why we now had a building inspector. Lombardi asked if the changes being suggested would give the building inspector authority beyond what he has been given by the code. Threadgill noted that there were other sections of the code that discussed the authority of the building inspector.
Belt asked what is being done to ensure that nothing that has been adopted in the last year is being left out of the new Municode version. Threadgill responded that she was working to try to ensure that this version of the code incorporated all those changes that may have been passed. Threadgill explained that she understood that this had also already been considered by the attorney and council.
Belt asked when the Municode version was begun and how many months of ordinance changes aren’t represented in the code that Municode sent the city. Threadgill responded that she thought the process was begun some time last summer. Herb thought that it had been about a year ago that this was begun.
Lombardi motioned to adopt Chapter 78 with the changes outlined above. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
b.) Changes to Chapter 78-366, Variances; application for, procedure and notification.
Herb explained that this change came about because he was trying to change the code to be consistent with how P&Z has handled variances for non-conforming structures. He noted that it was the old Section 39-1401 and stated that P&Z is now going to change the zoning ordinance they just passed, Chapter 78-366.
Herb drew a distinction between what is required for a non-conforming structure to be granted a variance compared to all other requests. He stated that for a non-conforming structure the applicant does not have to meet the first requirement that there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of it size, shape or topography. Herb stated that P&Z has never required this, but has only required that the non-conforming structure isn’t becoming anymore non-conforming and that the other conditions for a variance are being met.
Herb noted that P&Z had also discussed at their last meeting the wording of the last paragraph in this section 78-366(c) Reapplication to planning commission and the section had been given a new title “Expiration of Approved Variances.”
There was further discussion about how to format the changes discussed above to fit in with the Municode format. Threadgill stated that she would determine how to format the changes and circulate a draft to the commission members for their review.
Lombardi asked whether or not the Municode change to planning commission from Planning & Zoning Commission was significant and whether that would confuse people. The consensus of the commission was to revert back to the original title of Planning and Zoning Commission.
Lombardi motioned to approve changes to Section 78-366 as discussed. Belt seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
c.) Changes to Section 78-317, Building Permit Required.
Herb recommended a review of Section 39-1201, which will be the new Section 78-317 once Chapter 78 is updated with code changes made since the Municode process began.
Herb explained that the city hasn’t been requiring permits for every structure that is erected. The key to what is required to have a permit is the definition of structure, and that definition includes anything that attaches to the ground. City practice is not consistent with how the code reads. We need to either require the ordinance enforcement officer and building inspector to do what the code says or change the code to be consistent with our practice.
Belt asked whether lamp posts would be required to get a permit because they technically meet the definition of a structure. Herb responded yes.
Herb recommended that some of the language from the International Residential Code be adopted here to provide a list of structures exempt from needing a building permit.
Herb recommended that the second paragraph of Section 78-317 beginning “This ordinance does not apply to ordinary maintenance” should be replaced with a new section entitled “Work Exempt from Needing a Building Permit. “
Building Permits shall not be required for the following:
1.) Ordinary maintenance and repairs to existing structures;
2.) Fences not over 6 feet high;
3.) Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height, measured from bottom of footing to the top of the wall;
4.) Sidewalks and driveways;
5.) Patios not attached to a structure;
6.) Yard water features.
There was discussion about this change.
Belt asked if this change has come up because of a structure that has been built in the city. Herb said that this has come up because he realized that in the past and currently no permit has been required for things that according to our code should have been permitted.
Lombardi asked about a yard water feature and other permits that may be required, such as electrical. He expressed concern that the message to residents may be that no permit is required. He desired to add something in here to put citizens on notice that other permits may be required.
There was further discussion.
A question came up about whether mailboxes should require permits. Herb stated that he believed mailboxes should require permitting because the code has required no stone mailboxes and they are still being built.
Threadgill stated that some of the things that are being discussed do not warrant a building permit because they do not fall under the purview of the building code and will not be inspected by the building inspector.
There was discussion about whether to return to having a use permit or some other kind of zoning permit for those things which don’t qualify for a building permit, but need some kind of zoning authorization.
There was further discussion.
Herb suggested that maybe the ordinance enforcement officer would be responsible for issuing zoning permits for some of these things, like flagpoles and mailboxes.
Herb stated that one of the problems is that it isn’t clear who has responsibility for what between the ordinance enforcement officer and the building inspector.
There was further discussion.
Herb said that, in this meeting, we may not be able to fix the problem about things that require some kind of zoning approval, but don’t qualify for a building permit, but we can provide some exemptions from building permits.
Lombardi asked if it would make sense to raise a flag to the reader that other permits may be required. He referred back to the yard water feature example, which may not require a building permit, but would require an electrical permit.
There was further discussion.
It was determined to add “Note: Electrical, plumbing, and grading permits may be required.”
Lombardi motioned to approve changes to Section 78-317 as outlined above. Belt seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Hammond motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Belt Seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, July 16, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
